![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hmm, is there a valid reason for two separate sections on the Co-Redemptrix doctrine? Aren't they kind of redundant? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. ( talk) 09:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Icone marie mere misericord-4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 06:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Ark of the Covenant contains a section about Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. Personally, I think the section makes more sense as part of this article and perhaps ought to be moved here. Thoughts anyone? -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 08:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how Mary can be called a "Virgin". Firstly, how did she give birth? You have to have sexual intercourse before you can conceive, unless IVF treatment was used, which, is possible, but the odds are stacked against such an advanced treatment being borught into the world at this time. So I wouldn't mind knowing how she is still a "virgin". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brocky9 ( talk • contribs) 12:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, how do you adjust the size of the picture? Punkymonkey987 ( talk) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I am slightly confused about the difference between dogmas and doctrines. Are there four or five dogmas of the Virgin Mary? The article states four, then gives five. Is "Mother of the Church" a dogma or a doctrine? Perhaps an expert can clarify the article. dbfirs 08:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I turned their colors off John, it was just a simple deletion. History2007 ( talk) 06:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Thxs. Johnbod ( talk) 12:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm extremely dubious about these recent attempts to broaden the scope of this article to include Anglicans/Anglo-catholics and the Othodox. For example the present first sentence "The Blessed Virgin Mary, sometimes shortened to The Blessed Virgin or The Virgin Mary, is a traditional title specifically used by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, and some others to describe Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ..." is certainly not true as far as the Orthodox are concerned. Again, to say that "The Assumption of Mary -- meaning that, at the end of her earthly life, Mary was taken directly into Heaven -- is held infallibly by both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches." is pretty misleading, especially with no link to Dormition of the Theotokos. Nor am I sure what "infallibly" means in an Orthodox context.
The article is equally misleading as to "Anglican", or at least average Anglican, beliefs at various points - again in the first sentence for example. There is a pretty full article on the Theotokos which covers the Orthodox view. The old versions, with an Anglican section which could be expanded, were much more satisfactory. Johnbod ( talk) 00:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Why on earth not merge this with Mary? Everything important here is already there or should be. Alternatively, we should have a page Mariology which Mary can link to, and then put the doctrinal stuff from Mary and here on the Mariology page. Likewise, the Theotokos page should be unified. Four pages about one subject under different names--and each name generally accepted by all!--is needlessly confusing. Tb ( talk) 03:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You are trying to preserve a POV fork if you only matain sepatae pages out of to avoid edits you do not like. That is not how Wikipedia works. -- Carlaude ( talk) 19:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. New articles linking to "Mary (mother of Jesus)" and each other, etc with names like "Roman Catholic view of Mary," "Eastern Orthodox view of Mary" etc.
By the way I think these are better names. "Virgin" as a title is not really encyclopedic style.
If this is not a theological article then what kind of article is it?
If this article is about the RC and EO view then why is it not given a name like "Cathlic and Othodox view of Mary." The current name is invites and desribes a content fork. Renaming this article "Cathlic and Othodox view of Mary" (instead of leaving it or calling it "RC view of Mary") would also aid in the editing it to make the article better (it would focus editors on the need to contrast and desribe EO views).
Protestants do not have detailed veiws on Mary. Rather than an article, even for all Protestants together, they need only need a summery of such view in "Mary (Mother of Jesus)". -- Carlaude ( talk) 05:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I am strongly against any merge of this article with the Mary (mother of Jesus). The extended points of view regarding the virgin are expressing Roman Catholics as well as eastern and oriental orthodox and eastern catholics with some minor differences. nonetheless blessed virgin mary (in Greek kecharitomene Parthenos Maria ) expresses views of more than 1.5 billion people who follow with a more or less strictly manner this doctrine. So I m strongly against any such merge. Melathron ( talk) 16:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for intruding, but it seems to me, that while there is indeed some overlap in the questioned articles, there are very distinctive differences, which would get lost or hidden in a merger.
Mariology is a mainly Catholic ecclesiogical movement within theology, which centers on the relation of Mary and the Church, in which, for example, she is seen as the original image of the Church, or, as Vatican II states, "mother of the Church". [1]. Mariology is an ongoing, and includes dogmas, traditions, confirmed and hypothetical theological positions on Mary, contemporary as well as historical.
Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church refers to confirmed theological results of Mariology: the many teachings and doctrines regarding her life and role.
Blessed Virgin Mary deals in summary form with the "practical results" of mariology: the cult of the Virgin Mary (Origins, accusations of idolatry, controversy), Marian prayers (Holy Rosary, reparations to the Blessed Virgin, other prayers), Marian apparitions Marian titles, Marian Feast days, Marian shrines. Blessed Virgin Mary should ideally not include theological doctrines and teachings (such as Co-Redemptrix Perpetual virginity Immaculate Conception Assumption) as they belong to doctrines and mariology.
Mary is a very useful non-denominational overview which includes Ancient sources, Mary in the Qur'and denominational views of Mary (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican etc)
To merge is to loose content. The overlap, where it exists, can be reduced. -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 11:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Each article has to have a purpose that other articles cannot fulfill sufficiently. I agree completely and started clarifying accordingly. Yes, there are some duplications in the intros and texts, but once they are easily cleaned up, it will be clear, that each article has a purpose that other articles cannot fulfill sufficiently.
-- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 15:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I see a lot of people trying to "vote" that they do not like the merge (despite efforts to discuss a move) and no one able to give a reason that will stand in the face wikipedia policy. n.b. Despite polls below, Wikipedia is Not a Democracy!
I am will to let go the the idea of a merge IF we focus on a move instead -- and others let go the the idea of a (attacking) merge also.
If you do not like the idea of a move tell me about the policy:
in your view. Is Mary so special it does not apply to her or are we all just too lazy to follow policy.
If are willing to move, tell us what name do you like.-- Carlaude ( talk) 14:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Carlaude ( talk) 14:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
"Roman Catholic view of Mary" or "Catholic and Orthodox view of Mary" are the best options to me.
"Catholic views of Mary" is to be avoided because would include Old Catholics and their split from Rome was before or because of the RCC dogmas on Mary. Needless to say their views on Mary are very different than the RCC view.
Let us be clear here-- the rename has two separate issues.
The WP:NAME quote and discussion above fails on two points:
Carlaude forgot to sign here. Johnbod ( talk) 17:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Since there is now a lot of discussion above, running across three sections, I have summarized those who have expressed a clear preference above for or against a merge (regardless of which merge). I hope no one is misrepresented, or omitted. Please carry on adding your name if you join the discussion. Johnbod ( talk) 22:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not clear as to whether Carlaude suggested a merge, then was happy with a rename, etc. Could you please clarify that? So maybe we need three categories. Please clarify. Thank you. History2007 ( talk) 22:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the situation can be summarized as follows:
Therefore, given that the length of this discussion is reaching unusual limits, and is getting very circular and repetitive, I suggest that we "face reality", abandon the idea of a merge and focus on a vote for a move or rename or something of the type to see what everyone thinks of that. Is that a realistic and fair suggestion? History2007 ( talk) 19:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Still I cannot see any reason whatsoever for a move or rename. The different views are already expressed. One through the more general entry Mary(mother of Jesus) and the doctrinal one through Blessed Virgin Mary. The dogma about the virgin is not simply views. It is part of the belief system of 1.5 billion people on earth and it deserves to have a separate and distict entry as extended as the current one and as clear as the current one under the title Blessed Virgin Mary. As I said the more general view is there under Mary(mother of Jesus) so there is no need for anything further. I believe that we need to do nothing further and leave things as is otherwise there is the danger to offend a great portion of this 1.5 billion christians who accept that doctrine. And I do not think it is politically correct to do so. Melathron ( talk) 06:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Blessed Virgin Mary already describes with the most clear way the doctrinal views of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholics and Anglicans with some slight deviations. Theotokos is one of the most essential parts of all the forementioned denominations produced by the ecumenical synods to clarify the Divinity of the Saviour since the time of His conception and not from the moment of His birth, thus condemning Nestoriasm. Although the article bears substantial references for the Roman Catholics, and probably a bit less for the orthodox and anglicans nonetheless the views described are almost identical and the concept of the Blessed Virgin covers the views of those denominations. Blessed Virgin Mary already bears solely the dogmatic views and not the rest which are expressed nonetheless under mary(mother of Jesus). The description is accurate and everything else could be extremely non pc and very offensive for a good portion of the 1.5 bilion people who accept such doctrine as I have already said. In the same manner wikipedia very prudenly, and pc holds different entries about jesus of nazareth, Christ etc, to adress with respect all views. So I cannot see any reason for such non pc change. Melathron ( talk) 13:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes a new perspective is helpful in discussions like this. I've read the debate here, and I'm familiar with the articles in question. Each article serves a unique purpose. While it might be ideal to have one article that is a biography of "Mary" and another article that is on Mariology, there's no way to confine the necessary information into those two articles. In reading over all the proposals suggested here, I can say with certainty that attempting a merger would end in disaster. While I recognize the principle behind the merger, it's not practical. It will result in loss of content, endless arguements, and hundreds of manhours wasted that could be spent on more useful editing. A solid consensus has developed against merger. The best idea here was already stated by Ambrosius007: "To merge is to loose content. The overlap, where it exists, can be reduced." Dgf32 ( talk) 19:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Support rename/move/split
Oppose rename/move/split
1. Melathron ( talk) 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. History2007 ( talk) 18:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I added split to the vote topic to avoid a 3rd round of voting. Our challenge: get this issue decided during the year 2008!
