Talk:Mary, mother of Jesus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Virginity Section

I updated the virginity section to show the two seperate views of Mary's virginity. The is a POV issue if you do not incude the Protestant view. The section needs cleaned up and I need to add versus for referance. But I wanted to add that in there now since it is a mjor hole in this article. (not incuding a mention of His brother and sisters.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.104.222 (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Those were actually step-siblings, children of Joseph by a previous marriage. Still, I understand the confusion. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Just added a biblical reference about Jesus' siblings in this section [Perpetual virginity] so this article doesn't mislead anyone glancing over it. Pappy uk (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Celsus deletion proposal

This was a discussion that took place early last month. Take a look a little higher and you'll see it. While it would still seem unnecessary to state why non-Christians don't beleive in this section, the real argument against the paragraph is more about redundancy. Celsus' views are discussed in the section on Ancient Non-Christian Sources and the Muslim belief likely fits better in the section on Mary and the Qu'ran. If one wishes to include these topics or expand on them it should be done in their appropriate section. Furthermore, the phrase "generally doubt" has no place here. Recommend a revert to my deletion. Hecman111 19:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not see a discussion, per se (because discussion implies multiple parties). I do see one comment that you made on May 10th to a thread that hadn't been active since August of 2006. In the future, you may want to consider creating a new section by pressing the "+" sign tab at the top of the talk page when you want to make a proposal or discuss something that hasn't been actively discussed in months.

That stuff said, I think keeping the paragraph is a good idea, but reducing the sentence on Celsus could be helpful. It sets a transition between the paragraphs before and the paragraphs after it. I can understand your concern about repeating content, which is why I am suggesting perhaps cutting down on the length, but I do feel that a wholesale deletion is not necessary. Sorry I missed your comment last month.-Andrew c 20:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Also Mary coould of had an afair with a man named God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.132.242 (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Mary a virgin right?

1) The whole thing about Mary (mother of Jesus). People need to look up the word "virgin". People ignorantly say she was a virgin, and in modern times virgin means? Virgin had a different meaning back then. MARY was not a VIRGIN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.182.131 (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, she was. She was a yound, unmarried girl raised in the temple. She was betrotherd to St. Joseph, an old widower, and a young age(probably 12-15) so that she may have a caretaker. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

So if she is married to Joseph, why would they not have done it, was there some custom where you couldn't have sex after marriage?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.104.92 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 30 July 2007.

Actually, yes. According to church tradition, Mary was a young woman when she was betrothed to Joseph; Joseph however was an old man, and a widower; he had several children from his first marriage (only marriage if you don't count his betrothal to Mary), including James. The betrothal was primarily intended to provide Mary with protection and support; she had been mainly raised in the temple and always intended to remain a virgin. Mary's own parents were unusually old when Mary was born. The Gospel of Nicodemus is an old apocryphal gospel that gives a lot of these details. Wesley 02:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Because Mary had chosen to remain a virgin - and this was unusual - some traditions say she was betrothed to a relative. Joseph was also of the same lineage as Mary so he was probably a cousin or uncle. Under such conditions it would have been incest if they had "done it".--Phiddipus 04:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case, where did Jesus' brothers and sisters come from? A second marriage? Mike0001 (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the opposite, Joseph's first marriage - he was a widower.--Phiddipus (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

To assert that you should provide a reference. I have seen other claims that Mary remarried and James and Jude (the apostles) were her sons, not Joseph's. Also Joseph disappears from the scene pretty early whereas Mary persists. Jewish tradition would have been for Mary to Marry her brother in law. Mike0001 12:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the section "Perpetual virginity". In regard to your assertions about Jesus being haploid, that would require a source for it to go in the article. David Underdown (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have given a reference to what haploid means. The rest is basic scientific knowledge taught in all schools. Mike0001 12:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoever was wondering where Jesus' siblings came from, just throwning the belief of most Protestants out here, they are the children of Mary and Joseph. Most Protestants believe that she was only a virgin until Jesus was born. Emperor001 (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a wide variety of opinions in the Christian tradition regarding her virginity. As a tradionalist Catholic, I see it as both (a) a sence of sacred myth and (b) a historical fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan beta (talk • contribs) 04:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Did God have consent when he impregnated Mary?

--Steven X 08:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, He did (as stated in Lk 1:34-38). I'm not sure about other religions.

³⁴ Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

³⁵ And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

³⁶ And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

³⁷ For with God nothing shall be impossible.

³⁸ And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Rjgodoy 10:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the head up.--Steven X 12:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Scientific view of Mary

Scientifically speaking without any dogma in Christianity or Islam,it is impossible to make a child without sex.Modern non-Religious or liberal Christian/Islam historians claim that Mary had Jesus with sex with Joseph or unknown someone.Should it be written in the article or if I hope to write about this point of view, should I make a new article such as Historical Mary (mother of Jesus)?YODAFON 07:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

the existence of artificial insemination shows your claim to be false. Anastrophe 08:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yodafon, please stop POV-pushing here and on Jesus. Your concerns are covered with the duplicate presentation on Criticism of Jesus and Religious perspectives on Jesus which , by the way, were completely unacceptable when I'd come to them a few months ago (almost every reference and statement was spurious, and I salvaged and expanded on what wasn't).

Most criticisms of this issue of Christian doctrine are presented with a general criticism of all miracles surrounding Jesus and/or Christian and Jewish history. There is not really enough independent focus on the subject to warrant elaboration, as the primary arguments against the Virgin Birth are simply blanket arguments applicable to any miraculous instance. That being said, it can only receive so much coverage, and it appears that the early accusation of Celsus concerning Jesus' is the most sufficient criticism available for independent elaboration (and at least partly because of Origin's effort to respond to it).--C.Logan 13:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the link to the article of Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera from this article.However, it is uncertain whether he is a true father of Jesus(possibly with raping Mary) or not although Bible tells us that Jesus was called “a son of Mary" not “a son of Joseph”,which is usually used for calling illegitimate children by his contemporaries.YODAFON 04:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, Anastrophe. They didn't have the technology for artificial insemination in Mary's time, and nothing even close to it. Sure, aliens had the know-how, but nobody would travel all those light-years just to artificially inseminate 1 girl, so let's put that idea to bed. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.183.4 (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, well just so you know, I entirely disagree with the notion that Jesus had a human father, so I can't really muse with you here in any way that might assist your line of thinking. But of course, the addition of the link here seems suitable to me, as he is the person most commonly identified with the "Panthera" who was claimed by Celsus to have been Jesus' father.--C.Logan 04:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok,thank you for having agreed with my edition.Ofcource I know you have the right to believe anything you want,even if the content of the faith is scientifically impossible and nonsence(it's not my POV).YODAFON 05:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

of course it's your POV. i've already shown your contention that it is scientifically impossible to 'make a child without sex' to be mistaken, so you're hardly in a position to be lecturing about matters of science.Anastrophe 05:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Then God used artificial insemination to make Jesus？Whose sperm did he/she use for making Mary pregnant?In Christian doctorine,God has'nt sperm,isn't it right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by YODAFON (talk • contribs) 06:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

And it is impossible to do artificial insemination by human technology in those days Judea.It's scientifically obvious.This is the end.Your claim is nonsense.YODAFON 06:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the concept of a "miracle"? Because, um... I think you're missing the point. The nature of God is the elemental concept which makes your argument a little pointless. God made "science", and he imposed all the physical limitations of the material world, so what makes you think that he cannot work outside of them? You may feel a sense of superiority in your own beliefs, but if you're going to respond to the idea "God is capable of anything and everything" with "things like the Virgin Birth are scientifically impossible", you really need to re-assess your logical capacity. I'm not saying you have to believe anything "nonsensical", but you should cease making arguments that lead you nowhere.--C.Logan 05:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, I think you have to look at evidence. There is no evidence for miracles but we have quite a bit of evidence that virgins don't spontaneously give birth! Before you question other people's logical capacity just try to be a bit more analytical yourself. Nobody ever discovered anything scientific by arguing "it's a miracle!" We examine evidence and judge balances of probabilities, as the previous respondent was doing. Things that we now take for granted because of scientific advances would have been judged miracles 2000 years ago. A lightening flash or a flood are not now thought acts of god, except by insurers. Mike0001 (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, it would be good to re-read what I'd noted. Is there any point in coming here to argue about the scientific limitations in regard to this occurrence when the people who believe in it call it a miracle as well? It's quite apparent that these believers are aware in the non-possibility of this occurring within the realm of science as we know it. It is only when one resolves to argue for a scientific possibility that the scientific arguments against it come into play.

In essence, it's dumb to argue that science does not allow this to occur when that is what a miracle is supposed to be in the first place. You don't have to agree as to whether it did occur, but you should avoid logical fallacy- what good does arguing against the scientific possibility of something do when the event itself is already seen as possible only outside the realm of natural science? Again, I maintain that the argument leads to nowhere. Do you now understand why I responded as such to the persistent dead-end discussion perpetuated by the above user?--C.Logan 19:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No. The lapse in logic is in allowing "miracles" to enter into your logic in the first place. 0=1! It's a miracle! OK, you can "prove" anything now! So, we as rational human beings are hard-wired to reject such arguments and to argue from what is explainable by other means. With respect, you can always "prove" "x" by assuming "x" as a hypothesis: "x" |- "x". QED. Personally I believe that the virgin birth is a later pagan accretion to the Jesus story. Mike0001 13:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your reasoning is that you again ignore the concept of what a "miracle" is. First of all, you seem completely ignorant of how one handles religious concepts such as this. The key to the concept of "faith" is that there is no given claim to "prove" that such an event happened; it is intended to be taken on the trust of the individual observer.

In the same sense that one receives God in faith (i.e. with a trust not supported by empirical evidence), one arrives at a belief in miraculous events in this same measure. Such events would not be "miracles" if they did agree with the laws of nature; as such, it is again futile that you argue with individuals that such an event is in conflict with the laws of nature when this is, by definition, the beliefs of the individuals themselves! The point of things like the Virgin Birth is that they are miraculous; I am encouraged to take such things which contradict with the laws of nature (as I am aware of them) by faith.

It is not an issue of "proof", but of faith. Therefore, you're attempting to compare apples in oranges for whatever reason, and that's why I'm trying to save you the trouble of wasting your time by arguing yourself into an endless pit. Again, you are missing the giant whole in your own logic because of your own oversight of the concepts under discussion.

On another, important note, the deletion of your comments is justifiable in that the heading of the page makes it clear that this is not a forum for general discussion (or, for that matter, theorization which leads to original research). While we're on that topic, do not edit other individual's comments, not even to correct spelling errors (doing so is against policy).--C.Logan 22:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My what a lovely person you are! What an example of pure hatred grows out of blind faith! Do not be so quick to judge others! ignore...ignorant...when you have a bit more experience of life you will understand better, but I guess you grew up in a fanatical environment so I don't blame you for that.

The main purpose of wikipedia is to help and inform people into coming to informed judgments, not to spread half truths, gossip and superstitions. Thus if ever someone argues like you do it is our duty to try to persuade you of the errors in your reasoning. My argument was supposed to be "0=1 is my faith, therefore everything follows from that" and it was an indication of why we don't just accept things on faith. We all need convincing, and that is where the above argument fails. To throw in a "miracle" is just a cop-out. "How do animals reproduce? It's just a miracle. No it isn't, we know about chromosomes now!" See?

Jesus was a great man, but just that. You do an injustice by believing otherwise.

Oh, and it isn't the policy to write in an illiterate way either, not necessarily you, me too. Anyone is welcome to correct my spelling. As well as doing that, I also restored a whole block that had been deleted by someone and thought that my sin was the lesser of the two! Mike0001 (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ignorance is shown in your own pre-judgment of me. "Blind faith" is hardly something I possess, and rationality is what I've been trying to cater to this whole time. It's not blind faith to say "It is pointless to argue that a miracle is contradictory to the laws of nature when that is, by definition, what a miracle is".

If you care to know, I've spent the majority of my life as an agnostic, rejecting many of these beliefs on rational terms (in my opinion, my rationality then was based on incomplete knowledge of the whole scope of orthodox beliefs and writings and a skewed perspective). I have no problem with your position; at least you yourself are pleading to rationality as well.

Please refrain from making personal attacks; it seems as if the above comment has violated this rule. I don't care, but try to keep things a little more congenial. Additionally, refrain from criticizing my beliefs; I haven't done so in your case (and last time I checked the stereotype list, the religious types were supposed to be the pushy, judgmental ones).

The problem with your argument is that you're operating only from your POV. "Half truths and superstitions" is an inherently POV way to put this, and if your going to be attempting to dominate articles with this sort of viewpoint, it would be better if you refrained from editing.

As I've noted, the problem here is not that you believe that the virgin birth is scientifically impossible: Christians believe the same thing. The gap which exists in your logic of "miracle explanation" is that you endeavor to pursue only a scientific possibility in the matter. If there are notable scientific opinions on the topic, then they may be notable (but probably not here, as this would seem to be a top-level article; an article on the virgin birth would be more appropriate for that sort of information).

The point which you are missing is that the belief in the virgin birth as a "miracle" is not intended to explain the scientific problem; it only resolves the problem by faith. Modern believers certainly put trust in science, and yet they still believe in this event (as a miracle). This isn't the same as the "Thunder is just God clapping" sort of cop-out that you mention above. The fact of the matter is that it is a miracle because it goes against the laws of nature; even the ancients knew that that was the case.

On the note of spelling, it's Wikipedia's rule, not mine. Ask permission first, or more realistically, do so more carefully. I've actually seen some people revert spelling changes which were entirely positive because of this rule. Additionally, one may unintentionally change the meaning of the text because of certain similar words (one user spell-checked another's paragraph, and changed "iff" to "if", although "iff" is a word and was the intended one; the original poster reverted that change with an explanation).--C.Logan (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Scientifically speaking without any dogma in Christianity or Islam, it is impossible to make a child without sex.". You said it, I didn't. Don't blame the messenger for pointing out the nonsense you're generating all by yourself. I would recommend that you simply avoid areas of thought that are troubling to you. clearly you don't have a desire to understand or even contemplate the spiritual realm, so why get your knickers in a knot about stuff that doesn't concern you? Go about your (atheist?) life, eat a peach, have fun, why lurk around wikipedia trying to pollute it with your own scientific dogma? Anastrophe 06:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There speaks a closed mind! And the arguer is not alone! Nor is the pollution one sided. Your bullying attitude (part of your religion?) is noted. Mike0001 13:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no relation between understandng spiritual realm and believing scientifically nonsense dogmas of Christianity such as "Virgin-Birth" and "Creationism". Please stop offending me personally with your (Christian?) POV.YODAFON 07:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

if you can describe, in precise scientific terms, how it is that i am offending you, then i'll happily issue an apology. Anastrophe 07:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Creationism is dogma now. I think you'll be surprised to find the span of beliefs on the subject in even the most traditional churches. The whole system is rather complex, and I'm afraid that it appears that you're one of the individuals that over-simplifies the beliefs of others into little "straw-men". Additionally, I'm fairly certain that you're the individual who came here with suggestions that may need an assessment of POV. I'm fine with your addition of Panthera's link, but I've already explained the issue with your ideas. And just to note, Yodafon, the first sentence of your last comment is an opinion, not a fact. I'm fairly certain that the contemplation of theological mysteries does give us a better picture of the "spiritual realm".--C.Logan 05:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the virgin birth is a POV and should be stated as such. As for creationism, there are far easier and more plausible explanations for the way the world is than the addition of this extra axiom. Mike0001 13:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is "stated as such" from the very point when the term "belief" is used in regard to it. It seems apparent that you aren't agreeing with anything I said, so I guess that's all I have to say about that.