History2007 (
talk) 22:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
As it stands now, several articles are in process of being rewritten, in part, to answer the issues raised here. Following Wikipedia policy, each of the articles has its own disctinctive purpose and orientation, as I pointed out earlier. To speed things up a bit, Carlaude and everybody else here is most cordially invited to participate in the writings. -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 17:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Blessed virgin mary is used by a great portion of christians not only roman catholics to describe the role of the Virgin within the church. The article straight away and clearly clarifies what this title is about and quotes all other cross references straight away again. It gives a thorough view on the doctrinal aspects around Virgin Mary with the most proper pc title which is completely aligned with the policy of wikipedia.
a. Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view... : indeed this is a different article presenting the roman catholic, eastern orthodox, oriental orthodox and anglican points of view ( ie 1.5 billion people religion views)
b. as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is : indeed the article straight away clarifies with the title blessed virgin mary that it refers to the specifical points of view as it is further stated in the first two lines of the article : "The Blessed Virgin Mary, sometimes shortened to The Blessed Virgin or The Virgin Mary, is a traditional title specifically used by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, and some others to describe Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ"
c. the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally : indeed again. There is not even one point in the article stating something like : Those are the true views about the virgin and the rest are untrue. The article with a very neutral way analyses the dogmatic aproach under the dogmatic title blessed virgin mary with great respect for everyone.
d. each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view.: indeed again. On the very first line there are the relevant links to all realted pages.
As such I concider the title to be fully compatible with wiki policy and there is no need for any change. Further the title is also extremely politically correct and everything else would be extremely offensive for a good portion of the 1.5 billion people who accept the dogma. So I oppose any change and I stand to my position to vote against such non politically correct change which will be no longer neutral and aligned with wiki policy but rather offensive. Melathron ( talk) 04:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe it does as it refers to the blessed Virgin Mary and not plainly Mary. So this title, which is equally politically correct exrpesses the dogmatic view whilst other views are expreesed to the according articles. As I repeatly have said this title suffice and anothing more would be extremely non pc. In the same manner there is the entry for theotokos to register the issue that condemned nestorianism and defined the role of the virgin in the major trinitarian denominations. I believe the title is completely aligned with wiki policy whilst the other proposals are extremely non pc and offensive. As such i see no reason for such issue, and everything should remain as is. Melathron ( talk) 18:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Now we have something we can vote on if you want.
Rename Needed / "Blessed Virgin Mary" does not clearly indicate its POV content
1. Carlaude ( talk) 19:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Tiamut talk 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Rename / "Blessed Virgin Mary" clearly indicates its POV subject
1. History2007 ( talk) 19:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose rename and split, but don't agree with some of the fork reasoning above.
2. -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 20:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Melathron ( talk) 10:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Wesley ( talk) 05:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I think "Blessed Virgin Mary" fits the WP general policy of "use the most common form of the name in English." While it might not be the most common name in English, it probably is at least one of the most common ways she is referred to in common Roman Catholic usage, which is clearly the main thrust of the article. The title is succinct and communicates this much more directly and clearly than any of the proposals I've seen on this page.
Well despite the clear Wikipedia-- some voters are not even understanding the issue-- we have no consensus so I will hope that the article name/subject can be fixed in some future time. But see POV toptic see below.-- Carlaude ( talk) 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
So how does this page-- that I just discovered-- fit into all the other Mary topics?
It says, " Blessed Virgin Mary and Christian Churches is a review of the role of Mary in Orthodox, Roman-Catholic, Anglican and Protestant Churches."-- Carlaude ( talk) 16:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Your text Stored version Line 680: Line 680: 3. Melathron ( talk) 10:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC) 3. Melathron ( talk) 10:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- õ== Blessed Virgin Mary and Christian Churches== + == Blessed Virgin Mary and Christian Churches==
So how does this page-- that I just discovered-- fit into all the other Mary topics? So how does this page-- that I just discovered-- fit into all the other Mary topics? Line 692: Line 692:
What I think we really need to help resovle this matter is a navigation template, similar to Template:Jesus, which can be placed on the articles relevant to the subject. Anyone feel up to giving it a try? John Carter ( talk) 14:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Now that the discussion on the merger seems to have concluded, let me point out that the image sizes on this page vary a lot, look almost random, get iin the way of the text and the "look and feel" of image sizes needs to be more uniform. I can try to change all the sizes, but as the resident art expert JohnBod should probably make comments first, and will probably do a better job. Please make comments. Thank you History2007 ( talk) 22:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Please resize it or take it out, if you feel like. I "Stole" it from the battle of Lepanto.
-- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 08:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts are: one of the duplicate sets of dogma sections has gone I think (oddly, the shorter). I don't know if it is intended to keep the current sequence permanently; if so I am strongly against. We go almost immediately into a very long section on "Accusations of idolatery" which should be much lower down. I think sections on doctrines/dogmas should be here, and fairly early on in the article, but at perhaps half the current length. The listy bits, Titles, shrines and now music, could perhaps be floated off - some are already lists. The article badly needs someone to spend a good amount of time on it - it has always been bitty and uneven. That won't be me, I'm afraid. Johnbod ( talk) 00:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi I agree with both of you. I moved the dogmatic section for the time being in the back (its needs to be in front but much shorter) in order to show that the veneration of the Virgin Mary is really the emphasis here and not dogma or mariology. It's a bit bumpy now, like a contruction site, and, yes, History 2007, by adding too much text the cohesion may get lost. We can overcome this problem by spinning off lists or mains, and add them. You may have noticed that I began to add sections to mariology (baroque, enlightenment) which are to document its historical development. I will add later 19th and 20th century mariology. I also began to add to the view of the saints in the dogma article. This way, I hope, in the end, the three articles wiill be better differentiated. Please help and delete and disagree because only together we will succeed. Gracie! -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 08:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank's for your help. I added and rearranged a lot. I created a new main, which needs more work tomorrow. I would like to expand the Protestant section with nuanced contributions by pro-Marian modern theologicans. Very interesting -:))
"Blessed Virgin" I would like to stop now, to give you a chance to go over it and make corrections. Maybe I shortened too much? All the text is in the foodnotes and can be ressurected.