As far as alternatives to creationism being "more plausible", this is true in many respects, but not so much in others. They certainly deal with many scientific realities (as we currently see them, anyway) in a much better manner than hard-line creationism (such a belief is a sliding scale which can include evolution and old Earth beliefs as well). However, concerning "easier", I think we can all agree that the explanations offered by non-fundamental-creationist theories (i.e. naturalistic theories) get quite a bit more complicated, and offer twice as many questions which each new generally established factor.--C.Logan 23:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying Mary was artificially inseminated? Then there would be a father, the donor of the sperm. I am not sure that was intended here. Otherwise, Jesus would be haploid. Now, if his only set of chromosomes had replicated themselves, he would carry two copies of the X chromosome making him female. Mike0001 (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Parthenogenesis (virgin birth) is not unheard of within the animal kingdom. What is most unusual in this case is that Jesus was male since when parthenogenesis does occur the result is always female. One has to question why the story of the virgin birth is included in the gospels since the implications to the rational mind are that Mary was indeed unfaithful to Joseph, however, the very fact that such an implausible story is included may indicate that she did in fact give birth without knowing a man and remained intact afterwards as confirmed by witnesses according to the nativity gospel of Mary.--Phiddipus 02:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You only need to look at Jesus' genealogy to see a few cases or rape and prostitution in his family trees. Mike0001 (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As for including virgin birth, there was much pagan mythology about this subject at the time and Paul no doubt merged it into the Jesus story just as he merged in all the other pagan myths such and flesh and blood, resurrection, water into wine, etc. Mike0001 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You speak with a little too much certainty, and I'm afraid I'm losing confidence in your objectivity. While it is certainly plausible that pagan influence steered the course in early Christianity (though I disagree, it is certainly possible), theories which nail Paul as a "Mythmaker" are very poor and at times rather laughable (as in the case of the aforementioned book). As a suggestion, if you're going to be editing the encyclopedia, you may want to adhere to a neutral point of view when it concerns article content.--C.Logan 23:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

We are discussing the scientific view of the virgin birth here, so it seems appropriate to talk about what is verifiable! As for the pot calling the kettle black, I would warn you that you need to be more moderate and understanding in your remarks to others and more neutral in your editing. You are certainly not showing any signs of objectivity here AFAICS. Have you not read Tertullian? Have you not seen his assertion that the devil cunningly prefigured christian beliefs in pagan ceremonies such as the water to wine miracle, resurrection, body and blood, etc? Now, if he believed in 200CE that much of the christian story was prefigured in pagan religions, why don't you? (Google tertullian diabolical mimicry) Mike0001 (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm also losing confidence in the idea that you actually read what I write. Where did I say I disbelieve in the concept of Christianity being prefigured in pagan religions? This is even the apologetic stance. I disbelieve that Christianity is derivative of pagan religions (except in minute traditions); there is indeed a difference between Tertullian's rationale and the belief in Christianity "borrowing" from other religions, and it's interesting that you should argue for two opposing points of view.

On that note, I'm confused by the "lack of objectivity" which you claim I am displaying. What is this discussion even concerning? Am I being non-neutral in making a side note on my personal beliefs on the subject? There is a difference there between noting as such and arguing that article content should be changed because of one's own POV. On that note, it seems that this topic has gotten a little too far from any form which could deal with specific improvements to the article.--C.Logan (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

actually, this entire thread is pretty much falling into WP:FORUM. this article is about Mary (mother of Jesus). it is not about the scientific view of the virgin birth. it is neither novel nor interesting that science rejects virgin birth (albeit with caveats that beggar whether or not it truly is impossible). within the scope of this article, pointing out that some people believe it's all a fairy tale, or a whitewash of mary's rape, or a hoax perpetrated by the evil patriarchy, or whatever - is not useful to making an encyclopedic article. for that matter, based upon WP policy, the scientific view of the virgin birth can be rejected for inclusion, as WP has clear policies on inclusion of fringe points of view. yes, it's a fringe point of view when hundreds of millions of people believe in the virgin birth, while a subset of the scientific community rejects it. Anastrophe (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to largely agree.--C.Logan (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

First point, just because a majority believe something true, that doesn't make it true and everything a fringe view as you put it. Most people used to believe the world was flat. Only a fringe view corrected that belief.

Second point, it is not a subset of the scientific community that reject the virgin birth. Here in GB, there are hardly any christians and I assume the rest of the world is the same. Plus, if we rejected what only a fringe group of academics believe then most of the content of WP would disappear!

Third point, there is ample evidence from the so-called "church fathers" and archaeological finds, greek, egyptian, roman writings that almost all of the Jesus story was already in existence hundreds of years before his birth. Are you planning to reject all that evidence as just the rantings of fringe groups? Or include it to give a NPOV?

Fourth point, Anastrophe, just because a murderous roman emperor decided it convenient to adopt christianity it is not an argument for perpetrating its myths. Was it any surprise that the west adopted christianity when it was forced down their throats? Mike0001 (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

you seem to not be clear on wikipedia's policies. WP is not interested in truth, it is interested in verifiability.

your first point is invalid per policy.

your second point is irrational. i was not aware that GB represented the entire world's population. are you suggesting that? please provide a citation. it's interesting that in GB "there are hardly any christians", but immaterial to making verifiable additions to the encyclopedia, that also meet WP:WEIGHT.

third point - you cite 'evidence'. interesting concept with human activities that occurred two thousand years ago for which primary sources do not exist, secondary sources are hard to come by, and tertiary sources have been corrupted by time. throwing out NPOV is a red herring - again, this isn't an article about 'evidence of the virgin birth' or 'controversy regarding the virgin birth'. the article has a particular focus. WP:WEIGHT again applies, as you seem intent on pushing a particular viewpoint of a particular part of the story of Mary that is not held by the majority of people.

fourth point, you have betrayed your own POV pushing here. it appears that you are here to make a point, and to push your particular belief system onto the article. that's clearly not in keeping with WP policy. i'd suggest you find other article to focus on.

my own addendum: i've pointedly avoided speaking about my own beliefs in this discussion, or in any of my commentary on this article. why? because i'm amused by the assumptions that ideologues and POV pushers make about other editors when they refuse to knuckle under to their bullying tactics. "it's not scientific, take it out of wikipedia" is the cry that goes up constantly, and it's offensive. science is one branch on the tree of knowledge. it is not the only valid path of inquiry. don't tell me that i'm stupid for eating the fruit hanging from the branch that's right in front of me. my interest is in an accurate, NPOV, verifiable encyclopedia.

great. now i've been sucked into WP:FORUM. perhaps it's time to archive this discussion. Anastrophe (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Whatever validity that could have been pulled out of this users argument has been thoroughly drowned in the POV motivations and statements made apparent in the above comment. The "forced down their throats" comments troubles me the most, as this is yet another example of the caricature that is perpretrated by many individuals in the name of "enlightenment".

I'm a rational person, and I believe what I do partly due to rational study, so I'm rather dismayed when individuals go off the deep end with their views, especially when they plead rationalism in the process. I've tried to explain the reasoning behind my argument against Yodafon, who was an editor with POV-pushing problems. Apparently, I've failed; this troubles me because we've somehow moved further and further away from that original argument.

As the recent reversion at Historicity of Jesus shows, there is either a readily apparent POV or at least an implication of the kind in this user's edits; edits are phrased in a suggestive manner, and this is completely unsuitable for a neutral encyclopedia. I thank Anastrophe for elaborating. I'm for archiving at this point, because I don't see a destination for this discussion (I can hardly see the starting point).--C.Logan (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

On Verifiability

It is incumbent on WP editors to verify any statements they make. What methods of verification are allowed? Scientific verification? That there has only been one (unverified) reported case of a human virgin birth seems to indicate that this sort of stuff should not be included in WP. There are no verified reports of miracles. The existence of any gods is unverified. Mike0001 (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

please familiarize yourself with WP:VERIFIABILITY. there is no point in questioning what constitutes verifiability when the answer is part of WP's official policy and guidelines. in short: you're mistaken about verifiability. i've trimmed your other comments since they are irrelevant to improvement of the article, which is the sole purpose for the talk page, constituting WP:FORUM. Anastrophe (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please then produce sources for all the statements made in the article! Very few of them are attributed to any reliable author. I am looking at the first few paragraphs.