"Mariology" I added some more categories to indicate a proposed direction. -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 19:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Johnbod, I agree, I added them and a bit more dogmatic substance to the various parts of Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church . -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 16:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand this iscussion here but spent the past few days clarifying the existing texts, but in the process, found considerable material to develop new mains, which, gradually will be introduced here in the coming days and weeks. hope this helps.-- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 18:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Marian symbols Marian flowers Marian Church Music Latin Marian Church music Patristical Mariology Medieval Mariology Mariology of the Baroque Mariology during the enlightenment Mariology of Ambrose of Milan Mariology of Augustine Mariology of the Popes Controversies in modern mariology Marian processions Marian pilgrimages Marian Feast Day recipees
Can we please think of user needs in all these discussions? As a user what I would like to see is a clean and clear presentation of the comparative beliefs of various groups on various Marian topics. The facts are that:
What I would like as a user is a table with columns {A, B, C, ...etc.} that are dogmas, doctrines, beliefs, etc., and columns {X, Y, Z, etc.} that are denominations, groups, etc. Each table entry would be a yes/no that tells me who believes what.
I think if the page on Christian Views of Mary is allowed to get the structure that would invite content many people will add to it and fill in the table and then comment on the entries. I performed that experiment once about a month ago, and JohnCarter probably remembers that. The page on set theory needed help and I did not have the time to write math for ever, so I added some structure, and posted a few comments on various other pages and suddenly people came out of nowhere and added to that page. Now it is a pretty nice page. Can we do the same thing for the Christian Views on Mary so people will come out and add to it? The problem: I knew how to do the structure for set theory, but here, I do not even know how to make the table or get the group names right. But do you guys think this strategy will work? If so, we can get a nice page out and then refer to it as a main everywhere. History2007 ( talk) 18:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
So how can a simple minded mathematician like me figure his way out of this maze? Is the topic just too complex for the public at large to grasp with ease? Is there a brief tutorial that can be provided in a table, with the current views? How about doing the simple ones that can go into a table, and saying that the others are hard to explain. But really why are they hard to explain? I am not even sure I understand the problem. E.g. group X either accept item "A" as true, or not. At least with the Jewish scholars, we know what the yaccept and reject. Why is it hard between the Christians to even define the problems? That should probably be explained anyway. History2007 ( talk) 20:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
So would it be right to say that each idea branched out into a tree-like set of ideas that branched out again and the branches progressed through versions. Now there are a large number of "belief groups" that attach approval signs to various parts of each branch of and rejection signs to other points on the tree. Hence a table structure is too simple to represent a tree that has many branches and continues to grow. Then can we draw a simple tree to represent the "main points" anyway? It is like looking at a large tree from a distance where the detail is hidden but you can see the main issues. History2007 ( talk) 21:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Several days, I created a new page Christian views of Mary, as a review of the role of Mary in Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican and Protestant Churches. Unfortunately, I did not spend much time since on this article, and that may have created some confusion as to its intent and content.
The article was an attempt to reduce controversy within existing Catholic articles, which were overloaded. The various Chistian views were to be differentiated from Catholic ones. Catholic views were not to be the subject. The article was to show Orthodox, Protestant and Anglican views as they critique Catholic doctrine.
To clarify this intention, I changed title to Christian views of Catholic Mariology, and took out explanations of Catholic theology, (unless necessary as object of debate or critique,). The focus is exclusively on non-Catholic views, and on Christian, critiques of Catholic mariology. I did not change the many valuable additions or texts form Carlaude and others, unless they were in the few Catholic texts, which I deleted for clarity sake. I regrouped the text in historical order with the following structure.
I am not married to this title, text or to this stucture. Maybe someone here has a brighter idea, please go ahead! But I consider it helpful for a differentiation, as there is no overlap with any other topic anymore. I apologize for not making these changes earlier.
-- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 09:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
As I stated above we have no consensus on the rename so I drop it-- but the current article is totally POV.
Wikipedia articles have to be NPOV. -- Carlaude ( talk) 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Its not up to other people to find what you consider to be POV, carlude. If you do not make SPECIFIC mentions of the exact points and sentences you consider to be POV, why this is so, and what should replace them, the tag will be removed. Xandar ( talk) 11:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Since no one has made any specific referrals to any alleged POV text in the article, despite repeated requests for them to do so, it must be concluded that the POV tag was misplaced. I think Carlude is probably confusing an article about a POV, with a POV article Xandar ( talk) 13:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the comment that the introduction is too short is valid. I am not sure what to summarize there, however. If you guys have any ideas please suggest, and eithe rI can write based on that, or if you feel like doing it please do.
And I really think the lists of Shrines and titles are far too long compared to the key ideas in the article. And there are pages such as Shrines to the Virgin Mary and Titles of Mary that duplicate the information. Overall, if you look at the sections on Assumption, Apparitions, etc. They all have a uniform format now, where a few sentences give teh basic idea, then a link to a main. I think Shrines and Titles should do the same. I think we should keep the top 7 titles here and refer to the other page. And keep the top 7-9 shrines and refer to the other page. I will do that in a few days unless someone objects. History2007 ( talk) 11:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine, I just made a separate page for "feast days" that were too long. I will do shrines and titles in a few days. Then it will have better proportion. As is, there are 7 lines on dogma sections and 37 lines on shrines, so that needs to get balanced. History2007 ( talk) 00:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have now used mains for the very long sections such as feasts and titles, so the article has better proportion. Except (and there is almost always an except) for the references that are in disarray, since some of them have been used as comments. I am not sure if someone still wants to use those, if so, please clean them up and move them to the main body of the text, else I will clean them up in a day or two. Thank you. History2007 ( talk) 16:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The tag at the top of the article say that the neutrality of the article has been disputed since April.
Have these issues been addressed and if so can the tag be removed. -- WikiCats ( talk) 21:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Well Carlaude needs to start by saying what sections of the article are not NPOV so they can be rewritten in neutral prose. If he "does not have time" to say what he thinks the problems are then the tag has to be removed. -- WikiCats ( talk) 23:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we should give Carlaude a day to point out each part he feels is POV. If he doesn't do that, then we can remove the tag. -- WikiCats ( talk) 07:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
That's fine with me. I've just been looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protestant views of Mary. I can't work this guy out! -- WikiCats ( talk) 08:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I support removal of the neutrality tag. -- WikiCats ( talk) 21:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for giving my a couple days- I was not on WP all weekend.
The short answer is that in has a RCC slant most everywhere. I know you what more than that but let me ask you a question ( History2007 -again).
I may 7th I was editing the intro and was undone by History2007 with no comment exepet that I was "butchering " the article. I asked History2007to tell me "to tell me how I'm butchering it" -- (that may have been whan my sig tag was broken but) I had no reply anywhere.
Assuming you cannot recall not I will try and make some of those edits again. If you do not like 'em-- tell me why.-- Carlaude ( talk) 16:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Carlaude. As an opposing view we appreciate your input to improve the article. We are are here to work with you. That said, you need to work here within the guidelines.
You have just had a warning from an an admin. The guidelines say "Obvious cranks and disruptive editors may be blocked indefinitely by admins, or banned by ArbCom or by a consensus of Wikipedians."
As John has said you face the consequences of possibly violating policy. -- WikiCats ( talk) 22:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Carlaude, if you're alleging a slant - especially by placing tags on the article inviting discussion, the "normal process" is to actually discuss these specific matters on the talk page, so that valid objections can be quickly identified and resolved. You can't just put a tag on an article and leave it there as long as you like while refusing to present any specific objections. Xandar ( talk) 23:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
History2007, you have to discuss your reverts -- You are not even giving a reason in your edit summary. You cannot just claim that other people are discussing it and you cannot just revert anyone's edit you do not like. -- Carlaude ( talk) 14:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I think my revert of your edits should remain. This matter is in the hands of administrators, therefore, please discuss it with them, not me. Thank you. History2007 ( talk) 14:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
(A quote)
Also -- the creation of Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) makes any position you have on this article all the more unclear. Do you mind explaining anything that I or Mediation Chair ask about?-- Carlaude ( talk) 19:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that a list of Marian Catholic dogmas is the right thing to go at the top, or too near the top of what is listed as an ecumenical article. I think the list should be lower down and perhaps in the specifically Catholic section of the article. More general information needs to be featured first, then maybe Catholic specific, Orthodox specific, and protestant. Xandar ( talk) 00:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with ordering the article in that way. -- WikiCats ( talk) 04:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
When I came to this page, the dogma section was much bigger and included controversies between denominations. I separated that part and put it under an new article Contrasting views of Mary, which, while including some excellent material on the orthodox, never really took off, because it was composed of reject material from this one.