Oh, and don't edit out my comments! Just correct my grammar and spelling. Mike0001 (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

comments that are not directly pertinent to the task of improving the article may be removed with impugnity. this is WP policy. regarding verifiability, the lede of an article generally does not require citations, so long as the material that is summarized there is detailed with citations later in the article. there are exceptions for highly controversial topics, of which this article is clearly not. Anastrophe (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, looking at the discussion above, I would hazard that this article IS highly controversial! <math>\alpha</math> (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Jewish view of Mary

Should Jewish view of Mary be written in the article,which Mary is only a girl who had sex with someone and had Jesus,who is one of the pseudomessiahs for them?YODAFON 11:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There's already a paragraph discussing this under Ancient Non-Christian Sources, in which both Celsus (as quoted by Origen) and the Acts of Pilate are cited. Wesley 00:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Talmud says that Mary was a prostitute who frequently serviced carpenters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.41.35 (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Christian Marian doctrines

I think this section should be separate from the Muslim doctrines - and like the dormition/assumption section there should be an Orthodox and Catholic subsections. For example a Greek orthodox title for Mary is Our All-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorified Lady, the Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary - immaculate being 'achrantos' and being in the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. AlephGamma (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Xandar (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Christian veneration of Mary

I don't see any evidence for the argument being made in this section that Mary was only venerated in a minor manner before Bernard of Clervaux and the High Middle Ages. I think this is one of those notions that has gained belief by being repeated a lot in certain circles without much in the way of validation. Most of the major Marian doctrines come from long before this, and Irenaeus in the 2nd Century, held Mary to be the 2nd Eve in the order of redemption. Xandar (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi after reading the article I was dissapointed to not find any information about Mary's(pbuh) age or that of Joseph(pbuh) during the conception. This would be very helpful and basic information that should be added. I tried finding sources to add it myself but couldnt find anything authoratative. Also the few sources I have found are not in consensus. Regarding Mary(pbuh) some say she was as young as 11 while others say as old as 16. Regarding Joseph(pbuh) some say as young as 18-low 20s while others say 35 and others as old as 90. If an admin can encourage the locating of this information and any possible alternative views it would be greatly appreciated. (70.52.142.137 (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC))70.52.142.137 (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, nobody knows, ok? Johnbod (talk) 05:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

To expand on Johnbod's statement, the Bible does not state any age for Mary (I am not familiar with the Quran), besides implying that she was young, but clearly of marriageable age. In the days of the Roman Empire, marriageable age was quite a bit younger than in modern Western society; Roman law set the minimum age for a girl as 12, a boy as 14. So we can assume Mary was probably a teenager. (Certainly in modern Catholic writings people tend to assume she was in her mid-teens.) Joseph's age is completely unknown; some traditions imply that he was quite old and a widower. Vultur (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Joseph is also mostly believe to have been much older because he does not appear in the accounts of Jesus' adult life. The Protogospel of James (and other accounts speaking of him having had a first marriage before Mary) even explicitely states this. The Quran does not mention Joseph at all. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The text says: 'Protestants have generally ... compared to their Anglican, Catholic, and Orthodox counterparts,.' But Anglicans are Protestants. I can't make a simple correction as I don't know whether the correction should be to delete 'Anglican,' or to replace Pretestants with Nonconformists, or, indeed something else. Can anybody else correct/advise? Icarusgeek (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point - Anglicanism is a doctrinally catholic (ie orthodox) protestant and reformed denomination. Actually the whole sentence is muddled - unsourced and I think wrong reason for protestant misgivings about veneration of Mary. I will therefore boldly remove it (actually it is a small change so not that bold<g>). If it can be sourced, or something better sourced, then it can come back in. Springnuts (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Angicanism, in No doctrinally catholic It does not hold the Immaculate Conception, nor the True pressence , papal authority etc. Perhaps on the matter of the Virgin Birth and perpetual virginty it hols the traditions of the Faith (but I am sure there is legislation in the Commons to address that)

Almah vs. besulah

The Hebrew term "besulah" should be discussed as relates to the term "almah," in relation to references to Mary in the Bible. Badagnani (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The passage quoted by the angel (Gabriel) uses the term virgin in the english translation. Is there any evidence that virgin was implied rather than young woman in the original? Mike0001 (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The original Greek has the Greek for virgin. The "almah" issue only applies to the Isaiah prophecy "Behold a virgin shall conceive". Almah is a broader term but it also includes virgins. The Greek Septuaginta (made in Alexandria, ca. 220 BC) has the Greek for virgin. This is the Bible of the Early Christians. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Article title

The infobox refers to her as "Mary of Nazareth". Would that not be a better article title than the current disambiguated one? If not, shouldn't the infobox just be headed "Mary"? (as that's the title of the current article without disambiguation). --kingboyk (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if that's really a common form. I've never seen it outside of the article. It's a valid title, I think, but as far as the article title goes, Mary of Nazareth may not be clear enough for the average reader- there were certainly many other Marys from Nazarath alone (it was a rather common name), and the fact that the New Testament contains a handful that aren't so clearly distinguished, it may cause unnecessary confusion. On the other hand, there is, as far as my senses tell me, zero ambiguity with the current title, and it should be instantly understood by almost any reader.--C.Logan (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There were quite a few Jesuses in Nazareth too. Mike0001 (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This form is not unknown but it is awkward as essentially the Gospels provide too little information about Mary's life. We only know that she lived there from 6 AD to roughly 27/29 AD (based on Matthew and Luke) and a short while before Jesus' birth (c. 7 BC) if we follow Luke. Nothing suggests that she grew up there. Jesus OTOH is explicitely known (up to the sign on his cross) as "Iesus Nazarenus", which has been commonly been interpreted as "Jesus of Nazareth". Str1977 ^(talk) 23:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Virginity at birth

The references given do not imply that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, only that (a) she was a virgin at conception and (b) that Joseph had no relations with her until the birth. Does anyone know any passages supporting virginity at birth? I have removed that implication until WP verifiable evidence is provided. Mike0001 (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Most Christians (i.e. Catholics, Orthodox, and many Protestants) believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, citing this verse (in part) as a reasoning. This verse is commonly used as evidence of her virginity before, through, and after childbirth. I've provided two references, but there are a few more (which go off on the subject and aren't really necessary for such a simple citation).--C.Logan (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If Mary was a virgin at conception and Joseph didn't "touch" her until the birth of the child (both things are clearly states by verses), it logically follows that she was a virgin at birth. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, official Roman Catholic teaching is that this does not logically follow. This is because virginity is defined (within the dogma) not as "has never had intercourse" but as "with intact hymen". Thus in the normal run of things her virginity would have ended at Jesus' birth, but (according to this belief) miraculously her hymen was not ruptured at Jesus' birth. The article Perpetual virginity of Mary has a lot more information and quotes. Springnuts (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. What actual counts is not an intact hymen (which can be torn by many causes or may not tear at all with some women) but the "moral virginity" at least in the Catholic Church. Sure, there are some accounts (Protogospel of James) that places high value on the hymen remaining intact in childbirth but that doesn't really make a difference to our issue here. BTW, logic is logic and things follow or they don't. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, if moral virginity is the issue then whether some unknown Roman soldier, or even Joseph, had intercourse with her or not might be irrelevant. But it would be a shame to argue simply about words. There are a number of definitions of virginity used by various parties to this discussion; it might help to define the use made more closely - this may also help those post-modernist wikipedians for whom logic is not always logic. Springnuts (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't make any sense of your posting, Springnuts. "Moral virginity" means that Mary did not have intercourse with anyone. Hence "whether some unknown Roman soldier" (rather a fictional Roman solider) "or even Joseph, had intercourse with her" is absolutely not irrelevant. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was that there is a view that virginity is not a physical but a moral state, thus even though physically penetrated and hymen torn (eg, say, in rape) the person might keep their "moral virginity"; equally mutual masturbation might, even though physical intercourse had not have taken place, lead to a person being, morally, no longer a virgin. This seemed to be the meaning of virginity you were referring to above, but from your later comment I think you are defining virginity in terms of physical penetration. That too is a perfectly valid use of the word, but the uses are not the same. Springnuts (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Str1977, please explain how Mary being a Virgin at conception and Joseph not touching her implies that she was a Virgin at birth? Mike0001 (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Matthew 1:25 states: "When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus." Knowing the Biblical usage of "know/knew", it would appear quite obvious that the verse is saying that Mary remained a virgin at least until birth. The irony of your tagging it as Catholic dogma is that the verse in question is actually commonly used by Protestants to oppose the dogma of perpetual virginity (while still, of course, being recognized by them for the virginity-until-birth concept).