Since that time the articles on the Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church Mariology (Roman Catholic) and History of Roman Catholic Mariology, while not finished or perfect, have been improved and a Protestant views of Mary has been started. An Anglican Marian theology exists as well, and I am working on an Orthodox one. This being the case, I see two options for the Blessed Virgin Mary:
My suspicion is, that even in that case, Catholic info would dominate all other sources of information , simply, because there is so much out there. That of course, creates the well-known tensions among contributors.
A clean solution would be to have separate denominational articles on the cult or veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and, once they are completed, build on an ecumenical summary. Starting with the summary without the factual basis for some Christian denominations, will be difficult if not impossible, as this and other articles teach us.-- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 13:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Ambrosius007 had a key idea about the organization of all the Roman Catholic Mariological articles he has done (and to which I have contributed). There are several articles now, looking for a Roman Catholic Marian umbrella. The only way those Roman Catholic articles can be managed in a grand design is via a new Roman Catholic Mariology Portal. Based on the fact that we do not need permission to set up such pages, and given that he is an expert in the field and that I can spell once in a while, we have started doing so. Therefore, I will not be contributing to this page any longer and will remove the Roman Catholic header from it. Whoever wants to, please feel free to make this page about Anglican, Orthodox items or whatever you like. A new page Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is in place and the duplicate material in this page needs to be removed by consensus of you people. But I will not be part of that debate since I have better things to do. This whole debate was so frustrating I started to write articles on mathematical logic, just to feel better. Actually, I cleaned up a few math items that were in need of real help! So some good came from it any way. Now, this page is in the hands of whoever wants to do whatever. And that should end all the useless debate. Good luck to everyone here. Thank you. History2007 ( talk) 20:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, you know better John and have more experience in these things. So what is a good way to organize the 7 or 8 articles on Mariology? What is an umbrella mechanism? I really do not want to edit this page any more, and the Roman Catholic Marian pages are there (and of good quality) any way. Please suggest another umbrella, apart from a portal. Thanks History2007 ( talk) 21:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
A portal makes sense, if here is enough "meat" to put in. This is presently not the case, but could very well be in the future. I created the category Roman Catholic Mariology, which is pretty useful in the meantime. It includes articles about RCM, authors, articles which mention RCM in a major way. -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The old intro promised an ecumenical perspective:
Unfortunaltely, this claim was not represented in the article, which included virtually no information about the Orthodox, Anglo-catholic Churches and only unrelialbe generalities on protestantism. There was much and very detailed information from the Catholic corner, leading to frictions and questions of balance. The old structure was a Catholic structure, while the intro sounded ecumenical. This was mainly due to the fact, that very few if any non-Catholics contributed.
To make this an ecumencial article, I reduced much of the Catholic info, which I had authored earlier. I created a neutral framwork, -- which can be changed and improved --to answer the critics who wanted balanced representations of different denominations. And I reformulated the purpose as follows:
This article is about Christian views and venerations of the Virgin Mary, including Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox Anglo-Catholic, Anglican and Protestant understandings of Mary and her veneration. For specific views, see Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), Mary (mother of Jesus), Anglican Marian theology, Protestant views of Mary and Islamic view of Virgin Mary. For the religious order BVM, see Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
I hope this helps. Wikipedia policy requires equal representation. This new structure is open to anybody's point of view. It will take some time, but this could become one of the best religion article, provided we find some contributors from different perspectives. -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 20:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Glad that Ambrosius007 and History2007 have done what was proposed "long" ago.
I do not what to have a debate on this given-- the fairly recent debate, but---
I HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH BIASNESS FROM A PERSON AGAINST AN ENTIRE CONSENSUS. I SEE CARLAUDE CONTINUOUSLY TWISTING THE SUBJECT FROM EVERY POSSIBLE ANGLE ONLY TO ACHIEVE HIS INITIAL GOAL: THE DELETION OF THE ARTICLE. I DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS PERSON S RELIGIOUS PERCEPTIONS BUT ALL INDICATES AN EXTREME BIASNESS AGAINST ROMAN CATHOLIC EASTERN ORTHODOX ANGLICAN ETC DENOMINATIONS THAT INCLUDE MORE THAT 1.5 BIO CHRISTIANS. ALL DIFFERENT ARTICLES ABOUT VIRGIN MARY EXIST TO COVER HARMONEOUSLY AND NEUTRALY ALL OPINIONS AND VIEWS WITH MUTUAL RESPECT. UNFORTUNATELY FOR SOME REASONS THAT ARE NOT CLEAR CARLAUDE SEEMS UNABLE TO ACCEPT NEUTRAL PERSPECTIVES THAT ARE NOT ALIGNED WITH HIS PERSONAL VIEWS ABOUT THE VIRGIN. NONETHELESS AS WE HAVE TO VOTE AGIAN FOR THE SAME SUBJEST UNDER A DIFFERENT TITLE ONCE MORE I VOTE TO KEEP IT ( I DO NOT KNOW WHAT WILL BE THE ISSUE RAISED NEXT. PROBABLY TO VOTE TO USE EXTREMELY SMALL LETTERS SO NOBODY ELSE CAN READ THE ARTICLE.) Melathron ( talk) 08:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Why do people have to make things so complicated? Why make HUGE changes without consultation?
There is no need for me to flag anything up on another page. This is the established page, and we don't need you trying to start any more "quick polls" for deletion. that subject was dealt with very recently. Xandar ( talk) 23:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
My plan is to discuss the way in which the articles on Marian devotion are organised, and what part this existing article plays in that. If someone has started a new article, bully for them. However this remains the prior article, and the only one discussing the GENERAL SUBJECT of Marian devotion regardless of denomination. As usual, I am finding it hard to find the constructive nature of your interventions. Xandar ( talk) 23:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Please look at it another way:
Please show patience for 2 weeks while we complete our series in peace so we can achieve the highest possible quality. Thank you. History2007 ( talk) 23:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Your link is circular.
Okay. If you're throwing in the towel on this article, that is your right. What was wrong was to remove a large amount of content from this article without consultation, and on what seems like a sudden impulse. Establishing another article with an almost identical title, but a different emphasis, again without discussion is not good practice. It could create problems in terms of content forks and the integration of all these articles. You and Ambrosius may have a grand design in your head, and it may be a wonderful one, but you shouldn't cause mayhem in a major existing article without discussion or some consenus. This article is a High Importance article in Wikiprojects, and it has well over a thousand other articles that link into it, many on the basis that certain information would be here. The articles you are working on are not YOUR articles, they are part of the Wikipedia project, which everyone participates in. So it would be more constructibe if you would cooly nd calmly discuss a future relationship between the pages. Xandar ( talk) 11:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The very opening sentence is inaccurate and to some denominations of Christians offensive. "...The Virgin Mary, is a traditional title used by all Christians..." I assure you stating blankly that ALL Christians call her by these terms and even think of her in this was is completely inaccurate. There are more denominations, outside of Catholicism, who don't consider her anything more then a birth vessel then denominations that do. I will leave it up to someone who maintains this article to correct this as I feel I don't and won't invest enough time to monitor it myself. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.201.135 ( talk) 01:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
see above. Punkymonkey987 ( talk) 20:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
How on earth could anyone call her blessed? She isn't God or a god and she is not holy. There is also no way that she is Queen of the Universe. It is complete heresy to believe so. As this article states, she began to be revered IN 1451 at the Council of Ephesus. BY MEN. Not the holy Word of God. This is the same as the doctrine of Purgatory. It's completely fabricated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eowyngrey ( talk • contribs) 05:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
In footnote 28, it reads: "Given that Catholics believe in Original Sin as placing actual guilt upon human beings for the sins of their ancestors, including Adam and Eve, Catholics conclude that Mary also would be stained by the actual guilt of sin."
This is not what Catholics believe, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states clearly, and as the Wikipedia article on Original Sin states.
I haven't worked on this article - just came across it in passing - so I won't change it. But, will someone who HAS worked on this article change it to present the actual teaching of the Catholic Church on Original Sin??
Polycarp7 ( talk) 16:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hmm, is there a valid reason for two separate sections on the Co-Redemptrix doctrine? Aren't they kind of redundant? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. ( talk) 09:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Icone marie mere misericord-4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 06:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Ark of the Covenant contains a section about Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. Personally, I think the section makes more sense as part of this article and perhaps ought to be moved here. Thoughts anyone? -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 08:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how Mary can be called a "Virgin". Firstly, how did she give birth? You have to have sexual intercourse before you can conceive, unless IVF treatment was used, which, is possible, but the odds are stacked against such an advanced treatment being borught into the world at this time. So I wouldn't mind knowing how she is still a "virgin". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brocky9 ( talk • contribs) 12:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, how do you adjust the size of the picture? Punkymonkey987 ( talk) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I am slightly confused about the difference between dogmas and doctrines. Are there four or five dogmas of the Virgin Mary? The article states four, then gives five. Is "Mother of the Church" a dogma or a doctrine? Perhaps an expert can clarify the article. dbfirs 08:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I turned their colors off John, it was just a simple deletion. History2007 ( talk) 06:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Thxs. Johnbod ( talk) 12:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm extremely dubious about these recent attempts to broaden the scope of this article to include Anglicans/Anglo-catholics and the Othodox. For example the present first sentence "The Blessed Virgin Mary, sometimes shortened to The Blessed Virgin or The Virgin Mary, is a traditional title specifically used by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, and some others to describe Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ..." is certainly not true as far as the Orthodox are concerned. Again, to say that "The Assumption of Mary -- meaning that, at the end of her earthly life, Mary was taken directly into Heaven -- is held infallibly by both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches." is pretty misleading, especially with no link to Dormition of the Theotokos. Nor am I sure what "infallibly" means in an Orthodox context.
The article is equally misleading as to "Anglican", or at least average Anglican, beliefs at various points - again in the first sentence for example. There is a pretty full article on the Theotokos which covers the Orthodox view. The old versions, with an Anglican section which could be expanded, were much more satisfactory. Johnbod ( talk) 00:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Why on earth not merge this with Mary? Everything important here is already there or should be. Alternatively, we should have a page Mariology which Mary can link to, and then put the doctrinal stuff from Mary and here on the Mariology page. Likewise, the Theotokos page should be unified. Four pages about one subject under different names--and each name generally accepted by all!--is needlessly confusing. Tb ( talk) 03:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You are trying to preserve a POV fork if you only matain sepatae pages out of to avoid edits you do not like. That is not how Wikipedia works. -- Carlaude ( talk) 19:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. New articles linking to "Mary (mother of Jesus)" and each other, etc with names like "Roman Catholic view of Mary," "Eastern Orthodox view of Mary" etc.
By the way I think these are better names. "Virgin" as a title is not really encyclopedic style.
If this is not a theological article then what kind of article is it?
If this article is about the RC and EO view then why is it not given a name like "Cathlic and Othodox view of Mary." The current name is invites and desribes a content fork. Renaming this article "Cathlic and Othodox view of Mary" (instead of leaving it or calling it "RC view of Mary") would also aid in the editing it to make the article better (it would focus editors on the need to contrast and desribe EO views).
Protestants do not have detailed veiws on Mary. Rather than an article, even for all Protestants together, they need only need a summery of such view in "Mary (Mother of Jesus)". -- Carlaude ( talk) 05:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I am strongly against any merge of this article with the Mary (mother of Jesus). The extended points of view regarding the virgin are expressing Roman Catholics as well as eastern and oriental orthodox and eastern catholics with some minor differences. nonetheless blessed virgin mary (in Greek kecharitomene Parthenos Maria ) expresses views of more than 1.5 billion people who follow with a more or less strictly manner this doctrine. So I m strongly against any such merge. Melathron ( talk) 16:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for intruding, but it seems to me, that while there is indeed some overlap in the questioned articles, there are very distinctive differences, which would get lost or hidden in a merger.
Mariology is a mainly Catholic ecclesiogical movement within theology, which centers on the relation of Mary and the Church, in which, for example, she is seen as the original image of the Church, or, as Vatican II states, "mother of the Church". [1]. Mariology is an ongoing, and includes dogmas, traditions, confirmed and hypothetical theological positions on Mary, contemporary as well as historical.
Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church refers to confirmed theological results of Mariology: the many teachings and doctrines regarding her life and role.
Blessed Virgin Mary deals in summary form with the "practical results" of mariology: the cult of the Virgin Mary (Origins, accusations of idolatry, controversy), Marian prayers (Holy Rosary, reparations to the Blessed Virgin, other prayers), Marian apparitions Marian titles, Marian Feast days, Marian shrines. Blessed Virgin Mary should ideally not include theological doctrines and teachings (such as Co-Redemptrix Perpetual virginity Immaculate Conception Assumption) as they belong to doctrines and mariology.
Mary is a very useful non-denominational overview which includes Ancient sources, Mary in the Qur'and denominational views of Mary (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican etc)
To merge is to loose content. The overlap, where it exists, can be reduced. -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 11:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Each article has to have a purpose that other articles cannot fulfill sufficiently. I agree completely and started clarifying accordingly. Yes, there are some duplications in the intros and texts, but once they are easily cleaned up, it will be clear, that each article has a purpose that other articles cannot fulfill sufficiently.
-- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 15:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I see a lot of people trying to "vote" that they do not like the merge (despite efforts to discuss a move) and no one able to give a reason that will stand in the face wikipedia policy. n.b. Despite polls below, Wikipedia is Not a Democracy!
I am will to let go the the idea of a merge IF we focus on a move instead -- and others let go the the idea of a (attacking) merge also.
If you do not like the idea of a move tell me about the policy:
in your view. Is Mary so special it does not apply to her or are we all just too lazy to follow policy.
If are willing to move, tell us what name do you like.-- Carlaude ( talk) 14:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Carlaude ( talk) 14:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
"Roman Catholic view of Mary" or "Catholic and Orthodox view of Mary" are the best options to me.
"Catholic views of Mary" is to be avoided because would include Old Catholics and their split from Rome was before or because of the RCC dogmas on Mary. Needless to say their views on Mary are very different than the RCC view.
Let us be clear here-- the rename has two separate issues.
The WP:NAME quote and discussion above fails on two points:
Carlaude forgot to sign here. Johnbod ( talk) 17:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Since there is now a lot of discussion above, running across three sections, I have summarized those who have expressed a clear preference above for or against a merge (regardless of which merge). I hope no one is misrepresented, or omitted. Please carry on adding your name if you join the discussion. Johnbod ( talk) 22:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not clear as to whether Carlaude suggested a merge, then was happy with a rename, etc. Could you please clarify that? So maybe we need three categories. Please clarify. Thank you. History2007 ( talk) 22:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the situation can be summarized as follows:
Therefore, given that the length of this discussion is reaching unusual limits, and is getting very circular and repetitive, I suggest that we "face reality", abandon the idea of a merge and focus on a vote for a move or rename or something of the type to see what everyone thinks of that. Is that a realistic and fair suggestion? History2007 ( talk) 19:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Still I cannot see any reason whatsoever for a move or rename. The different views are already expressed. One through the more general entry Mary(mother of Jesus) and the doctrinal one through Blessed Virgin Mary. The dogma about the virgin is not simply views. It is part of the belief system of 1.5 billion people on earth and it deserves to have a separate and distict entry as extended as the current one and as clear as the current one under the title Blessed Virgin Mary. As I said the more general view is there under Mary(mother of Jesus) so there is no need for anything further. I believe that we need to do nothing further and leave things as is otherwise there is the danger to offend a great portion of this 1.5 billion christians who accept that doctrine. And I do not think it is politically correct to do so. Melathron ( talk) 06:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Blessed Virgin Mary already describes with the most clear way the doctrinal views of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholics and Anglicans with some slight deviations. Theotokos is one of the most essential parts of all the forementioned denominations produced by the ecumenical synods to clarify the Divinity of the Saviour since the time of His conception and not from the moment of His birth, thus condemning Nestoriasm. Although the article bears substantial references for the Roman Catholics, and probably a bit less for the orthodox and anglicans nonetheless the views described are almost identical and the concept of the Blessed Virgin covers the views of those denominations. Blessed Virgin Mary already bears solely the dogmatic views and not the rest which are expressed nonetheless under mary(mother of Jesus). The description is accurate and everything else could be extremely non pc and very offensive for a good portion of the 1.5 bilion people who accept such doctrine as I have already said. In the same manner wikipedia very prudenly, and pc holds different entries about jesus of nazareth, Christ etc, to adress with respect all views. So I cannot see any reason for such non pc change. Melathron ( talk) 13:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes a new perspective is helpful in discussions like this. I've read the debate here, and I'm familiar with the articles in question. Each article serves a unique purpose. While it might be ideal to have one article that is a biography of "Mary" and another article that is on Mariology, there's no way to confine the necessary information into those two articles. In reading over all the proposals suggested here, I can say with certainty that attempting a merger would end in disaster. While I recognize the principle behind the merger, it's not practical. It will result in loss of content, endless arguements, and hundreds of manhours wasted that could be spent on more useful editing. A solid consensus has developed against merger. The best idea here was already stated by Ambrosius007: "To merge is to loose content. The overlap, where it exists, can be reduced." Dgf32 ( talk) 19:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Support rename/move/split
Oppose rename/move/split
1. Melathron ( talk) 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. History2007 ( talk) 18:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I added split to the vote topic to avoid a 3rd round of voting. Our challenge: get this issue decided during the year 2008!