This argument is largely centered around the term "until", which seems to have an obvious meaning in English but is more ambiguous when one looks at the linguistic use and the instances of the word in other contexts. There is currently nothing within the introductory sentence which is specific to any denomination's beliefs; as far as I can perceive, the current phrasing reflects the beliefs of any group that relies on the Bible at least in part.--C.Logan (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As Mike asked me, let me state that I completely endorse C.Logan's reply. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it only says that Mary was untouched by Joseph, not by any man. Mike0001 (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a point that has never been brought up, interestingly enough, possibly because of its absurdity (given the character of the individual and the mores of the time) and because of its groundlessness (besides the claim of Celsus, which is not quite the same as what you're saying). I've changed the text to be more accurate.--C.Logan (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Mike, that is a) stretching the source text to absurdities b) OR in Wiki-terms. Also remember that Joseph "took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son.", which means that he completed the outward forms of marriage. After that Mary was under his legal protection and any violation of this marriage of Joseph and Mary would be adultery and would have come up. Also note, no one has ever even claimed that Mary had sex with another man apart from the conception of Jesus. We do not have to address phantasies. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

C.Logan, your references are not to new testament documents, even to first hand accounts, but to a current web site! How do they support the contention? Mike0001 (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We're encouraged to use secondary sources in almost every instance in which we use a primary source in an interpretive manner. Otherwise, there are various editor opinions and interpretations which come into conflict and are almost certainly not due to any expertise or serious study. This recommendation is especially relevant when presenting Biblical and Qur'anic verses, because the range of interpretations here is great and individuals often become inflammatory over these simple differences.

Quite frankly, it is of more relevance that the grand majority of Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, Traditionalist Protestants- but here represented enough by the Catholic Encyclopedia) interprets these verses to mean not only a state of virginity at conception, but one at birth and throughout the rest of Mary's life.

The Biblical elements of this concept are important, but are simply one facet of the thinking on the issue. In any case, I'm unsure what you mean by "first hand accounts" above. If anything, the Protoevangelium could be cited in this manner, but it is essentially superfluous considering that the secondary source is satisfactory and justifies the exposition of the current interpretation of the verses. On a side note, while the website appears current, the text of the Catholic Encyclopedia is actually very old (if I recall correctly, it was completed just short of a century ago).--C.Logan (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the Protoevangelium, it rings true and is a more realistic account than the NT ones. So Joseph was duped! Mike0001 (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. My Church uses the Protoevangelium of James as a peripheral account which is of little overall value beyond its relaying of the Church beliefs surrounding Jesus' birth. Catholics generally avoid this document, but the Orthodox do not shy away from recognizing texts which may be useful in part (if even mostly irrelevant or unreliable). The text itself is generally held to be pseudepigraphical, even by Origen. I wouldn't necessarily agree with your analysis, either, as it is generally held to be oblivious to certain cultural elements and practices which would certainly be familiar to the real James.--C.Logan (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Er Str1977, if logic is logic, what logic propelled you against all odds to believe everything you read in a collection of second hand documents 2000 years old? Mike0001 (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to make these sorts of comments. Please refrain from making subversive personal attacks; even if you're just being lighthearted, some people may take it very seriously.

On a side note, I see no reason to include Mark 6:3 in the introduction, because it provides a source to no statement in the introduction, whereas it comes into play later in the section specifically devoted to the topic of perpetual virginity. The first verse cited is also irrelevant to the text, which only deals with virginity at conception and virginity until birth. The RC sources, provided for the latter sentence, are sufficient as far as I can tell and the inclusion of this verse seems to offer a confusing orphan source which may or may not be included simply because of its implications (as if a subversive "but...!"). For this reason, I'm removing these verses now.--C.Logan (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Logic is logic" - it is the method of making conclusions from principles, e.g. Statement 1: All Athenians are men. Statement 2: Socrates is an Athenian. Conclusion: Socrates is a man.

However, logic is not everything in life: Logic however doesn't absolve us from the need to accept principles (at least for the duration of a debate) as axiomatically binding, nor does it absolve us from the need to believe or disbelieve certain witnesses.

As for New Testament, the closer it is to the actual events the better. So your "2000 year complaint" actually is nonsensical. As for second hand, even if that were true (though it is at best scholarly conjecture) it is the best we have.

I agree with C.Logan's comments above. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Things were very different 2000 years ago. That was the time of the Romans, and gods were rife. News spread by rumour, not by radio and TV! Mike is incorrect in saying the documents were 2000 years old, probably 1940 years old is more accurate, possibly about the time of the jewish uprising for the earliest documents (Paul) and rather later for the gospels. The documents also suffered a lot of editing and rewriting 1700 years ago. The moral is, there may have been a hidden agenda there! 51kwad (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Why such length?

Why do we need such a long article on someone who barely gets a mention in the NT? 51kwad (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

She may have a small mention but they are all at significant times The Incarnation, Nativity, the presentation at the temple, the public life, suffering , death and Resurrection of Jesus - are the most important events in the History of humankind. Her active role in them cannot be under valued. The fact that she is either there-not there, or is the catalyst of the event makes her role in the event significant. She is the significant player in the Incarnation. The co-star (if you will) in the Nativity. At t he temple the priests turns from the child to warn her about the pain she shall suffer with and because of the child. Jesus first miracle was (the wedding of Cana) she was the catalyst. Off course she was at the cross - significantly she was nither at the last supper (so much for women priests) nor the Resurrection itself. Perhaps she saw the futility of tending to the grave or reciting Kaddish etc. Because she actually believed him when He said He would rise again!! tvm

What does that have to do with anything.. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, she's considered an important figure by a large number of people, regardless of the small mention in Scripture. Articles tend to accomodate the amount of discussion about a subject in the world at large, not just the immediate size of the event. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Christian and Muslim Marian doctrines

The section says nothing about Muslim POV. I propose renaming it to "Christian Marian doctrines" until someone adds text about Muslim views. adriatikus | talk 23:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. There is the prominent section "Mary in the Qur'an", with a link to the full "Islamic view" article. Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Virgin Mary is quite important in Islam, YAWN, so to correct you its not "Islamic" view, people arent Islamic they are Muslim...but I added a few versus from the Quran about the Virgin Maryam.Lebanese bebe (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

New Link

I don't think Christian views of Mary is an appropriate or good enough article to be linked as a "main article" at the top of the page. I propose the removal of that link. "Christian views of Mary" is a recent article with a lot of POV disagreements raised about its subject matter and content. In trying to contrast other Christian group views with Roman catholicism it risks falling into a POV black hole. It is also very rough and badly written at the moment. Place a link lower down, certainly but not as a main article at the top of the Lead. Xandar (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There hasn't been any work on "Christian Views of Mary" in recent days to improve it. Have the starters lost interest? If the article isn't brought up to a reasonable standard in a day or two, I propose de-linking it from the prominent positions in this article. At the moment it is not good for WP for such a scrappy article to be featured as a "main article". Xandar (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Mary was Jewish. This seems to have been glossed over/ignored in the article.

Should this be rectified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.40.49 (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it just wasn't explicitly stated; probably got forgotten about in amongst all the other things she's famous for! :-) I made a slight change to the lead paragraph to state it explicitly. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Jewess is a very strange word, and in the context of Mary, may be confused with Mary the Jewess. On top of that, the free dictionary say it is an offensive term. I suggest just using "Jew" or "Jewish". -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that was offensive, I've only ever seen it used as an explicit female form of "Jew" (Jewess redirects to Jew, by the way, we have no separate article). Anyway, I've changed it to "Jew" for the sake of argument. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Mary or Isis?

In many texts i have found it states that Mary was merely a cover up of Isis, Isis being the original Virgin mother of Horus. Horus was also the exact portrayal of Jesus Christ the son, of the virgin mother. He was called- PRince of Peace, and everything that happened to him, has apparently happened to Jesus Christ. Apparently his nickname was "CHRST" meaning Christ.

POST COMMENTS PLeASE< OR ADD MORE INFO< TO THIS>

AGREE OR DISAGREE?????

Gualeritrea (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please cite reliable sources for this latest theory. Although I will note that it seems unlikely any Egyptian word is going to be the "real" version of "Christ", since I think it's pretty established that that derives from Greek "Khristós" ("Χριστός"; "χρίω"). --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 18:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, PLEASE DON'T SHOUT, we can hear you. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 18:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Osiris was killed, cut up into several parts which were strewn about the land. Isis had him reassembled and reanimated and had sex with him. The result of this was Horus. Hardly a virgin birth and I didn't have to mention all the times Isis and Osiris had sex before Osiris was killed. Regardless, find a reliable source, and it can be put it. I'll just warn you that I've been looking for a reliable source on this subject for years and have yet to find one, so your search may be futile. :) - random IP dude that doesn't know how to sign posts

Just so you know, Jack Chick is not a reliable source for anything.75.44.220.32 (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Historicity

This article needs a distinct historicity section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Help needed at Nativity of Jesus

Outside input is requested at Nativity of Jesus. It concerns a section, The narratives compared, which is a table showing the differences in detail between the nativity accounts of Matthew and Luke. Questions have been raised as to whether it should be included. Concerns include original research, novel synthesis, and dependence upon primary sources. The table can be seen at this version of the page: [1].Opinions concerning whether it should be included at all (given its current state, as well as the "Nativity as myth" section, which addresses discrepancies in the narratives), and if so, then in its current state, or beefed up with references, or converted to prose, are needed and would be greatly appreciated. Thanks to all who respond at the talk page. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Section rearranged

I have put the article sections into what seems to be a more logical order, starting with the Life of mary and then proceeding through titles and Doctrines. I also added an extension to the lead, which should have been there, more fully summarising the article content. Xandar 23:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm Isa

Can someone explain what's wrong with including one title given to Mary in Islam? Isn't this supposed to be a neutral article? If nobody responds, I will reinsert it. Surtsicna (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, calm down. English Wikipedia is pretty much all about consensus. What's the hurry? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 22:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it seems (and I am no expert in Islam) that Umm Isa is not even a title, but a simple translation of "mother of Jesus". Hence not applicable as a title anyway. History2007 (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It is just as applicable as is "Mother of God". I believe you are getting too upset over the issue; so upset that you revert my attempts to improve the article's grammar. Please calm down and see what's the edit about. Surtsicna (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Me? Upset? You must be kidding... But mother of God has a different connotation, for sure. That was what the Coun. of Trent was about... Now I must go. History2007 (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I was talking to the person who was calming me down. I am waiting for your response in the section above, History. I'd also appreciate your response, Antique Rose. Surtsicna (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I must apologize to Surtsicna for incorrectly labeling my deletion of "Umm Isa" as Vandalism. Now that I understand what it means in Islam, it certainly wasn't Vandalism. I hope you will accept my apology. My opinion is that since this is English language Wikipedia, it is not appropriate simply to list the title transliterated into English. I realize that Mary Mother of Jesus is revered in Islam. Hopefully you/we can figure out another way to make that point--better perhaps in the article where it can be explained, instead of in the Template. Afaprof01 (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for politeness and civility, Afaprof01! Politeness and civility are always appreciated, especially by those who don't get politeness and civility from others. I agree with your last sentence. As I argued in the section above, the infobox designed for a Christian saint is not capable of representing multi-religious entries; it cannot even represent all Christian views of Mary. It is simply not practical. Surtsicna (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Solid wood?

The image of the assumption statue from Malta has now been added to several Marian pages, including this one. It is a nice statue and I even added it to my own article on Marian art once I saw it. But please stop re-asserting that it is solid wood, etc. Wood or other material has no relevance here at all. It is irrelevant text that distracts from the article. And it keeps getting added without regard to other text, and damages the format in several articles, so I have to clean up after that. Please show respect for the article as a whole. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"Christians and Muslims believe that she conceived her son miraculously by the agency of the Holy Spirit"

Technically, that's not really true. Muslims-not unlike Jews- don't even believe in the trinity. They do believe it was "virgin birth" through the "will of God", and NOT through the so-called "Holy Spirit"

So, if someone is willing to change it, please go ahead. Otherwise, I'll do it.

Cheers! 140.247.237.197 (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to sign in! That's me above.

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 02:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Be my guest. History2007 (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2008

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• The result of the discussion was move rejected.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mary (mother of Jesus) → Mary — As per WP:COMMON. Current title is awkward, the word "Mary" is by far most commonly associated with this person. Mary, with nothing else on the end is the common name and there is no other Mary who that could be said of. Thus I propose this move and also suggest that the information currently located at "Mary" be merged with "Mary (disambiguation)". — Victory's Spear (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', 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: I see no problem with it. Jesus goes to Jesus, and the current title is very awkward, as mentioned. ^Law _shoot! 23:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Jesus is far less common a personal name than Mary, especially in the English speaking world; the standard for primary usage is that it is much more frequent than all other uses combined, which is clearly false here. More common than any other usage, even if true, is not sufficient; just as we do not use Elizabeth simpliciter for the present queen of the United Kingdom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the strawman is comparable. There is no figure who is known globally and commonly as just Elizabeth, or even as The Elizabeth (the UK in itself has two Queen Elizabeths who are equally well known). However, in this case, there is no other person who is known commonly and simply as Mary, without a qualifier. "Mary (mother of Jesus)" fails the policy of common name, and for such a well known and core figure as well. Keeping in mind she is the most well known female figure in Christianity and the most mentioned female in the Islamic Qur'an. Religious figures and royalty are vastly different fields. - Victory's Spear (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is true that no figure is known as just Elizabeth in the way that the mother of Jesus is known as just "Mary". But that does not mean that this topic meets the threshold set by WP:PRIMARYUSAGE (must be much more used than for any other topic), for which Jesus clearly does. Personally, every time I meet someone named "Jesus" I am reminded of the historical figure. But when I meet someone named "Mary" I don't think I ever think of the subject of this article. There is no comparison. No way does this topic have primary usage of the name. That said, it is certainly true that the most common name used to refer to the subject of this article is just Mary, and that's why it's important to disambiguate the name with the use of disambiguation information in parenthesis. So it seems to me the current title is exactly right as it is. --Born2cycle (talk)

• Oppose this request is biased towards a Christian POV. I would suggest Mary, mother of Jesus or The Virgin Mary (or Mary, mother of God) (Ofcourse, Jesus should not sit there either, it should be Jesus Christ) 70.55.86.100 (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If it is biased towards a "Christian POV", could you please present the name of just one other person who is known globally and prominently as just "Mary"? What is the secular POV of another Mary of this prominence? Thanks. When people type in Mary they're most likely looking for this article, so in following with WP:COMMON that is where it should be IMO. - Victory's Spear (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would you think that people are most likely looking for the Madonna? They could just as easily be looking for Mary Carey or Queen Mary. Or looking for a nursery rhyme, Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary. Look at Madonna, that does NOT point to 'mother of God', even though it's even more closely linked to her. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would you think that somebody looking for an article on "Mary Carey" would type in just the term Mary, when her WP:COMMON name is "Mary Carey" never just "Mary"? I argue that most people who are typing in the term Mary are looking for the most famous woman who is known by that name, with no qualifiers; ie - this article. It seems to me rather blind anti-Christian POV to suggest that isn't the case. As for the name Madonna, well there is also a universally well known popstar also known by just that name with no qualifiers, so it is clearly a different case to the Mary destination situation. - Victory's Spear (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support the move. Either this page or Mary (given name) should be at Mary. Whatever happens, the pages Mary and Mary (disambiguation) need to be merged. 87.114.132.119 (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd expect Mary (given name) to be at Mary, while this article about a particular Mary to be at "Mary (some kind of disambiguation)". The current name, "Mary (mother of Jesus)" seems reasonable. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The current content of Mary is in desperate need of cleanup, with most of the content merged to Mary (disambiguation) and Mary (given name). Then either of those pages should be moved to Mary. Personally, I would expect the base title to be about the given name. The current title "Mary (mother of Jesus)" seems fine to me, although Mary, mother of Jesus would also work. older ≠ wiser 12:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. First, the mother of Jesus is not the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE of "Mary" (for which merely being the most common usage is not sufficient to claim the name for the article title), so this article should not be at Mary. Second, "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 as Mary, mother of Jesus would incorrectly imply. Keep it at Mary (mother of Jesus). --Born2cycle (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Quite contrary. This is not a primary usage. (The first Mary that sprang to my mind was the girl in the rhyme; the second the Queen of Scots; the third was Bloody Mary. The B.V.M. came equal fifth with the wife of William.) —Ian Spackman (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose — not primary use. There have been various Queen Marys, Mary Poppins, Mary J. Blige, Mary Magdalene, etc, etc. Your point that she is the most globally known Mary doesn't hold up, since in other languages her name is not "Mary", but, for example "María" (Spanish), "Marie" (French), "Maria" (Italian and Portuguese), Παναγία (Greek), and so on. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point, these people, unlike this Mary are all, always known with qualifiers. They are "Queen Mary", "Mary Poppins", "Mary Magdalene", not simply Mary. Surely when somebody is looking for an article on Mary Poppins, they type in the full thing instead of just searching "Mary". I can't imagine a visitor to the site typing "Mary (mother of Jesus)" when looking for this person though.

Additionally I'm not sure how foreign language translations of the exact same name has a bearing on the English language useage (this is the English Wikipedia, so people search English language names). Jesus translates as Gesù in Italian, does that mean his article shouldn't be located at Jesus? - Victory's Spear (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point about their names having qualifiers. The comment regarding other languages was in response to your coment: "There is no figure who is known globally and commonly as just Elizabeth". I interpreted that as implying there is a figure known globally and commonly as "Mary", but I misinterpreted the nuance of your argument—that there is no one else commonly known as just Mary. On the other hand, is the Mary in question more commonly called "Mary" than either "the Virgin Mary" or "Mary, mother of Jesus"? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a good point about the other names having qualifiers, and might amount to an argument in favor of the proposed move if Mary currently redirected to this page. But it doesn't. Mary is currently a dab page, and for good reason. Despite the other uses having qualifiers, this Mary does not meet the primary usage criteria. Anyone who types in merely "Mary" should get to the dab page that is currently at Mary. That's the way it is, and should remain. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is simply no way that WP:COMMON trumps WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. To argue that one use of Mary is the primary use, is insane. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's been about 2000 years since the most commonly named Mary was the mother of Jesus. And even then what about Mary Magdalene? Today it is far more commonly simply a woman's first name. 199.125.109.107 (talk) 05:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Mary was an extremely common feminine name among the Jews of first-century Palestine. The mother of Jesus was a poor woman who does not appear to have travelled much, spending most of her life in disreputable Nazareth. Mary was once the most common girl's name in English, for many years, but it has long since lost that title. You've got it all backwards. Srnec (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

    Indeed I have then, but that makes it even more important that Mary be a disambig page or at least the common name, and certainly not used for the mother of Jesus. It looks as though Mary (given name) should be merged into Mary. 199.125.109.107 (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The idiomatic solution would be to use the Virgin Mary, as established idiom, just as we use Ethelred the Unready or Edward the Confessor. Some will disagree, in all three cases, that the idiom is accurate; but this does not, and should not, prevent our using it until English usage changes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying there should be a page move to Virgin Mary? It seems highly unusual to me, as her name is not 'Virgin Mary.' We should at least ensure the move, if any, results in an entry that begins with 'Mary.' ^Law _shoot! 03:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Her name wasn't Mary, either. So? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are going with this. Her name was not Mary? The example you gave of Edward the Confessor still has Edward as the first part of the article entry. The entry is not Confessor Edward because his name is not 'Confessor.' It makes no sense to use a descriptive term as the title of a biographical article when we have a name. ^Law _shoot! 04:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

To unpack slightly: there are two ways to deal with such questions:

• We can look for the "authentic", "real", "correct" name of the subject, the one her neighbors called her. This is certainly not Mary; it is likely to be something like Mariam, although some variation is possible (nothing written by her neighbors survives). This is not Wikipedia practice, chiefly because, as in this case, few English-speakers will understand the result. (The same line of reasoning would induce us to spell it in first-century Aramaic script, which hardly any of our readers will even recognize.)
• On the other hand, we can look for what most English speakers actually call her. That will be "Virgin Mary", even though Mary is an invention within English, and as distinctively English as Marie is French. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I see your point but if we start delving into arguments about not having a fundamental name, such as Aramaic pronunciation, we are going to end up somewhere in Plato's cave. If we can't agree that her name is even Mary, we are not going to get anywhere. You say that most English speakers refer to her as Virgin Mary, but that is original research. My own experiences, also original research, as a Protestant, would entail seldom, if ever anyone referring to her as the Virgin Mary. Catholicism reveres Mary as much more of a 'holy' figure than Protestants, by virtue of the Immaculate Conception. ^Law _shoot! 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm no theologian, but I wonder if "Virgin Mary" begs a POV (Roman Catholic?). Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be "Blessed Virgin Mary", which I would oppose on the simpler grounds that fewer anglophones use it. "Virgin Mary" is no more Catholic than Edward the Confessor, which also originally had theological implications, but has become common usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Virgin Mary" is not the name used to refer to the subject of this article and so should not be the title. One might argue that "The Virgin Mary" is the name, but I think it's fair to say that just "Mary" most correctly reflects the name, so that should be the title, and that since this topic does not have WP:PRIMARYUSAGE it must be disambiguated with appropriate information in parenthesis. The current title already accomplishes all this. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Difficult. I think that Mary does have claim to be primary usage, but not as clear a claim as I'd like. The question in my mind is not so much the matter of fact as the interpretation of the rules, and also whether the rules are quite right and whether we can even expect the letter of the law to cover such an unusual case. I think that there's no perfect answer, and I'd prefer just Mary or Virgin Mary (using this as the article name is just stating that this is what people do call her, not whether they're right to call her that) or The Virgin Mary. The current title Mary (mother of Jesus) is acceptable, just, I'd prefer to avoid such unusual disambiguators as it seems to me that they give the subject undue weight, which as a Christian I'm tempted to support but as a Wikipedian I must at least weakly oppose. The Virgin Mary has the same problem of undue weight, but not quite as badly IMO so again I'd consider it acceptable. Andrewa (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. "Mary (mother of Jesus)" is a mess as a title. It is NOT the thing that even 1% of average readers would type in to the search to get to this article. "Virgin Mary" is what most people would type - and that should be the name of the page since that is the title she is most known by in the English-speaking world - and not just among Catholics. There is of course a page titled Blessed Virgin Mary, which contains more specifically Christian devotional information with relevance to Mary. I don't think merging the pages is an option (it has been rejected in the past) since this article covers Mary more historically and on an all-faith level. But I've always thought the structure of Mary articles on WP is confusing. Xandar 23:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, mess is the word. What looks like a disambiguation is really a sort of subtitle. I don't think an article on any other mother of Jesus (and there are of course many of these, just not of this particular Jesus) would be likely to share this disambiguator. Andrewa (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• In my experience here in England, to most people "Mary" without further definition means some girl or woman called Mary who is a member of the speaker's or listener's family. To me the most common name of Jesus's mother is "the Virgin Mary". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. When an article is named according to the Name (disambiguation information) format, there is no expectation that anyone will type exactly that in when doing a search; the expectation is that they type in Name, just as they would if they were searching for any other usage of Name, and that that would bring them to the [[Name]] disambiguation page, from which they could scan for and find the particular usage of Name that they're looking for. So the fact that less than 1% of the people searching for this article will type in Mary (mother of Jesus) is no reason to not make that the title. What the disambiguation information does is clearly distinguish this usage from all the other uses, which is exactly what it is supposed to do. I just cannot understand why anyone would think this title is a mess. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jesus is not the result of an Immaculate Conception!! Jesus is the Incarnation "verbo carno factum est" The BVM is the Immaculate Conception tvm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyvonmeyers (talk • contribs) 19:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Virgin Conception resulted in Jesus, and was Mary's only pregnancy. The Immaculate Conception was Mary's own conception, and it's called that because she was exempt from Original Sin. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

More on Titling

The title of the article should be the most commonly used name in English. "Mary (Mother of Jesus)" is hardly used by anyone. It isn't even logical. Mary, mother of Jesus who? An undefined Mary is being defined by her relationship to an undefined Jesus. Virgin Mary or Mary the Virgin would be much better. I think we should move it to the title "The Virgin Mary" or "Virgin Mary" does anyone agree? i think we should do this as she is more known as this, and it just seems a better title without brackets, and what is your preferance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.92.250 (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree The Blessed Virgin Mary, her title is Mother of God not Mother of Jesus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyvonmeyers (talk • contribs) 19:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In Acts 1:14, Luke names Mary as "Mary the mother of Jesus". So how is that title not logical or hardly used? Calling her the Queen of All Saints is just plain wrong. Newtaste (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the current title has been discussed before, and survived. It may not please everyone who reads Wikipedia, but the way Wikipedia works no page on this type of topic will ever please everyone. Changing the current title will probably result in a long discussion, and the end result will make no major difference to the content of the article, or the information it provides to the reader. The term Virgin Mary redirects anyway, so whovere searches for that will end up on the page. I think it is best to leave things as they are and use the energy that would have gone into the debate title for improving the references for the article. History2007 (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Beliefs

Orthodox do believe in the immaculate conseption, its the origin of Mary that they differ from the Catholics, Catholics believe that Mary was herself concieved without sin while Orthhdox believe she was a regular person who with gods gift was able to birth Jesus as a virgin. Really not sure about the last part but am sure that the Orthodox do believe in the emmaculate conception. Anne Feledichuk Nov 3, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.190.251 (talk) 05:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The Orthodox Church does not hold to the "Immaculate Conception" as understood by the RC church. -- JALatimer 03:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"Queen Mother"?

Unless someone can find ancient ("early Christianity") uses of the title "Queen Mother" for Mary, the paragraph beginning "The title, Queen Mother, was given to Mary in early Christianity" should be dropped. The reference provided in the footnote talks about how Mary should be understood in the context of Old Testament queen mothers, but DOES NOT SAY that she was ever given that title in antiquity. I can't find, or recall, any such ancient use of the title. Frjwoolley (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Image

I also prefer the image that Yorksirian added. So 2 votes for that. Unless someone else sides with the person who reverted Yorksirian in a day or so, I will put it back. History2007 (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've put the one that you like back into the article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I like this pic better, which is by the same artist. [2] Flash 05:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

That is already used here: Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), and is also very nice but just to be different this one should probably stay. History2007 (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, returning after a few days' break. Have restored the featured picture to the article. Durova³⁹⁴ 05:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, please respond. It's very odd to see a featured picture get booted from an article with the edit summary "higher quality image", and then booted again without response to the invitation for discussion. The replacement image is not featured and does not have the minimum technical parameters to qualify for featured candidacy. Durova³⁹⁴ 20:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Durova, I really liked the images on your user page. But, but, but exactly who said "featured" gets priority anywhere except on the front page? I also agree with Yorkshirian. Not that this is a big deal. But this image just looks better, while the other has a lot less color... anyway... History2007 (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, instead of deleting, why not include both? I mean, that doesn't solve the issue of which image gets to be at the top of the article, but at least it's somewhat of a compromise. No reason not to include a FP, even if it isn't the top image. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - a very good idea Andrew. If you would like to select a spot as an independent observer, please just add it. There is still space for it in the article. But after 2 more images, we will just have to say: so many images, which do we select... Cheers History2007 (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've mentioned this discussion at an ongoing conversation on featured pictures talk. There needs to be better communication between the site's media editors and text editors. Durova³⁹⁷ 22:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Translation: Called an ambulance. History2007 (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Durova³⁹⁷ 23:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not a picture is a featured picture is 100% irrelevant to deciding whether or not to use it in an article. Editors should choose whichever pictures best illustrate the article. If a certain picture isn't among the best pictures available to illustrate an article, it probably shouldn't be a featured picture. Making decisions based upon the existing status of the image is backwards. Also, editors who are associated with a particular file, in this case Durova, should not be involved in discussions on whether or not that file should be used, as they have a conflict of interest. Kaldari (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can tell FPC talk isn't the place to go for political support (if that was the implication). Fortunately it wasn't an attempt at political maneuvering. Today during an unrelated discussion on portraiture I also happened to notice that Wikipedia's only featured portrait of Barack Obama has been removed from nearly every article where it used to appear. The site has had an ongoing problem for a couple of years now of featured media getting removed somewhat randomly because, unlike articles and lists and portals that all display a featured star in mainspace, the media featured designation is noted only on an image hosting page. So it's possible to browse the article space and Commons subject galleries in good faith and never notice which images are featured. Hence the dilemma of "so many images, which do we select..." I have no objection to replacing a featured picture with something else if there's a good editorial reason for doing so, but past experience has shown that more often than not the alteration really is haphazard. On one occasion Wikipedia's most prolific contributor of featured sounds accidentally removed a Wikisource link to a featured sound's lyrics. Durova³⁹⁷ 23:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the decision of which images to use in an article is ever "haphazard". People choose the images that they believe best illustrate the article. If those images also happen to be high quality and high resolution, they can become featured images. Choosing to use images solely because they are featured pictures is putting the cart before the horse. Kaldari (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If that were the contention then the snappish response would be more understandable. The reason given for removing this image was purely esthetic, not encyclopedic. A surprising number of editors don't realize when or why an image is featured. Many don't even understand filesize. I recently spotted a featured article that used a 5KB image at the lead when three 150MB public domain alternatives were available, all of which had good esthetics. If we were to take your argument to its logical conclusion then featured article contributors would be ethically constrained from correcting bad copyediting after an article passes FAC, because no alteration is ever haphazard. ;) Durova³⁹⁷ 00:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with with Kaldari's "cart before the horse" comment, however I agree strongly with Durova on the issue that FPs are not explicitly labeled as such in articles. I don't remember seeing the argument that FPs are being removed randomly from articles unbeknownst to editors or FP regulars on that RFC. Maybe we should reinvigorate that again, using this (or better yet the Obama article) as Exhibit A? upstateNYer 03:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• I guess this discussion is to find consensus about the choice for the leading image. And there are two candidates being in dispute. Let's analyze the two images coldly with respect to a desirable characteristics for the leading picture. There is a strategy for doing this, when the decision gets complicated that goes this way: First we choose the characteristics that we are going to look at. Suppose they are 10. We give them values from 1 to 10 according to the importance of the characteristic in the decision. Then we give values 1 or 2 to the pictures in each category and multiply the value of the category by the value of the picture in that category and add all of that. The picture with highest value will be the one. We can recur to this as ultimate resource since it is rather long to actually do it. For the moment lest expose the reasons why The madonna in sorrow is desirable and the reasons why the Coriolano woodcut is desirable. For sure there are are reasons for this last one that are those considered in the FP process. And there are reasons why the other is desirable too, maybe that it is more colorful, maybe that is only Maria and not Maria with the baby. But I would really want to hear the ones who proposed it why they think it is better for that possition. Let's say that for the moment I vote for the FP but I am very willing to change it. Unfortunately the two pictures are by artists more or less from the same time, and from reading the articles I can not recognize if there is a marked difference in popularity among them. Definitely a leading image is desirable to be one that msot people identify with. And a well known author will provide a well known image that if the copy has a fairly nice quality I would happily support. If info can be provided to compare the authors in this direction it will be very welcomed. There is a Rubens there in the article, unfortunatelly the copy doesn't look very good. Again I think the reasons to replace should be exposed. The editors experienced in the FPC process can educate others in evaluate the technical quality of an image and the exclusive editors of this article should/can teach them some other reasons the they may be seing. FPC people can show things like size, resolution, composition (coming here things like framing, rhythm, contrast..). Mary (mother of Jesus)'s editor can wield reasons like symbolism, historic reasons, popularity, ... to give some examples. But please do expose them. No featured picture will be imposed. But a "I like it better" with a quick pseudo democratic vote is not enough because the person liking it may or may not be well educated in appreciating a work of art and/or a media and in no time the picture will be changed again.  franklin  01:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I think the woodcut makes a much better lead image. Not so much because it's higher quality, although that's nice, but because it shows Mary with the baby Jesus. The Madonna in Sorrow doesn't really tell me anything about Mary. It just makes sense to have the lead image in the article about the mother of Jesus show her being a mother. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Good, now the discussion is getting more concrete. OK, now, some of the proposers of the other one, please give some reasons so there are weight in both sides of the balance and so we can see why do you really prefer that one. (also, explaining to others, usually one get a better understanding of our own ideas)  franklin  04:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want one that is by a better artist and has a child and a better color scheme, just select one from here. History2007 (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)