History2007 (
talk) 22:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
As it stands now, several articles are in process of being rewritten, in part, to answer the issues raised here. Following Wikipedia policy, each of the articles has its own disctinctive purpose and orientation, as I pointed out earlier. To speed things up a bit, Carlaude and everybody else here is most cordially invited to participate in the writings. -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 17:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Blessed virgin mary is used by a great portion of christians not only roman catholics to describe the role of the Virgin within the church. The article straight away and clearly clarifies what this title is about and quotes all other cross references straight away again. It gives a thorough view on the doctrinal aspects around Virgin Mary with the most proper pc title which is completely aligned with the policy of wikipedia.
a. Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view... : indeed this is a different article presenting the roman catholic, eastern orthodox, oriental orthodox and anglican points of view ( ie 1.5 billion people religion views)
b. as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is : indeed the article straight away clarifies with the title blessed virgin mary that it refers to the specifical points of view as it is further stated in the first two lines of the article : "The Blessed Virgin Mary, sometimes shortened to The Blessed Virgin or The Virgin Mary, is a traditional title specifically used by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, and some others to describe Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ"
c. the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally : indeed again. There is not even one point in the article stating something like : Those are the true views about the virgin and the rest are untrue. The article with a very neutral way analyses the dogmatic aproach under the dogmatic title blessed virgin mary with great respect for everyone.
d. each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view.: indeed again. On the very first line there are the relevant links to all realted pages.
As such I concider the title to be fully compatible with wiki policy and there is no need for any change. Further the title is also extremely politically correct and everything else would be extremely offensive for a good portion of the 1.5 billion people who accept the dogma. So I oppose any change and I stand to my position to vote against such non politically correct change which will be no longer neutral and aligned with wiki policy but rather offensive. Melathron ( talk) 04:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe it does as it refers to the blessed Virgin Mary and not plainly Mary. So this title, which is equally politically correct exrpesses the dogmatic view whilst other views are expreesed to the according articles. As I repeatly have said this title suffice and anothing more would be extremely non pc. In the same manner there is the entry for theotokos to register the issue that condemned nestorianism and defined the role of the virgin in the major trinitarian denominations. I believe the title is completely aligned with wiki policy whilst the other proposals are extremely non pc and offensive. As such i see no reason for such issue, and everything should remain as is. Melathron ( talk) 18:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Now we have something we can vote on if you want.
Rename Needed / "Blessed Virgin Mary" does not clearly indicate its POV content
1. Carlaude ( talk) 19:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Tiamut talk 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Rename / "Blessed Virgin Mary" clearly indicates its POV subject
1. History2007 ( talk) 19:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose rename and split, but don't agree with some of the fork reasoning above.
2. -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 20:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Melathron ( talk) 10:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Wesley ( talk) 05:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I think "Blessed Virgin Mary" fits the WP general policy of "use the most common form of the name in English." While it might not be the most common name in English, it probably is at least one of the most common ways she is referred to in common Roman Catholic usage, which is clearly the main thrust of the article. The title is succinct and communicates this much more directly and clearly than any of the proposals I've seen on this page.
Well despite the clear Wikipedia-- some voters are not even understanding the issue-- we have no consensus so I will hope that the article name/subject can be fixed in some future time. But see POV toptic see below.-- Carlaude ( talk) 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
So how does this page-- that I just discovered-- fit into all the other Mary topics?
It says, " Blessed Virgin Mary and Christian Churches is a review of the role of Mary in Orthodox, Roman-Catholic, Anglican and Protestant Churches."-- Carlaude ( talk) 16:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Your text Stored version Line 680: Line 680: 3. Melathron ( talk) 10:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC) 3. Melathron ( talk) 10:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- õ== Blessed Virgin Mary and Christian Churches== + == Blessed Virgin Mary and Christian Churches==
So how does this page-- that I just discovered-- fit into all the other Mary topics? So how does this page-- that I just discovered-- fit into all the other Mary topics? Line 692: Line 692:
What I think we really need to help resovle this matter is a navigation template, similar to Template:Jesus, which can be placed on the articles relevant to the subject. Anyone feel up to giving it a try? John Carter ( talk) 14:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Now that the discussion on the merger seems to have concluded, let me point out that the image sizes on this page vary a lot, look almost random, get iin the way of the text and the "look and feel" of image sizes needs to be more uniform. I can try to change all the sizes, but as the resident art expert JohnBod should probably make comments first, and will probably do a better job. Please make comments. Thank you History2007 ( talk) 22:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Please resize it or take it out, if you feel like. I "Stole" it from the battle of Lepanto.
-- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 08:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts are: one of the duplicate sets of dogma sections has gone I think (oddly, the shorter). I don't know if it is intended to keep the current sequence permanently; if so I am strongly against. We go almost immediately into a very long section on "Accusations of idolatery" which should be much lower down. I think sections on doctrines/dogmas should be here, and fairly early on in the article, but at perhaps half the current length. The listy bits, Titles, shrines and now music, could perhaps be floated off - some are already lists. The article badly needs someone to spend a good amount of time on it - it has always been bitty and uneven. That won't be me, I'm afraid. Johnbod ( talk) 00:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi I agree with both of you. I moved the dogmatic section for the time being in the back (its needs to be in front but much shorter) in order to show that the veneration of the Virgin Mary is really the emphasis here and not dogma or mariology. It's a bit bumpy now, like a contruction site, and, yes, History 2007, by adding too much text the cohesion may get lost. We can overcome this problem by spinning off lists or mains, and add them. You may have noticed that I began to add sections to mariology (baroque, enlightenment) which are to document its historical development. I will add later 19th and 20th century mariology. I also began to add to the view of the saints in the dogma article. This way, I hope, in the end, the three articles wiill be better differentiated. Please help and delete and disagree because only together we will succeed. Gracie! -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 08:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank's for your help. I added and rearranged a lot. I created a new main, which needs more work tomorrow. I would like to expand the Protestant section with nuanced contributions by pro-Marian modern theologicans. Very interesting -:))
"Blessed Virgin" I would like to stop now, to give you a chance to go over it and make corrections. Maybe I shortened too much? All the text is in the foodnotes and can be ressurected.
"Mariology" I added some more categories to indicate a proposed direction. -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 19:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Johnbod, I agree, I added them and a bit more dogmatic substance to the various parts of Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church . -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 16:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand this iscussion here but spent the past few days clarifying the existing texts, but in the process, found considerable material to develop new mains, which, gradually will be introduced here in the coming days and weeks. hope this helps.-- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 18:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Marian symbols Marian flowers Marian Church Music Latin Marian Church music Patristical Mariology Medieval Mariology Mariology of the Baroque Mariology during the enlightenment Mariology of Ambrose of Milan Mariology of Augustine Mariology of the Popes Controversies in modern mariology Marian processions Marian pilgrimages Marian Feast Day recipees
Can we please think of user needs in all these discussions? As a user what I would like to see is a clean and clear presentation of the comparative beliefs of various groups on various Marian topics. The facts are that:
What I would like as a user is a table with columns {A, B, C, ...etc.} that are dogmas, doctrines, beliefs, etc., and columns {X, Y, Z, etc.} that are denominations, groups, etc. Each table entry would be a yes/no that tells me who believes what.
I think if the page on Christian Views of Mary is allowed to get the structure that would invite content many people will add to it and fill in the table and then comment on the entries. I performed that experiment once about a month ago, and JohnCarter probably remembers that. The page on set theory needed help and I did not have the time to write math for ever, so I added some structure, and posted a few comments on various other pages and suddenly people came out of nowhere and added to that page. Now it is a pretty nice page. Can we do the same thing for the Christian Views on Mary so people will come out and add to it? The problem: I knew how to do the structure for set theory, but here, I do not even know how to make the table or get the group names right. But do you guys think this strategy will work? If so, we can get a nice page out and then refer to it as a main everywhere. History2007 ( talk) 18:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
So how can a simple minded mathematician like me figure his way out of this maze? Is the topic just too complex for the public at large to grasp with ease? Is there a brief tutorial that can be provided in a table, with the current views? How about doing the simple ones that can go into a table, and saying that the others are hard to explain. But really why are they hard to explain? I am not even sure I understand the problem. E.g. group X either accept item "A" as true, or not. At least with the Jewish scholars, we know what the yaccept and reject. Why is it hard between the Christians to even define the problems? That should probably be explained anyway. History2007 ( talk) 20:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
So would it be right to say that each idea branched out into a tree-like set of ideas that branched out again and the branches progressed through versions. Now there are a large number of "belief groups" that attach approval signs to various parts of each branch of and rejection signs to other points on the tree. Hence a table structure is too simple to represent a tree that has many branches and continues to grow. Then can we draw a simple tree to represent the "main points" anyway? It is like looking at a large tree from a distance where the detail is hidden but you can see the main issues. History2007 ( talk) 21:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Several days, I created a new page Christian views of Mary, as a review of the role of Mary in Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican and Protestant Churches. Unfortunately, I did not spend much time since on this article, and that may have created some confusion as to its intent and content.
The article was an attempt to reduce controversy within existing Catholic articles, which were overloaded. The various Chistian views were to be differentiated from Catholic ones. Catholic views were not to be the subject. The article was to show Orthodox, Protestant and Anglican views as they critique Catholic doctrine.
To clarify this intention, I changed title to Christian views of Catholic Mariology, and took out explanations of Catholic theology, (unless necessary as object of debate or critique,). The focus is exclusively on non-Catholic views, and on Christian, critiques of Catholic mariology. I did not change the many valuable additions or texts form Carlaude and others, unless they were in the few Catholic texts, which I deleted for clarity sake. I regrouped the text in historical order with the following structure.
I am not married to this title, text or to this stucture. Maybe someone here has a brighter idea, please go ahead! But I consider it helpful for a differentiation, as there is no overlap with any other topic anymore. I apologize for not making these changes earlier.
-- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 09:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
As I stated above we have no consensus on the rename so I drop it-- but the current article is totally POV.
Wikipedia articles have to be NPOV. -- Carlaude ( talk) 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Its not up to other people to find what you consider to be POV, carlude. If you do not make SPECIFIC mentions of the exact points and sentences you consider to be POV, why this is so, and what should replace them, the tag will be removed. Xandar ( talk) 11:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Since no one has made any specific referrals to any alleged POV text in the article, despite repeated requests for them to do so, it must be concluded that the POV tag was misplaced. I think Carlude is probably confusing an article about a POV, with a POV article Xandar ( talk) 13:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the comment that the introduction is too short is valid. I am not sure what to summarize there, however. If you guys have any ideas please suggest, and eithe rI can write based on that, or if you feel like doing it please do.
And I really think the lists of Shrines and titles are far too long compared to the key ideas in the article. And there are pages such as Shrines to the Virgin Mary and Titles of Mary that duplicate the information. Overall, if you look at the sections on Assumption, Apparitions, etc. They all have a uniform format now, where a few sentences give teh basic idea, then a link to a main. I think Shrines and Titles should do the same. I think we should keep the top 7 titles here and refer to the other page. And keep the top 7-9 shrines and refer to the other page. I will do that in a few days unless someone objects. History2007 ( talk) 11:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine, I just made a separate page for "feast days" that were too long. I will do shrines and titles in a few days. Then it will have better proportion. As is, there are 7 lines on dogma sections and 37 lines on shrines, so that needs to get balanced. History2007 ( talk) 00:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have now used mains for the very long sections such as feasts and titles, so the article has better proportion. Except (and there is almost always an except) for the references that are in disarray, since some of them have been used as comments. I am not sure if someone still wants to use those, if so, please clean them up and move them to the main body of the text, else I will clean them up in a day or two. Thank you. History2007 ( talk) 16:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The tag at the top of the article say that the neutrality of the article has been disputed since April.
Have these issues been addressed and if so can the tag be removed. -- WikiCats ( talk) 21:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Well Carlaude needs to start by saying what sections of the article are not NPOV so they can be rewritten in neutral prose. If he "does not have time" to say what he thinks the problems are then the tag has to be removed. -- WikiCats ( talk) 23:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we should give Carlaude a day to point out each part he feels is POV. If he doesn't do that, then we can remove the tag. -- WikiCats ( talk) 07:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
That's fine with me. I've just been looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protestant views of Mary. I can't work this guy out! -- WikiCats ( talk) 08:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I support removal of the neutrality tag. -- WikiCats ( talk) 21:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for giving my a couple days- I was not on WP all weekend.
The short answer is that in has a RCC slant most everywhere. I know you what more than that but let me ask you a question ( History2007 -again).
I may 7th I was editing the intro and was undone by History2007 with no comment exepet that I was "butchering " the article. I asked History2007to tell me "to tell me how I'm butchering it" -- (that may have been whan my sig tag was broken but) I had no reply anywhere.
Assuming you cannot recall not I will try and make some of those edits again. If you do not like 'em-- tell me why.-- Carlaude ( talk) 16:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Carlaude. As an opposing view we appreciate your input to improve the article. We are are here to work with you. That said, you need to work here within the guidelines.
You have just had a warning from an an admin. The guidelines say "Obvious cranks and disruptive editors may be blocked indefinitely by admins, or banned by ArbCom or by a consensus of Wikipedians."
As John has said you face the consequences of possibly violating policy. -- WikiCats ( talk) 22:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Carlaude, if you're alleging a slant - especially by placing tags on the article inviting discussion, the "normal process" is to actually discuss these specific matters on the talk page, so that valid objections can be quickly identified and resolved. You can't just put a tag on an article and leave it there as long as you like while refusing to present any specific objections. Xandar ( talk) 23:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
History2007, you have to discuss your reverts -- You are not even giving a reason in your edit summary. You cannot just claim that other people are discussing it and you cannot just revert anyone's edit you do not like. -- Carlaude ( talk) 14:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I think my revert of your edits should remain. This matter is in the hands of administrators, therefore, please discuss it with them, not me. Thank you. History2007 ( talk) 14:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
(A quote)
Also -- the creation of Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) makes any position you have on this article all the more unclear. Do you mind explaining anything that I or Mediation Chair ask about?-- Carlaude ( talk) 19:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that a list of Marian Catholic dogmas is the right thing to go at the top, or too near the top of what is listed as an ecumenical article. I think the list should be lower down and perhaps in the specifically Catholic section of the article. More general information needs to be featured first, then maybe Catholic specific, Orthodox specific, and protestant. Xandar ( talk) 00:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with ordering the article in that way. -- WikiCats ( talk) 04:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
When I came to this page, the dogma section was much bigger and included controversies between denominations. I separated that part and put it under an new article Contrasting views of Mary, which, while including some excellent material on the orthodox, never really took off, because it was composed of reject material from this one.
Since that time the articles on the Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church Mariology (Roman Catholic) and History of Roman Catholic Mariology, while not finished or perfect, have been improved and a Protestant views of Mary has been started. An Anglican Marian theology exists as well, and I am working on an Orthodox one. This being the case, I see two options for the Blessed Virgin Mary:
My suspicion is, that even in that case, Catholic info would dominate all other sources of information , simply, because there is so much out there. That of course, creates the well-known tensions among contributors.
A clean solution would be to have separate denominational articles on the cult or veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and, once they are completed, build on an ecumenical summary. Starting with the summary without the factual basis for some Christian denominations, will be difficult if not impossible, as this and other articles teach us.-- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 13:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Ambrosius007 had a key idea about the organization of all the Roman Catholic Mariological articles he has done (and to which I have contributed). There are several articles now, looking for a Roman Catholic Marian umbrella. The only way those Roman Catholic articles can be managed in a grand design is via a new Roman Catholic Mariology Portal. Based on the fact that we do not need permission to set up such pages, and given that he is an expert in the field and that I can spell once in a while, we have started doing so. Therefore, I will not be contributing to this page any longer and will remove the Roman Catholic header from it. Whoever wants to, please feel free to make this page about Anglican, Orthodox items or whatever you like. A new page Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is in place and the duplicate material in this page needs to be removed by consensus of you people. But I will not be part of that debate since I have better things to do. This whole debate was so frustrating I started to write articles on mathematical logic, just to feel better. Actually, I cleaned up a few math items that were in need of real help! So some good came from it any way. Now, this page is in the hands of whoever wants to do whatever. And that should end all the useless debate. Good luck to everyone here. Thank you. History2007 ( talk) 20:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, you know better John and have more experience in these things. So what is a good way to organize the 7 or 8 articles on Mariology? What is an umbrella mechanism? I really do not want to edit this page any more, and the Roman Catholic Marian pages are there (and of good quality) any way. Please suggest another umbrella, apart from a portal. Thanks History2007 ( talk) 21:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
A portal makes sense, if here is enough "meat" to put in. This is presently not the case, but could very well be in the future. I created the category Roman Catholic Mariology, which is pretty useful in the meantime. It includes articles about RCM, authors, articles which mention RCM in a major way. -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The old intro promised an ecumenical perspective:
Unfortunaltely, this claim was not represented in the article, which included virtually no information about the Orthodox, Anglo-catholic Churches and only unrelialbe generalities on protestantism. There was much and very detailed information from the Catholic corner, leading to frictions and questions of balance. The old structure was a Catholic structure, while the intro sounded ecumenical. This was mainly due to the fact, that very few if any non-Catholics contributed.
To make this an ecumencial article, I reduced much of the Catholic info, which I had authored earlier. I created a neutral framwork, -- which can be changed and improved --to answer the critics who wanted balanced representations of different denominations. And I reformulated the purpose as follows:
This article is about Christian views and venerations of the Virgin Mary, including Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox Anglo-Catholic, Anglican and Protestant understandings of Mary and her veneration. For specific views, see Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), Mary (mother of Jesus), Anglican Marian theology, Protestant views of Mary and Islamic view of Virgin Mary. For the religious order BVM, see Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
I hope this helps. Wikipedia policy requires equal representation. This new structure is open to anybody's point of view. It will take some time, but this could become one of the best religion article, provided we find some contributors from different perspectives. -- Ambrosius007 ( talk) 20:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Glad that Ambrosius007 and History2007 have done what was proposed "long" ago.
I do not what to have a debate on this given-- the fairly recent debate, but---
I HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH BIASNESS FROM A PERSON AGAINST AN ENTIRE CONSENSUS. I SEE CARLAUDE CONTINUOUSLY TWISTING THE SUBJECT FROM EVERY POSSIBLE ANGLE ONLY TO ACHIEVE HIS INITIAL GOAL: THE DELETION OF THE ARTICLE. I DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS PERSON S RELIGIOUS PERCEPTIONS BUT ALL INDICATES AN EXTREME BIASNESS AGAINST ROMAN CATHOLIC EASTERN ORTHODOX ANGLICAN ETC DENOMINATIONS THAT INCLUDE MORE THAT 1.5 BIO CHRISTIANS. ALL DIFFERENT ARTICLES ABOUT VIRGIN MARY EXIST TO COVER HARMONEOUSLY AND NEUTRALY ALL OPINIONS AND VIEWS WITH MUTUAL RESPECT. UNFORTUNATELY FOR SOME REASONS THAT ARE NOT CLEAR CARLAUDE SEEMS UNABLE TO ACCEPT NEUTRAL PERSPECTIVES THAT ARE NOT ALIGNED WITH HIS PERSONAL VIEWS ABOUT THE VIRGIN. NONETHELESS AS WE HAVE TO VOTE AGIAN FOR THE SAME SUBJEST UNDER A DIFFERENT TITLE ONCE MORE I VOTE TO KEEP IT ( I DO NOT KNOW WHAT WILL BE THE ISSUE RAISED NEXT. PROBABLY TO VOTE TO USE EXTREMELY SMALL LETTERS SO NOBODY ELSE CAN READ THE ARTICLE.) Melathron ( talk) 08:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Why do people have to make things so complicated? Why make HUGE changes without consultation?
There is no need for me to flag anything up on another page. This is the established page, and we don't need you trying to start any more "quick polls" for deletion. that subject was dealt with very recently. Xandar ( talk) 23:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
My plan is to discuss the way in which the articles on Marian devotion are organised, and what part this existing article plays in that. If someone has started a new article, bully for them. However this remains the prior article, and the only one discussing the GENERAL SUBJECT of Marian devotion regardless of denomination. As usual, I am finding it hard to find the constructive nature of your interventions. Xandar ( talk) 23:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Please look at it another way:
Please show patience for 2 weeks while we complete our series in peace so we can achieve the highest possible quality. Thank you. History2007 ( talk) 23:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Your link is circular.
Okay. If you're throwing in the towel on this article, that is your right. What was wrong was to remove a large amount of content from this article without consultation, and on what seems like a sudden impulse. Establishing another article with an almost identical title, but a different emphasis, again without discussion is not good practice. It could create problems in terms of content forks and the integration of all these articles. You and Ambrosius may have a grand design in your head, and it may be a wonderful one, but you shouldn't cause mayhem in a major existing article without discussion or some consenus. This article is a High Importance article in Wikiprojects, and it has well over a thousand other articles that link into it, many on the basis that certain information would be here. The articles you are working on are not YOUR articles, they are part of the Wikipedia project, which everyone participates in. So it would be more constructibe if you would cooly nd calmly discuss a future relationship between the pages. Xandar ( talk) 11:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The very opening sentence is inaccurate and to some denominations of Christians offensive. "...The Virgin Mary, is a traditional title used by all Christians..." I assure you stating blankly that ALL Christians call her by these terms and even think of her in this was is completely inaccurate. There are more denominations, outside of Catholicism, who don't consider her anything more then a birth vessel then denominations that do. I will leave it up to someone who maintains this article to correct this as I feel I don't and won't invest enough time to monitor it myself. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.201.135 ( talk) 01:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
see above. Punkymonkey987 ( talk) 20:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
How on earth could anyone call her blessed? She isn't God or a god and she is not holy. There is also no way that she is Queen of the Universe. It is complete heresy to believe so. As this article states, she began to be revered IN 1451 at the Council of Ephesus. BY MEN. Not the holy Word of God. This is the same as the doctrine of Purgatory. It's completely fabricated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eowyngrey ( talk • contribs) 05:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
In footnote 28, it reads: "Given that Catholics believe in Original Sin as placing actual guilt upon human beings for the sins of their ancestors, including Adam and Eve, Catholics conclude that Mary also would be stained by the actual guilt of sin."
This is not what Catholics believe, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states clearly, and as the Wikipedia article on Original Sin states.
I haven't worked on this article - just came across it in passing - so I won't change it. But, will someone who HAS worked on this article change it to present the actual teaching of the Catholic Church on Original Sin??
Polycarp7 ( talk) 16:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |