Talk:Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

old comment

This page started with the Catholic content of BVM excluding large sections from that article, which did not correspond to RC. It will be expanded considerably. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Relation to main BVM Page

Further to what has been said on that page, there still remain important issues to clear up. As I have posted on BVM talk, which History2007 has stated he is not returning to:

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 the BVM 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. The Blessed Virgin Mary 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 constructive if you would coolly nd calmly discuss a future relationship between the pages. Xandar (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The current title of this article is also problematic. It might imply that there are several Virgin Marys! "Mariology (Roman Catholic)" is acceptable because there ARE several differing mariologies. Not the case with the BVM, however. A better title might be "Blessed Virgin Mary in Catholicism," or "Roman Catholic views of the Virgin Mary". Xandar (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you will see the the content of this article will continue to diverge from the other very rapidly. It has already started to do so because there is new material that was not allowed to enter into the other article due to focus issues. As for two Virgin Mary's.... well, user who are so smart as to think there are two, generally do not have access to computers. This article will ge new and relevant material that can not be present in the other due to focus issues, as you have seen. History2007 (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The title issue is a little more serious than you are giving it credit for. There is a format for titles at Wikipedia, and they should make sense in English, which this one doesn't, being ungrammatical. And don't think that there aren't a good number of users who will think that there is indeed a separate Catholic Virgin Mary. That is an accusation of some protestant evangelical groups at the moment. [1] So it would make sense to listen a little to what other people are saying. The present title is ungrammatical and misleading and should be changed - as per my suggestions or in some other way. I'm not opposed to an article about the Virgin Mary in her Catholic aspect, but name it properly and dovetail it in with existing articles. Xandar (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence in the article says: As the mother of Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary has a central role..... and people have one mother.... I see no confusion at all. History2007 (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I am sorry, I wanted to contact you on a related matter, your very justified points on Christian views of Mary contrasted from May 9?. I actually spent all day today to deal with your matter. I spent much time today on that article to deal with your question, only to see everything destroyed by someone else ( of course it was not you) and then the page closed. Which is okay with me, because few useful elements are in my new page Mariology Ecumenical views In the BVM page I simply wanted to end the unending discussions by proposing a framework, which is more open to other denomitations. (one of the accusations there) You changes it and put the others at the bottom, fine with me.

To me, the BVM page suffers from an inherent contradiction. It professes to explain all kinds of Christian views and ecplains only RC views. We know why this is so, it was not bad intention, simply the participation of talented writers with RC knowledge, like you, history and myself. By creating THIS page, we give you folks in BVM a chance to really include other views more prominently. The Orthodox, for example, have been completely neglected.

There will also be some commonalities between pages, as there is only one Virgin Mary. However, this page will take off in a new direction. Mentioning mariology, will not be mariology (teachings, dogma).It will unfold like no other Marian article the fullness of the veneration of Mary, including teachings on the veneration of Mary. Give us a few days, maybe a week? And then please visit us, and tell us what you think. Sorry for making you angry. Cheers --Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ambrosius. I can see that you and history have been doing an awful lot of good work on the range of Marian articles. I can also see how you can have been exasperated by the activities of a certain person who appears to have some sort of agenda. The BVM page serves an important purpose as a general discussion of Marian veneration, and recently has been the better of the two main Mary pages, so it needs careful improvement to make sure it continues to do so. I was worried that the sudden creation of new pages with no specific pattern might lead to confusion and compartmentalisation of these topics in denominational ghettoes. Hopefully, if there is a clear vision of how these different pages will interact, this will not happen. I still hate the name of this page though. Could you not consider:

• Blessed Virgin Mary in Catholicism
• Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic view)
• Catholic views of the Virgin Mary

or something similar? Better to settle on the best name now before a lot of links are attached. Xandar (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your comments. For me BVM(RC View) vs the current name makes no difference. But the ratio of TalkPage/RealPage text on this website just amazes me..... If one graphs that number it looks very steep. But there is no rush due to links: The REDIRECT is dead, long live the REDIRECT. History2007 (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Name Change

This article has many needless references to "Roman Catholic." If this is an article about the Western Catholic church, it ought to be identified as such. If it is refering to the entirety of the Catholic Church, it out to read simply Catholic Church in such references. The title of the main article has been changed for this reason.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My friend, given that you have recently joined Wikipedia, it is fair to tell you that this page was the site of a major battle about EXACTLY that issue over a year ago. Somone was set to obliterate the term "Roman Catholic" and issues about it and eventually after much bitter fighting, complaints to higher authorities, etc. separation was the method in which the battle ended. Please see this debate: [2]. That archive does not however show all the edit wars, complaints to administrators, threats of users getting banned, requests for arbitration, etc. that took place. That is why there are three pages on the Blessed Virgin Mary within Wikipedia, with all Roman Catholic issues separated on their own. Indeed the Mariology series (including the separate pages Mariology and Roman Catholic Mariology) were born as a result of that battle in order to settle the issue by having the Roman Catholics material separated and clearly marked as such. Before restarting World War IV, please see the previous discussion. Moreover, by virtue of the previous discussion, Wikipedia rules dictate that the name change must remain because it had been discussed at length before, subjected to various opinions and votes. In Wikipedia once that precedent has been set, a change is not called for. History2007 (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC).

Threatening WW IV is not a good idea and it is uncivil. That there were disputes in the past is fine. However, the separation of Mariology from RC Mariology and the BVM is really irrelevant to my point. My point is that there is no such article RCC. There is only the article CC. So to be consistent, the previously RCC material needs to be shifted to CC. I am fine with changing the name to someing like Catholic Church teaching on the Blessed Virgin Mary for this article. That would be appropriate. But, since WP does not have an article for RC or RCC and for very good reasons, this should go to CC. If you think I am being hostile, as you have accused me of being, remember I went to the talk page first, as I always do for an article rename. Also, I am not new to WP although my perspective may be new to you.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions

There was a recent conversation over at the Saint Peter article regarding naming conventions and it got me thinking. Typically, article names on people should share the same name as the person. For example, Albert Einstein. But in the case of many older figures, who have no last name, that is cause for some confusion. So we go with the name they are most popularly known by. In this case, that is "Virgin Mary". I certainly believe she was blessed, but I'm don't think naming conventions call for the adjective's inclusion. Any input?Farsight001 (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Interestingly enough there was this discussion on the other page Talk:Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)#Name whereby someone wanted to add Blessed to that page. And you may or may not remember the history of how these 3 articles came about after a major... let us say discussion, but in fact it was a battle in May 2008. This article's focus is highly venerative, hence the title should reflect that focus since as the other person said, Catholics use Blessed to refer to her, and this is a RC- focused article. Cheers History2007 (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Marian hour

There should maybe be a stub on the liturgical concept of marian hour, which is prominent in organized prayer groups. ADM (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Worshipped?

I notice the word "worship" has been used in the article with respect to the Virgin Mary. Although this word was used in the past, (ie Your Worship, the Mayor,) the meaning has shifted. It was then used with a different meaning to the generally accepted meaning today. For most people, not only protestant christians, the word "worship" has come to mean the worship (latria), due to God alone. Using the word as it is currently used in the article will breed confusion and promote the commonly-spread error that Catholics worship Mary as a goddess. "Veneration" or "devotion" needs to be used instead. Xandar (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am just a novice here, so I can not say either way. I am sure Ambrosius will discuss with you. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the word "worship" (although it could be used to mean hyperdulia, or veneration of Mary), should be replaced with veneration, as not to be misleading towards non-catholics. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

The only real difference between Catholic and non-Catholic views on Mary is the question over Mary's conception. The differences could be taken up with one section in the Mary, mother of Jesus article, or in the alternative, the other Blessed Virgin Mary article. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Malke: Three separate points:

1. Did I read: "The only real difference between Catholic and non-Catholic views on Mary is the question over Mary's conception"? That is a totally incorrect statement and reading this article may help clear that issue, as well as reading: Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church.

2. You removed comments from within the article that explained that there are 3 articles "after a very long discussion" on this very topic. There used to be one article, then split and this article, which is venerative came about that way. This discussion took place at great length some time ago and you removed the comments that referred to it. I restored said comments. And all 3 articles have been highly stable, so content changes have been insignificant since the split.

3. Merger makes no sense since this article split from the ones you suggest and the reason you gave for it as only "the conception of Mary" is not correct anyway. There are many differences, and venerative aspects are key, as well as Queen of Heaven, etc. etc. History2007 (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop following me.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Please see the edit history for this page. Today is the first time you have edited this page. I have more edits to this page than anyone and I edited it a few minutes before you ever arrived, adding a reference to an image. And you the removed the reference and the image thereafter. I do not follow your logic. Please avoid an edit war. I am the longest time editor on this page and I did not follow you here. Period. This diff documents the WP:WIKIHOUNDING (2nd) warning I issued to you. Please read WP:CALM and follow the advice "your mentor" (Moonriddengirl) gave you two months ago, whereby she specifically advised you to stop following me. History2007 (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Edits needed

The saints don't really need to be here. And the papal encyclicals don't add to anything. The saints belong on an article about saints and the popes belong on their pages. It seems this article is loaded up with items like some kind of coatrack to drape Mary with additional Catholic themes to 1) Justify a separate article in order to 2) separate out a Catholic version versus a non-Catholic version of Mary.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Tags

I've added tags for original research and cite checks. The citations don't support the original research by History2007. He simply writes what he wants, then claims a citation from an obscure, off topic Google book. The citations don't support the edits. I've checked, hence the tags.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to indicate what the exact problem is. Just a generic statement doesn't work. If you have cite issues, please say exactly what the cite issue is. It honestly sounds like you are taking an arguement and trying to fight it with useless tags. Marauder40 (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR tags and Expert tag

This article is in bad shape. It is filled with original research that has citations that do not support the claims. Catholics do not venerate images, etc. It clearly needs an expert on the subject. The article doesn't even need to exist as the other article Blessed Virgin Mary is about 80% Catholic anyway.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Marauder's previous removal of the tags you placed with no explanation. But we are making progress in this saga of "random tag plasterings" on articles that I edit. I see no claim that there are copyright violations here. So that is progress.

If you think the article needs to be deleted, you can start an Afd of course, but I am 99% sure the Afd will not succeed because the article is really well referenced and every paragraph has a source. As for statement that "Blessed Virgin Mary is 80% Catholic" that is the only point we agree on. That was why Blessed Virgin Mary was merged into a few places, based on the fact that there were 3-way merge tags (placed by you) and there were no objections to the merger. It now redirects to Mary (mother of Jesus). So this article is needed, given that there are articles on Protestant views of Mary and Islamic views of Mary etc.

Now, as you recall, you were previously warned and then blocked for WP:Wikihounding me, on these types of articles. And these tag placements have taken place with no justification, and the edits often display a total lack of knowledge of the topic:

• Your statement that: "Catholics do not venerate images" is 100% incorrect and clearly against most Catholic practices. You need to read the article on Iconoclasm to understand that. The Council of Constantinople (869) reaffirmed that. Please read: Catholic Customs and Traditions: A Popular Guide by Greg Dues 1993 ISBN 0896225151 which on page 126 states: "The tradition of honoring Mary by venerating images of her goes back to the third century."

• Your statement "The only real difference between Catholic and non-Catholic views on Mary is the question over Mary's conception" is also 100% incorrect. It reflects the fact that this article and Mary (mother of Jesus) have not been read, neither has the literature on this topic. Please read Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant: a doctrinal comparison by Gregory Lee Jackson 1993 ISBN 9780615166353 which on page 254 provides a table of the just the doctrinal differences. The beliefs based on sensus fidelium are even more divergent. The table is present in the article Mary (mother of Jesus).

So my advice here is: "read first, place tags afterwards". You can start by reading Iconoclasm first. If you do not read about the topic, and just use a nail gun to recklessly nail tags all over the place as part of WP:Wikihounding, your actions amount to pure and simple WP:disruptive editing. This Wikihounding must stop. History2007 (talk) 08:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears Malke 2010 common misunderstanding of the meaning of the word veneration in the Catholic Church. Veneration does not mean worship (even though in the english language it can.) Worshiping images is not the same thing as the Veneration of images. Veneration means to honor the person. The person (i.e. Mary) is honored though their statues and images. The statues and images are not worshiped. Please read the following from the OCE http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Veneration_of_Images Also every Good Friday, Catholics venerate the cross of Christ. Are they worshiping the actual crosses they are kissing? no.

The twenty-fifth session of the Council of Trent (December, 1543) repeats faithfully the principles of Nicaea II: "[The holy Synod commands] that images of Christ, the Virgin Mother of God, and other saints are to be held and kept especially in churches, that due honor and reverence (debitum honorem et venerationem) are to be paid to them, not that any divinity or power is thought to be in them for the sake of which they may be worshipped, or that anything can be asked of them, or that any trust may be put in images, as was done by the heathen who put their trust in their idols [Ps. cxxxiv, 15 sqq.]; but because the honor shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that by kissing, uncovering to, kneeling before images we adore Christ and honor the saints whose likeness they bear" (Denzinger, no. 986).

Pretty clear that the latin use of the word venerate is used. Marauder40 (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Please give SPECIFIC examples of things that are OR. If a cite is dubious, mark that cite as such. There are ways of doing that or at least place the exact problem on the talk page. Just blanket statements about problems doesn't work. This still appears to just be an edit war just trying to use every method in the book to complain/penalize and not actually doing the work in a colabrative manner. You also need to realize the problem could be your understanding of the topic. Marauder40 (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Using the Council of Trent from December 1543 is relevant how? You may recall something called Vatican I followed by Vatican II 1962. 419 years difference means that a few things changed.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to the document that says something changed? I have read the documents of both councils and I didn't see anything about this changing mentioned anywhere in the documents. Just your feeling that it changed isn't right. Veneration of objects still exists in the Catholic church. What the council of Trent said still applies today. What sounds incorrect is your interpretation of the word venerate. How about newer explanations of the same thing? http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/practices/honoring_saints/veneration.htm

http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm68.htm

By the way, it isn't really appropriate to outdent after only a 2nd indent unless you are changing the topic. It makes for easier following of the threads to continue the indenting until it becomes to much.Marauder40 (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring over the appropriately placed tags.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not edit warring. You haven't given valid reasons for your tags. If you give valid reason for your tags of the entire article I will let them stand or if concensus sees a reason for the tags they will stand. You also might want to look up the definition of edit warring. Marauder40 (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge/tags for original research, bad citations, non-neutral POV

There is no need for this article to exist separately from Mary (mother of Jesus) since the Catholic view of Mary is sufficiently covered in that article and this article is a POV content fork. This article is filled with sections not relevant such as the views of the saints, the scapular, the rosary, etc., which are all covered in other articles. Much of the content here is POV pushing, redundant, poorly sourced, and contains original research. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Be specific about your claims. Other then the claim that it should be merged due to redundancy you have yet to provide valid examples of "POV pushing, redundant, poorly sourced, and contains original research." Marauder40 (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I guess I should officially vote now. Catholic views on Mary are different enough from mainline "low-order" Protestant communities that a seperate article is needed. Whether other Catholic Mary articles can be merged is a possibility with appropriate redirects, but that is not the topic of this merge request. Claims of POV, etc. are based on a misunderstanding of Catholic belief. Marauder40 (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't provided the citations to support your claims. There is clear POV content fork here and there is no need for a separate "Catholic" article. The only difference between Catholics and non-Catholics regarding Mary is in how Catholics view the Immaculate Conception and that can be handled in one paragraph with valid, reliable sources, on the Mary (mother of Jesus) article. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Malke, As a start this link clearly shows that you are wrong. There are multiple differences. Please read, Thank you. History2007 (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The Protestant Encyclopedia is hardly where I would go for an understanding of the Catholic doctrines regarding Mary. There is only one difference and that is how Catholics view the Immaculate Conception and Mary's subsequent continuing virginity. This article is a POV fork content that incorrectly posits the veneration of Mary with the worship of Mary. At the very least, the article is giving unbalanced attention to the minor practice of Marian veneration, at the worst it is giving the impression that Catholics worship Mary on equal footing with Christ. They do no such thing. The other article Blessed Virgin Mary has already been merged with Mary (mother of Jesus) which is already top heavy with Catholic views. This article can easily be merged as well.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the Encyclopedia shows the differences and is a totally WP:Reliable source that proves you are wrong in your statement that "there is just one difference". Protestants differ in multiple ways. Please read. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

specific examples

• Starting from the lead where it is being claimed that Catholics are nearly in a fever over this Mary worship is nonsense and the citations are there simply for show. They don't make these claims.
• And who is this Baumer fellow? An obscure German text that very few can access? Why is that being used when there are hundreds of English texts that can expound on the Catholic view of Mary?
• Paragraphs of original research with Bible passages appended to them. As if the Bible contains these same crafted claims.

Mary is not a central theme in Catholicism, her story is ancillary. Catholics only worship God and the Holy Trinity.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)"Starting with the lead", as usual no specifics have been given. Which cite is a problem? You are generalizing again. The word "worship" is not used anywhere in the lead. The word "fever" is not used. Give specific examples of your concerns. Mary has a special place of honor in the Catholic Church. There are numerous examples of this. To claim "Mary's... story is ancillary." to Catholicism is extremely incorrect. It is true that Catholics only worship the Holy Trinity, but they honor/venerate Mary and the Saints with Mary having a special honor. All you have to do is read any of the official documents of the Church, writtings of the Saints, etc. to see this.

"Baumer fellow" he is used because the person that created the article used them. Are you saying the source isn't a reliable source? That is much different from saying better sources could be used. Just because a source may be hard to find doesn't make it not a reliable source.

"Paragrsphs of original research" - again give a specific example. You seem to love to generalize without specifics. Marauder40 (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Here's another:

"In Roman Catholic teachings, the veneration of Mary is a logical and necessary consequence of Christology: Jesus and Mary are son and mother, redeemer and redeemed. . ."

Really? Where's the citation that says that? It's really necessary is it? But what about the teachings that say, Catholics are under no obligation to venerate Mary?

This is the problem with original research. It's being alluded to that in the Catholic view, Jesus and Mary are the same. But that is false.

They are clearly not the same in Catholicism. Jesus is divine. Whereas, Mary is not. She was a human with special favor from God because she was a good soul and had unswerving faith in God. Those are real Catholic teachings, I can assure you that have legitimate citations.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I am not sure whether you are actually Catholic or not but your knowledge of this role (the role of Mary in the redemption of man) sounds like that of a Catholic that hasn't studied the topic at all. To get a better idea of this topic I suggest reading the WP article Co-Redemptrix. Catholics are not under and obligation to venerate Mary, nowhere in the article does it say it is required. However as a Catholic you are required to abide by the decisions of the church including the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception You keep talking about implied, alluded, etc. Yet it doesn't say what you are claiming. It still seems you have a problem with the word veneration vs. worship. For a simple explanation of the differnce just read the WP article on Veneration. I assume you didn't read the link because even JPII said "the cult, especially the liturgical cult, of the Blessed Virgin, be generously fostered, and that the practices and exercises of devotion towards her, recommended by the teaching authority of the Church in the course of centuries, be highly esteemed". Mary is held in high regard. Marauder40 (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm discussing this article not the Immaculate Conception article.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to only read what you want to out of people's comments and links. I only mentioned that Immaculate Conception as one of various doctrine that have been defined by the Church. As such, in order to be Catholic you are supposed to believe. Even though you don't have to do the Rosary or any other Marian devotion, you still have to agree with the defined doctrine of the Church. Of which several relate to Marian devotion.Marauder40 (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's take a look at this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessed_Virgin_Mary_%28Roman_Catholic%29#Development_of_Marian_culture

Citation # 30 links to a Wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumen_Gentium. Linking back to a Wikipedia article is not a valid source. Where's the actual reliable source that supports everything being claimed above it? From where did this come?Malke 2010 (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Non-neutral POV: The entire article is crafted with the point being that Mary is worshipped by Catholics, that she is being elevated beyond her station in life on par with Christ and God.

Yet, not a single scholarly text on Catholic doctrines regarding Mary's place in the scheme of things, is cited. Not one. We are given over to "Our Sunday Visitor," and Ann Ball's pathetically inaccurate Encyclopedia, and the Catholic News Service. And the occasional papal encyclical. It's taken until Pope John Paul II to make these "ancient claims" valid? What about the popes before him? No opinions there?

And even then, these citations do not support the claims being made. They are simply appended to the original research.

The claims that Catholics venerate Mary through art are there to suggest that they worship graven images. No such thing exists in the Catholic Church and in fact, since Vatican II there is a pronounced deemphasis on the use of statuary and art to adorn new churches. Newer churches are often very plain.

The article should focus on Mary's role as the mother of Jesus and not on this false impression that this original research implies, that she is seen universally as being beyond what Catholics actually believe.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Then mark that one link as a bad link, that is no reason to tag an entire article. It is a better colabrative model to just identify the bad links and problems then tagging an entire article with numerous article tags. You seem to keep taking the shotgun approach to Wiki editing, instead of the more colabrative surgical approach. Marauder40 (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The entire article is filled with these fake citations and links. The tags are there to alert OTHER editors. You seem to want the tags removed so that there will not be any others coming here to edit. That is not a collaborative approach. You don't own the article and it's time other editors became aware of the problems here so that they can be corrected with accurate citations and no original research per Wikipedia policy.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think YOU misunderstand the purpose of the tags you are using. In essence the tags you are using basically tell the user the ENTIRE article has problems. If you do it without pointing out the problem, nobody will fix it. Not many people will look at an entire article, trace EVERY single cite and figure out what YOUR problem with the article is. If you have a problem with a cite use either the tags for the cite itself that says either fact, cite needed or cite dubious. That way people know what to look at. It is much easier to look at individual cites, and see if there is a corresponding cite for the same thing. Tagging the entire article without the specifics is the shutgun approach and doesn't bring ANYONE to the article. Instead of helping the article you are just creating a "hostile work environment". I have been saying all along that the primary reason I have been removing your tags is you haven't been giving ANY examples of the problems that hold up. Many of the problems you have stated have been your own misunderstand of the Marian veneration vs. worship. At no time have I said I OWN the article. Neither do you. Marauder40 (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the tags is to alert other editors. You seem only to want the tags removed. Yet, I don't see you offering to fix anything. Also, you keep claiming that I'm not offering specifics. Yet, I've given many examples. And any editor can plainly see just by scrolling through the article that there are whole blocks of text without any reliable sources, many with just wikilinks. And using an ancient definition of veneration is hardly valid. Venerate in the modern context just means Catholics respect Mary and her place as the Mother of Jesus. She's not a god, we don't worship her.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, here is an example of Original research using nothing but wikilinks:

"Promulgating the veneration of the Blessed Virgin

Popes were highly important for the development of the veneration of the Blessed Virgin through their decisions not only in the area of Marian beliefs (Mariology) but also Marian practices and devotions. Popes promulgated Marian veneration by authorizing new Marian feast days, prayers, initiatives, the acceptance and support of Marian congregations, and, the formal recognition of Marian apparitions such as in Lourdes and Fátima. Recent Popes promulgated the veneration of the Blessed Virgin with two dogmas (Immaculate Conception and Assumption) the promulgation of Marian years (Pius XII, John Paul II), the visit to Marian shrines (Benedict XVI in 2007) and by actively supporting the fathers of Vatican II as they highlighted the importance of Marian veneration (Pope John XXIII and Paul VI) in Lumen Gentium." Malke 2010 (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do we have these citations when there are many scholarly texts in English that could be used? And what are they exactly?

1. ^ a b Bäumer 520
2. ^ a b Bäumer 521
3. ^ Adolf Adam, Liturgie, 1985, p.291
4. ^ a b Bäumer 598
5. ^ Lumen Gentium, Chapter Seven

Malke 2010 (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Another example of original research and a non-supporting citation:

Here's the sentence:

"In the Roman Catholic tradition Mariology is Christology developed to its full potential.[17] Mary and her son Jesus are very close but not identical in Catholic theology. Mary contributes to a fuller understanding of her son, who Christ is and what he did. A Christology without Mary is erroneous in the Roman Catholic view, because it is not based on the total revelation of the Bible. Early Christians and numerous saints focused on this parallel interpretation."

But here's the quote from John Henry Newman that is being cited. "John Henry Newman: Mariology is always christocentric, in Michael Testa, Mary: The Virgin Mary in the Life and Writings of John Henry Newman 2001; Mariology Is Christology in Vittorio Messori, "The Mary Hypothesis"Rome, 2005

None of these citations support this. There is no 'parallel view.' This is crafted to make it appear that Catholics believe Mary and Jesus both have divine status.

This sentence does not make it clear that the Catholic view is just the opposite.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding of Mariology is flawed. At no point is the parallel trying to say that she is Divine. The parallel is just that. With all parallel things aren't exact. There may be issues with the cites but everything that is said in the paragraph you give is Catholic teaching. The only thing that isn't Catholic teaching is your interpretation of what is written. Not what was written. As I said before, it would have been easier if you just put a tag on that sentence and/or paragraph as a cite, cite dubious or fact then someone could have just found the appropriate cite. Tagging the entire article does NOTHING towards helping the article other then inflame people that work on the article. You seem to be stuck on the fact that you think the article says she is divine. Nowhere in the article does it say that. You are reading into things that aren't there. Marauder40 (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be deliberately 'missing' the point that this is original research. The sentence is crafted to come across as if Mary and Jesus are the same, using the word parallel, highly suggests that. Then baseless citations are appended to make it appear that this is a valid, Catholic Church doctrine when it is most certainly not valid. A reader going through this gets the impression that the Catholic view of Mary is well beyond what it actually is.

You're arguments are what Bill Clinton famously called, parsing.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

And again, the tags are appropriate, and they are there so that other editors can be alerted to the problems. This allows a more careful examination of the article, a closer, more thoughtful read.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't supplied anything that is original research. Everything that you have supplied IS actually church teaching. You keep saying imply, that is your interpretaton of what it says. If you have a better wording, reword it but expect a WP:BRD cycle to happen. But you are incorrect, everything that you listed is technically correct as written, it just needs additional cites. You still need to provide more examples of your issues, otherwise there is no need for an article-wide tag, as opposed to individual cite requests. Marauder40 (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You are simply giving your opinion. Please show with reliable sources exactly what is 'technically correct,' in the examples given above.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have lots of study in this stuff. Mariology is usually included in most basic Catholic apologetic material and/or coursework. I don't have the resources on me at the moment because I am at work. At work I can find several sources from reputable organizations (i.e. EWTN, Catholic Answers, etc.) but since they are in Q&A sections and forums they don't meet the requirements for RS. Several people that edit the articles (i.e. History) have access to the actual sources. When need be I can check the sources against an entire Franciscan library full of books. It seems you haven't read the sources I have sent to you. They would clear up a lot of your seeming misunderstand of Mariology. Your biggest issue seems to be getting over the fact that veneration does not equal worship. Another issue seems to involve a misunderstanding of how WP works. Lots of editors working TOGETHER to achieve consensus. A less hostile approach would be to include cite requests for improperly cited material and allow the person that put it up to find the cite, instead of tagging the entire article. Many of your issues can quickly be found (i.e. the actual cite for Lumen Gentium as opposed to the Wiki link.) Marauder40 (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a QUICK search on Yahoo turned up the following link. http://www.zenit.org/article-14658?l=english Not sure whether the article meets all RS standards but it is a very good source for the drawing the parallel between Christology and Mariology.

Everything that the Church has said and says about the Mother is, in fact, at the service of Christ, in defense of his humanity and at the same time of his divinity. Mariology is, in fact, Christology. Her dogmas are but the confirmation and bulwark of her Son's. Whenever Mary has been neglected, sooner or later Christ has also disappeared.

I am sure many more sources can be turned up by people with the access to the needed books.Marauder40 (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The point here is what the Catholic doctrine says, not what Sister Angelica personally thinks. Sister Angelica does not speak for the Catholic Church. Nor is she a scholar on Catholic doctrine. She's an opinionated nun who never accepted Vatican II.

The Catholic Church believes that without Christ, Mary is nothing. We venerate Mary, if we choose to do so, not because we're required, but because, and only because, she is the Mother of Jesus. That is her only role in Christology. Mariology is focused only on her role in that context.

Any other claims, by synthesizing what others have done, on their own, down through the ages, such as the saints, or belief in Marian apparitions, and especially trying to make this original research appear credible by swathing it in the words of popes who have expressed a particular affection for Mary, is still original research.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where the "Sister Angelica" section came from . If you are talking about Mother Angelica from EWTN then you are incorrect about your statements. Not only did I not quote her in any way but your statement that she "never accepted Vatican II" is incorrect. She doesn't accept some of the things that have happened "in the spirit of Vatican II" but were never part of Vatican II but she never rejected Vatican II. It is clear from the first paragraph of your reply you haven't read the article on Co-Redemptrix, which is part of Mariology 101. If you don't understand that you can't really understand the theology behind the sections you are asking about. You also may want to read the article on Mediatrix. Marauder40 (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

These are your opinions. These are not facts. As I said very plainly above, without Jesus, Mary is nothing. That is her entire relationship to Christology, and the only basis for any Mariology studies. Catholics accept that she is the Mother of Jesus, but they are under no obligation to venerate her. That others choose to do so, does not in any way convey higher status, power, or divinity to Mary. She's still just Mary.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because a Catholic is not required to venerate Mary doesn't make what is written in the article wrong. Nowhere in the article does it say that a Catholic is required to venerate her. A Catholic is required to understand and believe the defined doctrine associated with her explained in Marian doctrine article. Those things (i.e. Immaculate Conception, Assumption, etc.) clearly make it present that she isn't "just Mary" in the eyes of the Catholic church. This article is about what the Catholic church believe not what YOU believe. At no point does the article say she is divine. YOU keep attributing it to the article but it doesn't say that. It is very clear that you aren't really in this to improve the article via consensus but just to win your arguement and not really listening so I will bow out of the discussion until others join in.Marauder40 (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is entirely about veneration. I think you should review the table of contents and the sections they refer to which are mostly bereft of citations from any Catholic doctrine/catechism on the subject.

Also, referring to the Wiki articles on Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix is a complete misreading of them. They are not Catholic doctrine. Some priests and religious might like them to be, but they aren't.

This article here is clearly original research, drawn out in this way to suggest, unmistakably, that Mary occupies a place she absolutely does not. Again, Catholic doctrine teaches specifically, that without Jesus, Mary is nothing. She exists only in relation to Jesus, not alongside him, not on equal, parallel footing. She is entirely dependent on the role she played regarding her son, nothing more. But this ToC's suggests something far more:

Contents [hide]

• 1 From Christ to Mary in the Roman Catholic tradition
• 1.1 Theological basis for the veneration of Mary
• 1.2 Mysteries of Christ and Mary
• 2 Marian veneration in the Roman Catholic Church
• 2.1 Early veneration in Rome
• 2.2 Liturgical aspects
• 2.3 Non-Liturgical aspects
• 2.4 Development of Marian culture
• 3 Mary's protection and intercession
• 4 Mary's role in salvation and redemption
• 5 Catholic Saints and the Blessed Virgin Mary
• 5.1 Early saints
• 5.2 The Middle Ages
• 5.3 Saints after the middle ages
• 6 Papal teachings on Marian devotions
• 6.1 Promulgating the veneration of the Blessed Virgin
• 6.2 Popular excesses
• 6.3 Encyclicals
• 7 The Virgin Mary in Roman Catholic liturgy
• 7.1 Catholic Marian feast days
• 7.2 Marian Music for the Liturgy of the Hours
• 7.3 Holy Mass Music
• 7.4 Titles of the Blessed Virgin Mary
• 8 Marian prayers, poems and hymns
• 9 Marian devotions
• 9.1 Holy Rosary
• 9.2 Scapular
• 9.3 Reparations to the Blessed Virgin
• 10 The Catholic view of Marian apparitions
• 10.1 Mysteries of the Appearing Virgin
• 11 Veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary through art
• 12 Marian Movements and Societies
• 13 Marian shrines and patronages
• 13.1 Major Marian shrines
• 13.2 House of the Virgin Mary
• 13.3 Patronages of the Blessed Virgin

It is entirely crafted to show Mary as being more than what she is.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Correcting the understandings

Malke, As Marauder has clearly pointed out above, your edits stem from a number of "incorrect understandings" about Catholic teachings. So we need to discuss them until they become clear to you. I assume that you now agree that:

• "Catholics do venerate Mary through art"

• "The only real difference between Catholic and non-Catholic views on Mary is NOT the question over Mary's conception"

Please confirm that you understand these two points now, so we can continue to discuss other issues. Else we will discuss these two points until they become clear to you.

Now, you also made the statement that "Mary is ancillary to Catholic teachings". This is also an incorrect statement. My source: The very first reference in this article, a reference which you deleted in this edit and I restored. Please read that reference and confirm that you understand the centrality point made in the Catechism. Also please confirm that the other two incorrect statements you had made have been clarified for you before we continue other discussions. Else we will explain them again until they become clear to you. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What possible basis do you have to assume such nonsense?Malke 2010 (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Please be specific in your answers. Do you agree that ""Catholics do venerate Mary through art"? References have been provided. We can not have a discussion based on vague statements. Please be specific: Do you now agree that "Catholics do venerate Mary through art"? Please be specific in your answers. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"The only real difference between Catholic and non-Catholic views on Mary is NOT the question over Mary's conception". I doubt that anyone on Earth can understand that. Ok, so now that we know what the only real difference is not, I have some ancilliary questions: 1. If this is what the only real difference is not, what, then is it that the only real difference is? 2. If, on the other hand, the only real difference between C. and non-C. re M. is the I.C., er, I think I've lost it... PiCo (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually Pico, as Marauder had suggested, a complete list of differences would be a good section in the Mary (mother of Jesus) article which discusses multi-denominational issues. This encyclopedia will give an idea of the Protestant differences at the doctrinal level. There is also a table in the Mary (mother of Jesus) article that summarizes some of them. But the entire doctrinal comparison of Catholics, Protestants, Lutherans, Anglicans, Mormons, etc, is not anywhere in Wikipedia that I know of and if you want to look into that and add that to the table there, it will be appreciated. There are significant differences all over the place, even between Mormons and Anglicans, etc. that have not been written up in Wikipedia. But expounding on the differences between Mormon and Anglican theology is not on my plan at the moment. However, beyond doctrinal/dogmatic issues there are significant venerative and devotional differences between Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, etc. that should also be mentioned in that article and at least 5 long pages can be written on that. But that just means that Wikipedia needs more info, and it takes work. And at my current wiki-salary, it is not part of my job description to do all of that. But I just added Mormon beliefs to that table anyway, so it is clear that they reject assumption and perpetual virginity, etc. I am working on checking all references now. But I would suggest that others should expand the table there, to make the wide range of differences clear both at the dogmatic and venerative levels. History2007 (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Doctrine	Church action	Accepted by
Virgin birth of Jesus	First Council of Nicaea, 325	Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Latter Day Saints
Mother of God, Thotokos	First Council of Ephesus, 431	Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Protestants, Latter Day Saints
Perpetual virginity	Council of Constantinople, 533 Smalcald Articles, 1537	Roman Catholics, Some Anglicans, Some Lutherans, Martin Luther, John Calvin
Immaculate Conception	Ineffabilis Deus encyclical Pope Pius IX, 1854	Roman Catholics, Some Anglicans, early Martin Luther
Assumption of Mary	Munificentissimus Deus encyclical Pope Pius XII, 1950	Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Some Anglicans

Are you sure about "some Anglicans"? Most Anglicans wouldn't have a clue what they're meant to believe. They are, however, meant to "abhore the vile anabaptists". I went looking for an anabaptist once so I could abhore him, but they were making themselves scarce. PiCo (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That was funny. Well said. Maybe we need a committee to seek out anabaptists. The reason I left in the "some Anglicans" was that Jackson's book said that, perhaps for the same reason as you mentioned. If you think that should come off, please remove it from the Mary (mother of Jesus) article. But for exactly the same reason (namely the lack of exact lines of demarcation) that article is at times vague on Anglican statements. So I am not sure what is best on the Anglican angle. History2007 (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Jackson is a better theologian than I am. But from the point of view of existential sociology (i.e., personal experience), I'd say that the average Anglican has no religious beliefs whatsoever. PiCo (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, money talks my friend. Do the Anglicans put money in the basket once in a while?History2007 (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that if you asked the local bishop, he'd say "(expletive deleted) no!" I should per5haps point out that tho I was born and raised an Anglican, it's purely nominal - Anglicanism is, I'm sorry to say, the religion of the nominalists.202.124.73.124 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

Addressing claims, a section at a time

Let us start addressing the claims made by Malke a section at a time, to remove the flags. To keep focus, let us address one section per day, sometimes every other day for larger sections.

Let us start with one of the section for which Malke provided no answers, when asked questions above, namely art. So please list any/all claims to WP:OR or missing citations for the art section so they can be address. After that we will decalre that section "in good health" and proceed to the next section.

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in the Mary in art section

Please list the items here:

1. A reference claimed as trivial by Malke below: The Virgin, Saints and Angels: South American Paintings 1600-1825 from the Thoma Collection is by Suzanne Stratton-Pruitt who is a distinguished art lecturer at Vassar, and Thomas Da Costa Kaufmann who teaches art at Princeton, no less. These two are art experts and know what they are doing and that looks like a good reference to me. I can add a 2nd or 3rd reference there. All that sentence claimed was that the South Americans venerate the Virgin Mary through art. I see no problem with that reference, but will add more to double confirm it. There is absolutely no WP:OR in claiming that the South Americans venerate the Virgin Mary in art. It is the understatemnt of the year in South America, I guess. History2007 (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I said this was trivial: http://do512.com/event/2008/01/29/the-virgin-saints-and-angels-south-american-paintings-1600-1825-from-the-thoma-collection Malke 2010 (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This is what you changed it to when I pointed out what you'd done: [3] You went to amazon.com and found the book.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No and no. It is the same book as in the article reference, namely The Virgin, saints, and angels: South American paintings 1600-1825 by Suzanne L. Stratton-Pruitt. I just added the Amazon link here, nothing more. What you called trivial was an exhibition of the paintings - you clicked wrong. Your link was a local event, the article had a book with Suzanne L. Stratton-Pruitt's name on it. I did not change that in the article. What I added in the article was a 2nd book after that one with a separate date, namely Art and architecture of viceregal Latin America, 1521-1821 by Kelly Donahue-Wallace. You just clicked wrong and you read wrong - but we will let that pass. Please read more carefully in the future, but that is beside the point. That is a good reference. End of discussion on that. History2007 (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

2.

3.

Thanks History2007 (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me understand this: after my posting, you added citations, which is obvious from the edit history, but you are not mentioning that you've done that? Are you trying to give the impression to editors just stopping by that these new citations were there all along? Also, the tags are meant to alert other editors to problems. You seem to have been editing Wikipedia long enough to understand that you don't own this article, therefore, you don't control/direct discussion here. It's a community discussion. That is the purpose of the tags. To draw the attention of other editors to the problems in the article so they can read it through, fix what they can, etc. Tags don't have to be removed immediately. Editors have real life to deal with. They are not on your time schedule. And as well, the citations you've added after the tags were applied, need to be vetted with the edits. And we haven't even begun to list the problems with MoS.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. The fact that I added additional citations is clear from the history. I will be adding more references as we proceed. I encourage you to add references too. I did the same in the Mary (mother of Jesus) article, added references and suggested others should add them too. You said there are too few references, you can add some references too. But I want to know what WP:OR claims exist now for this section. I want to get a list of any remaining problems in this section from you or anyone else. Are there remaining WP:OR claims about this section? Do you now agree that Catholics venerate Mary through art? History2007 (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

But your post does not indicate that you put in citations, nor do you show with diffs exactly what citations you put in. Can you do that now please?Malke 2010 (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

How does that help Wikipedia? I add citations to lots of places, e.g. the Islamic section of the other article. The task at hand is to "improve the article" by adding references not provide edit histories that can be seen on the page. History2007 (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

History2007 is working the way WP is supposed to work. He is actually making fixes to the article, some of which are based on your claims. That is much better then just shooting a shotgun at the article and expecting someone else to fix it. It is pretty clear he is basically asking you to specify YOU (and anyone else that wants to comment), the creator of the tags to identify your EXACT problems. Which is much easier using fact, cite, and dubious tags then entire article tags. You seem to think you OWN the tags. He doesn't have please you for tag removal, he has to fix the problem, but to consensus, not YOUR satisfaction. Marauder40 (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You're being uncivil and should modify your post.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing uncivil in my comments. If you have a problem with it you seem to know the procedures for complaining about editors, use them. Marauder40 (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with History2007 and Marauder40. This is not a court trial where you have to prove that the tags were or were not justified when you put them on. All that's needed here is to improve the article by fixing whatever problems there might be (e.g. lack of citations). Please lose the combative attitude and help us see the weaknesses that you see. Then help us fix them. (NB: I do think the schedule of "one section a day" is unnecessarily arbitrary. Let's spend as long as it takes on each section and then move on.) --Richard S (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Richard, your post is most confusing. I agree I don't have to prove that the tags were justified by seeking out every citation problem, etc. Although I did give many specifics in the threads above. Nor am I being at all combative. I believe the tone and tenor of History2007 is demanding, and Marauder is clearly sarcastic. The tags are here appropriately to alert the reader/editor of problems. It is History2007 and Marauder who are extremely upset by this, which is unnecessary as there is no ownership of articles, and tagging articles is an accepted and expected practice on Wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia, afterall, and reliable sources and neutral POV are the only way to ensure a measure of credibility for the reader.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Richard. The one section a day is a "let us move ahead" goal, and people can still add to the lists provided for each section. But so far, I have seen nothing that misses citations in the art section, in fact every sentence has a reference now. But that list will be there is someone sees a missing citation. But I will keep adding citations to the other sections, so this can be cleaned up during the 21st century. However, I think we must keep the lists organized, to be able to fix things systematically. History2007 (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As you've created this section, can you show us the citations you've added so that we can look at them?Malke 2010 (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The great thing about Wiki is that it gives you a history and you can easily do diffs to see what was added and what wasn't. Timestamps and comparing when things were added to the article and when things were added to the talk page are great also. Marauder40 (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

History2007 erases the section titles in the edit summaries. It is a reasonable request to ask him to give the titles of the books/sources he's using. And afterall, he did open this section, he should be able to respond.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

History2007 can do what he wants, doing the diffs is much better then trying to use the edit summaries. People may put in multiple refs for one edit. The only way to be sure what he has and hasn't put in is using diffs between an early version and the current one. Otherwise if he accidentally misses one, you can't claim conspiracy. If the book title is not included in the ref (or a previous use of the same ref) then the dubious flag can easily be used. Listing the refs he has added is honestly duplication of work that can easily be done by pressing two buttons. Marauder40 (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Marauder, I don't know you, but I am making good faith efforts to give this topic a better presentation to the reader and you seem to be intent on this effort in a very negative way by your tone and words. I've not claimed any conspiracy etc. To date, I've listed specific citations, I've pointed out original research, I've answered all demands by you and History2007. And I've overlooked the patent incivility by you both, and yet when asked to be given citations, neither you nor History2007 have complied. Why is that?Malke 2010 (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

At no point have I been uncivil. As I said before if you think I have, feel free to write me up. But remember that when you point the finger at others expect 3 additional ones to point at you. As for references, History2007 has provided several so I don't need to duplicate his work. I notice you have had several run-ins with lots of long-time editors, sometimes reflection should be made on your own actions to see if they might be the problems. P.S. Can we get back to discussing the article and not personalities?Marauder40 (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)What I may have done before has nothing to do with this article right now, and bringing that up isn't going to make your lack of a rationale for keeping a POV content fork any stronger. And now I believe that since there's been no showing of valid, reliable sources, to address concerns of both original research and lack of valid citations, we can assume the citations recently added are from trivial sources simply appended to the original research.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Such as this one: http://do512.com/event/2008/01/29/the-virgin-saints-and-angels-south-american-paintings-1600-1825-from-the-thoma-collection Malke 2010 (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

And this one, reference #158, has nothing to do with the sentence to which it has been appended. http://books.google.com/books?id=mMZROCWbPtEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=grieving+with+mary:+finding+comfort+and+healing+in+devotion+to+the+mother+of+god&source=bl&ots=CbaspK7_Rw&sig=4dqsGZwM1Fli3ygoeMxxNGlCNyw&hl=en&ei=oO6kTNaqA4m2sAPGu8z9Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false Malke 2010 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Again it is like talking to a wall. Again I will bow out of this discussion until others join in. It isn't worth it. You are to combative to deal with in a collaborative manner. Marauder40 (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't get upset Marauder. All that needs to be done is to improve the article. The talk comes and goes. The reference Malke claimed as trivial was addressed above. Malke clicked on the first link and did not check carefully enough. But do not let that bother you. Less talk/talk/talk, more clean up. History2007 (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said before I don't get upset. It takes a lot to upset me. I am just bowing out of discussing things with her. It just goes round and round in circles and doesn't lead to anything. I am still monitoring and will discuss things with other editors.Marauder40 (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but we received one claim of a "weak reference" and it turned out to be a book by a professor at Princeton. I added a 2nd supporting reference anyway. History2007 (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you give us the title and the edit it supports?Malke 2010 (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read #1 in the "organized" list above. History2007 (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean where you switched the citation after I'd pointed it out? See above.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all this talk/talk/talk effort should go into adding references. There are only 167 references in this article at the moment, so I am sure we need many, many more... wink. But we will add them, one section at a time. I actually learn about unrelated things as I add references. It is fun. History2007 (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at the Baumer book. #118. Can you tell us what that says?Malke 2010 (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's #19: Schmaus, Mariologie, München, 1955, 328. What does that say? It's just one page so a simple quote would be fine. Or just paraphrase it. You can use the original German, if you like.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm especially curious about the number of sources, sometimes three at once for just one sentence of simple content, but yet the wide variation in the scholarship and content of the titles being cited. Especially, as I said, that they are supporting just one sentence.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This citation, or rather dead link,[4] is supposed to support this edit:

"During the month of May, May devotions to the Blessed Virgin Mary take place in many Catholic regions. There is no firm structure as to the content of a May devotion. It includes usually the singing of Marian anthems, readings from scriptures, a sermon, and or presentation by local choirs. The whole rosary is prayed separately and is usually not a part of a Marian devotion, although Hail Mary's are included."[121]Malke 2010 (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I am going to look at this one section at a time, per WP:DNMG (WP: Do not make Gumbo). You can double check what you like yourself. It is a free country. I will only deal with one section at a time, in an organized manner, as I said above. Today I was looking at art per WP:DNMG to keep focus. If you have questions about art, and post them in the "organized section" above, I will answer, else ask someone else about other things please. In the worst case scenario, you can add a few more WP:OR tags or whatever tags have not been used yet at the top of the article. Anyway, enough talk, let us fix. History2007 (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

We can look at all the citations as the entire article is questionable. And why choose the Baumer, a text that is in German, when there are hundreds of scholarly texts (in English) that mention Mary? Also, why is the Marian art exclusive to Catholic views? I've been in Church of England and Church of Ireland churches many times, all seem to use the same Marian images. I don't see any reliable sources in the section that make any such claims.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You can double check them anyway you like. I will proceed one section at a time. Good luck. History2007 (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You started the article, you've done the vast majority of the editing, the arranging, etc. Why can't you answer any questions?

Okay, you want to visit the art section. Let's examine the photo of the statue of Mary. Why is it there? What is so notable about this? This is the caption on the photo:

"Images of Our Lady of San Juan de los Lagos from Mexico are venerated by Catholics as far away as Texas.[154]"

The emphasis on the distance seems to be a nonstarter as Mexico is just across the border from Texas. And perhaps all the Texans doing all this veneration are transplanted Mexicans and Mexican-Americans who want reassuring reminders of home? So she's not really notable, is she? Probably then, we don't need this image?Malke 2010 (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a paragraph from the Art Section:

"The Virgin Mary has been one of the major subjects of Christian Art, Catholic Art and Western Art since the third century and she has been very widely portrayed: from masters such as Michelangelo and Botticelli to humble peasant artists.[158][159]."

I was not aware that there is different Christian art versus Catholic art. Nor do I see that these citations support the suggestion that there is such a distinctive difference. Does this mean that Michaelangelo is a Catholic artist because he painted the frescoes on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, or because he was Catholic?Malke 2010 (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Malke, my suggestion to you:

• Read the articles on Christian Art, Catholic Art and Western Art.

A careful reading should clear up the differences. Then you can come back here to discuss. History2007 (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The article should not rely on Wikilinks. It should have it's own reliable sources.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No. An article on the Virgin Mary does not need to define the term Western Art. The technology of hypertext was invented for that very purpose. History2007 (talk) 10:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

List of remaining WP:OR and missing citations in the Marian art section

To keep things clean, a new list is made available. I am not aware of a single case of a WP:OR, or uncited statement in the Marin art section.

1. As above the The Virgin, Saints and Angels: South American Paintings 1600-1825 from the Thoma Collection claim was based on a misclick/misread - the article was correct.

You still haven't answered any questions from the last section. And it's obvious you won't be offering any straight answers in this section either.

It's apparent you're appending 'sources' that you didn't use when you wrote the text. You've spent the last few days searching out Google books that only give trivial mentions of the topic. You then append them in support of very large claims. Any editor can see that.

Who writes an article without starting with sources? Who would go to all the trouble of looking up all this information, and then not putting in the sources at the time of the writing?

Reading through the article, it becomes apparent there's been no research here, but rather just a gathering of non-Catholic misconceptions synthetically presented. And then along comes a challenge to the credibility, and then the mad dash for the Google books. Any further attempt to get answers from you is simply a waste of an editor's time.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

OK I had to comment on this dribble. It is REAL apparent you don't understand how WP works. Usually someone creates an article (in this case someone OTHER then History2007) and writes it based on their interest. Whether they be an expert in the field or not only that person knows. Then other people come in and either expand on it, clean it up, etc. All along the process there are collabrative requests for new sources, better sources or changes due to numerous reasons. You act as as this page appeared all of a sudden written by History2007. Is he responsable for a lot in the article, yes. He volunteers his time to improve the article. Is he responsible for EVERYTHING, no. The history of the page shows that. Instead of complaining just state what your problem sources or OR is and let him find the appropriate source or make the appropriate changes since you don't seem to want to do the work. Leave the conspiracy theories to yourself. It appears you also don't know anything about refactoring. Moving your comments 2 lines on the talk page is NOT refactoring. These comments do not relate to this list and should not be part of the list. If I had changed your comments or moved them to an unrelated section THAT would be refactoring. I think it is time to bring your mentor into this discussion.Marauder40 (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry Marauder. It is all talk. We will just fix/improve things systematically, and the tags will come off. But I was surprised that Western art did not get a few tags on it when I mentioned it - although there is always time. History2007 (talk) 05:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

2. Two veneration statements were changed by another editor in the new "Marian art" section. One of the references I found explicitily stated what was originaly written so I reverted that one. History2007, my online version of the book for the other reference doesn't have the second reference. Can you verify that one please? I think this still shows the editors misunderstanding of the fact that Catholics do venerate art AND they venerate the Saint via the art, and that venerate does not equal worship. Marauder40 (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

3.

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in the Marian shrines section

I have now checked/cleaned up the Marian shrines section. Tomorrow, I will clean up another section. Please list items that you think are WP:OR or uncited here. But please read the relevant literature carefully, rather than asking me for a personal tutorial on them - unless you intend to send me a generous wire transfer. Thank you. Please list items here. :

1.

2.

3.

Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

venerate images

The citations are being misread. They do not say that Catholics are to venerate images. The understanding is that the image is all right so long as it's understood that it is the person being venerated, not the image. This is POV and original research, which is an example of why the tags need to be here. Please don't edit war over this. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The citations are not being misread. The exact quote from the citation is "This tradition of honoring Mary by venerating images of her goes back to 3rd century images found in the catacombs." The problem is your understanding of veneration. Can you tell me why section of the Mass on Good Friday is called "Veneration of the Cross" if we do not venerate items? How about this meditation by Benedict XVI on the Veneration of the Holy Shroud? http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2010/may/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20100502_meditazione-torino_en.html It is very clear you do not understand how the word venerate is used within the Catholic church. Venerate does not equal worship. Also how about reading this, it specifically talks about the Veneration of Holy Images. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090506_en.htmlMarauder40 (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You are reading sources selectively to support a synthesis that it is images/objects that are being venerated. They are not. It is okay to have the image so long as it is very clear that it is the person that is being venerated and not the object or image. That must always be made clear and this article, which is entirely about veneration of Mary, suggests that Catholics believe Mary is beyond being a sanctified human and is equal with Christ, who is divine. Catholics believe no such thing. That is a belief that non-Catholics hold about the Catholic view of Mary.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to make edits that make it clear that images are not to be venerated as well as removing the duplication of other articles. This is why I've tagged the article, so that readers/editors will begin to participate. It might be a good idea if you and History2007 take an editing break to allow other editors the chance to make improvements.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is you are entirely wrong in your understanding of this. I can't believe that articles by two Popes can't clear it up for you. Let me use a sentence that a sixth grade Catechism class understands. "Catholics honor Mary and the Saints through prayer and veneration of art and relics. They do not worship Mary and the Saints they honor them." No where in the article does it say that Mary is divine. We can not help the fact that you are misreading the article. You can suggest what we want, we don't have to take your suggestion. Since you don't seem to read links that people provide, let me quote Pope B XVI "In these texts it is possible to trace the first important theological attempts to legitimise the veneration of sacred images, relating them to the mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God in the womb of the Virgin Mary." ... "Either we must suppress the sacred nature of all these things, or we must concede to the tradition of the Church the veneration of the images of God and that of the friends of God who are sanctified by the name they bear, and for this reason are possessed by the grace of the Holy Spirit. Do not, therefore, offend matter: it is not contemptible, because nothing that God has made is contemptible" (cf. Contra imaginum calumniatores, I, 16, ed. Kotter, pp. 89-90). We see that as a result of the Incarnation, matter is seen to have become divine, is seen as the habitation of God." You clearly do not understand what venerate means. Marauder40 (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The popes are concerned with the laity cult of Mary. They don't want lay practices and devotions to Mary to draw attention from Christ and the Holy Trinity. You are selectively reading, out of context, rather than understanding what is meant. The works of art do not become divine. Nor do relics, crucifixes, statues, medals, scapulars, crosses, etc. Only the person is venerated, not the image.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have read the entire document of each of the links I have sent you (and many more documents.) Apparently you haven't. The last link is short, read the entire thing. Nowhere does it say ANYTHING becomes divine. You still do not understand what venerate means. I do not know how to explain this any clearer. Veneration does not equal worship. You are not treating the object as divine by venerating it. You have yet to provide a single link that says objects are not supposed to be venerated. I have provided several including from the current Pope that say otherwise. Marauder40 (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Catholics venerate the person, not the image. The article needs to make that plain and state it in plain English.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The plain English is Catholics venerate images, icons, Saints, Mary, etc. They only worship the Trinity. If you aren't going to listen to councils and Popes your not going to listen to me, so again I am backing out of discussing things with you until others start discussing. One last quote before I move on:

2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it."70 The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone: Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.

This clearly shows the difference between veneration and worship and says that worship is not allowed but verneration of images and the person through the image is allowed. Venerating the image, venerates the person. But I am sure the Catechism will be ignored to.Marauder40 (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Statues are simply pieces of baked clay in Catholic practice - a mere reminder of the saint (Mary, in this case). There is no "worship" involved. Catholics venerate the saints, per the "communion of saints" in the Christian Nicene Creed. If anything else is presented in the article, it is falsely presenting it, though that can be explained as a frequent false presentation (like urban myths are explained in other articles).

Canon Law 1186 through 1190 explains this.

The Middle East went through at least one unpleasant period of iconoclasm in the early years and now is going through another. The Taliban destroyed an age-old carving of Buddha in Afghanistan. I guess it has now spread to the West as well. Student7 (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Student7 I am not sure what you mean by "If anything else is presented in the article, it is falsely presenting it" Can you give a specific example? Thanks. Just as a clarification this discussion isn't over whether Catholic worship Mary, icons, images, etc. It is over whether the venerate them. Marauder40 (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point, Student7. You might want to take a look at the merge discussion for this article here:[5] and here:[6].Malke 2010 (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Veneration of images

Malke,

Marauder and myself have stated a few times on this page that "Catholics venerate icons", and therethrough the person. But you changed the text in the artistic section to remove that. That text was there to inform the reader of the very fact. So I will go out of my way to explain it in detail, again, then correct it and explain it further in the article.

According to Catholic doctrine emphasized since the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, "images can be venerated", and the veneration is assumed to be to the person, e.g. see the: Pope John Paul II, General Audience, 1997:

To encourage the proper use of sacred images, the Council of Nicaea recalls that "the honour paid to the image is really paid to the person it represents, and those who venerate the image are venerating the reality of the person it represents" (DS 601).

That is as clear as it can get really. The Vatican thus continues to use the language that icons are venerated. E.g. see the 1999 Homily of Pope John Paul II where he says that "people gathered to venerate the image":

Over the last hundred years the people of Wadowice expressed this in a special way when they gathered to venerate the image of Our Lady of Perpetual Help

In 2008 Pope Benedict XVI also stated that "Cardinal Kasper will venerate the icon" see: 2008 letter of Pope Benedict XVI, Vatican website:

During his time in Russia, Cardinal Kasper will visit Kazan to venerate the icon of the Mother of God....

Also see the 2008 Address of Pope Benedict XVI, Vatican website in which he said that "the people of Rome venerate icons" of Mary:

In Rome this is the Marian temple par excellence, in which the people of the City venerate the icon of Mary ...

And Msgr Sandri also sated that "the Russians venerate the icon", see: Lauds of Msgr Sandri, Vatican website:

Icon of the Mother of God of Kazan. The Icon, venerated down the centuries by the Russian People and kept for years in the Papal Apartments, is now on the point of returning, so to speak, home as a gift of the Holy Father to His Holiness Alexei II...

Note that in all 3 cases, the Vatican website uses the pattern: "Person A venerates icon B". So that is language used by the Vatican.

Moreover, Vatican documents use the language that the "relics of saints are venerated", e.g. see the 1999 Motu Proprio of pope John Paul II:

In her desire to venerate the relics of saints, she went on pilgrimage to many places in Italy.

Moreover, in 2009 Benedict XVI personally went to the Choir Chapel, "to venerate the relic of the Curé of Ars", see the 2009 Homily of Benedict XVI:

A few moments ago, in the Choir Chapel, I was able to venerate the relic of the saintly Curé of Ars...

So the pope seems to state that "icons are venerated" and he venerates relics himself. In case he is wrong, I suggest that as Wikipedians we all get together and go and physically place several WP:NPOV and WP:OR tags on the front door of the Papal Apartments to set the pope straight so he stops saying those kinds of things. And I promise to buy everyone a nice coffee in Campo de' Fiori after the Swiss Guards have chased us outside the boundaries of Vatican City. That should be a fun trip. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A relic is different. If the relic is a bone fragment, it is a first class relic, and then that can be venerated but only if the person has achieved sainthood. First class relics are not allowed until the person has achieved sainthood for that very reason. A second or third class relic is never venerated, such as a piece of cloth touched to a robe the saint wore, etc., that is a second or third class relic.

So Benedict venerating a relic in that instance is different. And the entire article is still loaded with weasle words and phrases, trivial citations that don't support claims, etc. It would be better if you stopped adding all these 'citations' and allow other editors a chance to go over the article and make improvements and add reliable sources without you and Maraurder reverting them.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So Benedict XVI may be safe on the relic front, in your view. Now is Cardinal Kasper in trouble in your view because he went to Kazan to "venerate the icon of the Mother of God"? So did Cardinal Kasper do the right thing to "venerate the icon" or does he need re-education, in your view? History2007 (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So far Malke 2010, the only revert has been over changes you made to an item that was sourced and your change said something different from the source. As you have been saying all along, it needs to reflect the source. The same thing applies to what you are adding. If the source says items are venerated, it better say it in the article. So far you are the only editor that has been reverted (other then vandalism) you make it sound like throngs of editors have been editing and the two of us have been reverting everything they have been putting up. I find it interesting that you compain about issues but you don't want us to fix any issues. Marauder40 (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Council of Trent:

• "Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be had and retained particularly in temples, and that due honour and veneration are to be given them; not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshipped; or that anything is to be asked of them; or, that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old done by the Gentiles who placed [Page 235] their hope in idols; but because the honour which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which those images represent; in such wise that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ; and we venerate the saints, whose similitude they bear: as, by the decrees of Councils, and especially of the second Synod of Nicaea, has been defined against the opponents of images.
• Cardinal Kasper was venerating Mary, just as the Holy Father was venerating the saint.

Malke 2010 (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that you quote Trent, considering it says "due honor and veneration are to be given them;" If you closely read the sentence it is saying that it is the images that are supposed to be venerate. That is exactly what we are saying. Catholics vernerate images, relics, art, statues, icons, etc. They do not worship them they venerate them. Through the veneration of the thing they are venerating the Saint. Please read the numerous links we are giving you to know the difference. We venerate the Saint via venerating the image, icon, relic, etc. I still haven't heard any comments on the quote from the Catechism that specifically talks about Veneration of Images. Marauder40 (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you are not mentioning in the article the disclaimer about the images:

that due honour and veneration are to be given them; not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshipped; or that anything is to be asked of them; or, that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old done by the Gentiles who placed [Page 235]

When you ignore that, you are crafting original research, no matter how many Google books you append. The article is soaking in the synthesis that Catholics are venerating images without explaining that it is the person in the image being venerated and not any 'divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them. . .or that anything is to be asked of them; or that trust is to be reposed in images. . . You're assertions and truncated sentences with their Google books appended make it sound like Catholics are venerating the image, and not the person. The art, the paper, the plaster of the statue.

This is the mistaken view of non-Catholics about Catholic veneration of Mary and the saints. This is what makes the article nothing more than POV content fork. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You still aren't reading the entire thing as it is written. Catholics venerate Saints, Icons, art, etc. Through the veneration of those things they are venerating the Saint. They are not worshiping the Icons, Saint etc. The simplist explanation is the one in the Catechism where it specifically states what I have been talking about all along. You are reading your own particular POV into what Trent is saying. It specifically states that the item is venerated. The disclaimer is basically saying that the item is not worshiped. The key here is understanding the difference. But since the official doctrine of the Church, the Pope and others can't make it clear to you, ... Marauder40 (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "you are crafting original research, no matter how many Google books you append", is there a WP:Too many reliable book references tag that can be added to the top of this article now? In Wikipedia, references are essential. And the accusations of lack of references on this issue are totally unjustified, given that Anglican Marian theology has just one single reference and no tags. Yes, one reference and no tags. This article is now said to have too many references. I think we just have to talk to the pope. There is no other way. And I am still offering to buy coffee for everyone afterwards. History2007 (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any remaining doubt here? The language might be expanded, for example to quote the Trentine formulation of the traditional doctrine: "due honour and veneration are to be given them; not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshipped; or that anything is to be asked of them; or, that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old done by the Gentiles who placed [Page 235]" their hope in idols; "but because the honour which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which those images represent" but the use of the term "veneration" as directed at the image itself is clearly correct. I have adjusted some of the art history links & text; I'm actually dubious that images of Mary should be described as a "major subject" of Christian art since either "the 3rd century" (before) or "Early Christian art" (I changed it to). Images of her that are anything like iconic are in fact very rare indeed before the First Council of Ephesus in 431, which declared the "Theotokos" doctrine. The earliest catacomb painting may be 3rd century, but it has few surviving successors until after 431, when the flood-gates indeed open. The claims should probably be further adjusted, but has two refs, neither by anyone I've ever heard of. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point. The veneration is to the person the image represents. The "due honour and veneration are to be given them; not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshipped; or that anything is to be asked of them; or, that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old done by the Gentiles who placed [Page 235]" their hope in idols; "but because the honour which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which those images represent"

No mention of that is anywhere in the article. And the references being appended currently, are trivial and only confuse the reader, as they are the result of a Google books search, looking for any book that gives any mention and sometimes no mention. They're just appended here. It will take months to go through all of them. The article is all about veneration without the clear explanation and understanding that the image itself has no power, that it only represents the person being venerated. It's a sleight of hand being done on the article.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you read it right but Johnbod is agreeing with our viewpoint "but the use of the term "veneration" as directed at the image itself is clearly correct." The only thing he wants is just to include the entire statement from Trent as a clarification, which I believe History2007 has already done if not I think he should (or I as the other grunt will.) Interesting if you agree to put the entire statement from Trent in considering at the BEGINNING of this discussion you said "Using the Council of Trent from December 1543 is relevant how? You may recall something called Vatican I followed by Vatican II 1962. 419 years difference means that a few things changed." when I brought up Trent in the first place. Marauder40 (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You brought it up in a different context, and did not address what it actually says.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I am. The subject of "them" is clearly the images not the person on them. "Veneration" is, as they say of adminship, "no big deal", compared to worship anyway, though I know many today can't tell the difference. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the statement makes it plain that it is all right to use the image so long as the person using it understands that they are really venerating the person, not the paper, canvass, or plaster. It is what the physical image represents. In this way, Catholics are not involving themselves in any form of idolatry. This needs to be made plain. That is not clear anywhere in the article, therefore a non-Catholic is given over to understand that Catholics make no distinction. That is a synthesis that the Council clearly wanted to avoid.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Question directed specifically at History2007 and Johnbod. Which of the three options sound better to you? 1) The summary of the statement in "Veneration through Marian art" that is currently in the article by Pope John Paul II. Much shorter then the entire Trent version. 2) The also modern explanation from the Catechism listed above in relationship to the 2nd commandment and the veneration of images. 3) The entire Trent formula. The big problem with the Trent version is that I can see a complaint that it is a primary source. Marauder40 (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Is 2) the "2132" above? I think we need more than 1). I don't think the primary source thing should be an issue myself, or it can be backed up with secondary ones in the note maybe. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes the #2 option was "2132" listed above, directly from the Catechism. I will let History2007 weight in with his opinion. Thanks. Marauder40 (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The JP II article needs a clarification. #2 above makes things very clear what is intended and can easily be found in secondary sources that discuss the very issue, something the article does not currently have.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Are we still talking about this? This has gone on and on. Look guys, just take a look at the history of what Johnbod has written, then let him edit it and be done with it. He is as close to an "expert" on religious art or artistic religion as Wikipedia has. Let us just let him edit that section and leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've edited the pure art history (maybe more later) & don't have special expertise on the doctrine as such - it's not usually a "difficult" issue. I don't really think there is an argument here, & expansion & clarification is the way forward. There are plenty of ways of doing this; I'm sure I'll be happy with what Marauder chooses. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I just changed the article. What do you think? Marauder40 (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that's fine - thanks. I presume we are finished here. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I sure hope so. Thanks. Marauder40 (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from the WikiProject Catholicism discussion

(In order not to lose them, the following remarks on this topic were moved from the Project discussion page)

As we both suggested there, the pope might be an authority on that topic, given that he has used the phrase "venerate icons" a few times - but who are we to decide if he is really "an expert". In Wikipedia, all are equal, after all. I also suggested that in case the opinion of the pope is WP:OR we should arrange a trip for a few Wikipedians to put a few WP:OR or WP:NPOV flags on the front door of the Papal Apartments. And I am hereby offering to buy everyone a nice coffee in Campo de' Fiori afterwards. But lunch is not offered. Just coffee. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Funny History2007. I wanted to say something like that but I wanted to keep it neutral so I didn't get accused of something else.Marauder40 (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

A general comment on the current discussion between Malke 2010 and History2007

I have been asked by Moonriddengirl to provide input into the current discussion going on between Malke 2010 and History2007. I cannot claim expertise in this topic or even in Catholicism or Christianity. However, I think I know something and I am often able to step back and strike an NPOV stance where some editors get bogged down in their own particular POV.

I will provide a general comment on the various issues that have been discussed above. I hope it will help. If not, at least it will give you a new target to aim your arrows at.

First, please try to be more collegial and collaborative. It makes the Wikipedia experience more enjoyable and more productive.

Second, despite Malke 2010's assertions to the contrary, I really think it is widely accepted that Catholics and Orthodox have a very different view of the role of saints in the practice of one's faith than the Protestants do. (In this regard, I believe the Anglicans conform more to the Catholic/Orthodox position than the Protestant position.)

In brief, Protestants believe that one should pray only to God while Catholics believe that one can pray to a saint and ask him/her to intercede for you in getting your prayer heard and answered. However, Catholic believe that one does NOT worship a saint and a saint is NOT a god or a demi-god. A Catholic asks a saint to intercede for him the same way that he might ask a Congressional aide to speak to the Congressman about his petition. The saint might agree to intercede for the Catholic but it is God who answers the prayer.

It is true that some Protestants charge Catholics with worshiping the Blessed Virgin Mary and it is probably true that some Catholics carry the veneration of saints too far and that this excessive focus distracts from the centrality of Jesus and the Trinity to the Catholic faith. It is perhaps for this reason that some Popes have felt it necessary to clarify the proper distinction for the faithful.

Since there is such a profound and widespread misconception of the role of the BVM among non-Catholics, I believe that this article should at least touch on the above topics although only briefly since the article is about the BVM and not about the more general topic of the veneration of saints.

I have also read somewhere that the veneration of the BVM (sometimes called Marianism or Mariology) rises and ebbs in cycles. That is, the popularity of the practice has waxed and waned over the centuries and thus the history of the practice is a notable encyclopedic topic. I note that the most famous apparitions of the BVM (Lourdes, Guadalupe, Fatima, Medjugorje) happened in the last two centuries. Is this because apparitions are a relatively new phenomenon or because the faithful only focus on recent apparitions? I'd be very interested to know if such speculations are discussed by reliable sources.

In summary, while this article could be merged with Mary (mother of Jesus), I think that such a merger would lead to an unwieldy article and that it is useful to have a separate article about the Catholic view of Mary's role in the life of the faithful.

As for the question of "veneration of images", I'm a bit befuddled by the controversy on this Talk Page. It should be clear to everyone except some misinformed Protestants that Catholics do not consider the Virgin Mary divine although certain concepts such as "co-redemptrix" would certainly seem heretical to the Protestant sensibility.

It should also be clear that Catholics do not consider images and statues of saints to be divine or worthy of worship. Such a belief would be tantamount to idolatry. Now, I grant you that some Catholics may take the veneration of images, statues and relics too far and that their practice might border on idolatry but that is their error, not the error of the Church. I think that this article does an inadequate job of making these points.

I think there might also be some value in discussing the role of icons in the Eastern Church. Once again, this article is about the Catholic Church, not the Orthodox Church. However, since there was more cross-fertilization between the East and West in the first millenium, much of the Catholic belief regarding the role of saints and the veneration of images/icons is shared with the East. It might be useful for the reader to understand Catholic beliefs and practices in contrast to Eastern beliefs and practices which are not irreconcilably different but nonetheless decidedly distinct from the Catholic beliefs and practices.

Hope this helps. If I have got anything wrong, please feel free to educate me as to where I have gone off the rails.

--Richard S (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Richard, I've commented below with a suggestion, but I wanted to add that I'm confused by this as I don't recall saying any of this. Perhaps you're speaking of another editor at another time? You said:

"Second, despite Malke 2010's assertions to the contrary, I really think it is widely accepted that Catholics and Orthodox have a very different view of the role of saints in the practice of one's faith than the Protestants do. (In this regard, I believe the Anglicans conform more to the Catholic/Orthodox position than the Protestant position.)"

I've made no such assertions about Orthodox/Catholics/Protestants. My concerns have been documented on the page but none contain any of the above. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Richard. Your comments are appreciated.

Now, some specific points:

• The image discussion is by and large much ado about nothing. As I said above, I think that section should just be left in the hands of Johnbod, who knows the topic better than most people in Wikipedia, or elsewhere. So let that discussion end.

• The discussions are not just "History and Malke", Marauder has been involved right from the start. On the other page's merge proposal page, there are also other editors. It is clear that there the over attitude to the merge proposal is one of opposition by almost all editors. However, the same screenplay also exists on Catholic devotions and elsewhere, and I will address those issues separately on those pages.

• I have explained the issues regarding Orthodox images on the other talk page. It is again a starightforward situation, supported by many references. Please see that section.

• I have since cleaned up almost all missing citations flags, etc. on that page and clarified some changes, such as this one. I should finish checking every section of that article today.

I think by and large, by Wikipedia general standards, the Mary (mother of Jesus) article is extremely well referenced now, in that every paragraph has multiple supporting sources. This article will also probably be one of the best referenced articles in Wikipedia by the time I am done checking every paragraph. Wait a few days for this, but the other one is almost done. That is in contrast to Anglican Marian theology, Islamic views on Mary etc. which have very few references and no tags.

Please also take a look at the Mary (mother of Jesus), to see the situation there. The Orthodox vs Catholic differences are explained there, including the fact that the Orthodox only use 2 dimensional items.

I think it is a good idea not to talk for ever about minor issues such as this image debate, so we can move on and check all items. I will finish checking all references in this article soon. Your comments will be appreciated in all relevant places. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Richard. No arrows from me, at least not yet ;) Marauder40 (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the comments, Richard.

I agree with History2007 that the discussion is not just between him and myself. It might be a good idea to change the section title to what is being discussed for the benefit of other editors arriving here. As regards the content dispute, I propose this:

• That History2007 and Marauder allow other editors to edit here, namely myself, because I do have a lot of reliably sourced material that would help clarify the BVM, veneration, Catholic doctrine.
• The article title be changed to simply Blessed Virgin Mary and sections opened up to other religious views, as there are other religions that call Mary the BVM, not just Catholics. Just by deleting the section about the saints and other redundancies should open up plenty of space.
• This would eliminate the POV content fork.

I hope a discussion can be taken that will resolve all concerns. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting comments. First off History2007 and I have not stopped anyone from editing the page. I personally have only reverted an edit that didn't match it source and only twice tried to remove two article tags that I felt weren't properly explained, but I have since left in the article. How is that stopping anyone? 2nd item totally ignores previous votes on the merging of Blessed Virgin Mary page and the Mary mother of God page and the current votes in progress on merging Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) page and Mary Mother of God page. This honestly sounds like one user trying to win and get their way, no matter what concensus says.Marauder40 (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with having information on other faith positions in this article. The main "Mary" article (which should be renamed "Virgin Mary") is for a multi-faith approach. Catholic practice needs to be described in detail in a Wikipedia article, since it is very notable. Hence this article. Although I am open to a change of name. Xandar 23:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A single article about Mary with other views would seem best. However, a new article on Catholic views of Mary, in the same vein as Protestant views on Mary, etc., would seem appropriate. The problem with this article is that it is entirely about veneration. It's also filled with redundancy from other articles and much of it could be eliminated.

It might be better titled, "Catholic veneration of Mary," but even at that, it is continuing to not make it clear what is meant by veneration, which is what the Council of Trent disclaimer makes clear. See thread above.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be non-partial. Catholics are not the only ones that believe Mary is blessed or a virgin, and it seems that having an article titled such gives dominion over that title to the Catholics. The article should be more aptly titled with a description like "Catholic views on Mary" or "Catholic views on the Blessed Virgin Mary" or whatever might be decided. Personally, I think the Mary (mother of Jesus) article should be renamed to simply Mary, and the disambiguation there be moved to Mary (disambiguation). [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that you mention that because I saw that on a talk page not long ago, about just calling it Mary. I think it's fairly universal who Mary is. The Blessed bit is something that can be mentioned in the body of the article. I've started Catholic views on Mary.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

References to Baumer

A comment was made about references to Baumer. I did not add Baumer references here, another editor did. I did not object to them, since the text that accompanied them seemed correct and consistent, and in good faith one can not object to it - English Wikipedia does allow German references. Now, as I was double checking the references as part of this brouhaha, I noticed that some of the structure of some of the material seemed strangely familiar and then realized that this article, as well as other Mariological text have a very close similarity of structure to a good deal of the Mariology section in the Encyclopedia of Christianity, although the words are different. The references to saints and popes etc. all seem to follow the same pattern. It turns out that the Mariology entry in the Encyclopedia of Christianity is also drawing on Baumer, and is acknowledged therein as such.

After further searches and checking, the Baumer references here seem all correct, and we can not object to them in good faith. The same applies to the book of Schmaus on Mariology. However, I will add the Encyclopedia of Christianity, and other references as necessary as a secondary supporting citations as I check each paragraph. In general, the references seem ok, but I have added double references just to be sure. History2007 (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

References to Footnotes

On the topic of doing actual work on the page, I have changed several references to footnotes. Just in case someone thinks that in previous version footnotes were hid as references, the footnote feature is a pretty new feature in WP. It didn't exist when this page was created. Previously footnotes were either done manually or were part of the references. History2007 I just did the creation I figured that I would let you decide whether the footnote should be moved back to a ref (or a ref found that said same thing) or not before cleaning up capitalization, punctuation, etc.Marauder40 (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Just added direct links to a few bible verses. May need to change which Bible translation is used (i.e. maiden, hand-servent, maid-servent, hand-maid, etc.) I also noticed that a Catholic Bible isn't one of the options for Bible gateway. We probably need to figure out which of the available ones is the best option. Marauder40 (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The New American Standard Bible is not a Catholic bible. For an article that purports to be about the Catholic view, a non-Catholic bible doesn't seem appropriate.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

How about re-reading what I wrote immediatly above this post? Marauder40 (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I did read your post earlier. Online bible sources are relatively easy to locate. New Revised Standard's Catholic version is here: http://bible.oremus.org/ .Malke 2010 (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think which Bible version is used does not amount to WP:OR anyway. They can get changed as we progress. History2007 (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's POV pushing.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, no worries. We will replace them. No worries. History2007 (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If Malke has a problem with the Bible version,instead of complaining about it, why not take a look at the template, see which version are available for the template and find out which one is best for the translation? The template supports different Bible translations. My bet is that if you DON'T use the template and use something else then when it comes up for review people will charge POV pushing. The template allows for quick switching between Bible versions. If you have a problem with the template not supporting a Catholic version you should take it up with the template manufacturers. My bet is that of the supported versions for each translation you can find one that is CLOSE to what is needed. Except for the first ref which sort of requires it to specifically say handmaid as opposed to servant, etc. , the rest are just there to support that an Angel appeared to Mary and things like that any translation supports. Like History2007 said its not that big of deal Marauder40 (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry Marauder, but I have to disagree. Upper management generates tags. Peasants like me fix things. That is how it works. History2007 (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in the Marian Feasts section

I have now checked/cleaned up the Marian feasts section. Please list items that you think are WP:OR, NPOV or uncited. I do not see any. Please only deal with this section here:

You may have 'checked' but other editors have not. This might be a good time to take a break from editing this article to allow other editors to search for reliable sources and add/delete material as necessary.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

1.

2.

3.

Tomorrow, I will fix another section. History2007 (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in the Marian titles section

I have now checked/cleaned up the Marian titles section. Please list items that you think are WP:OR, NPOV or uncited. I do not see any. Please only deal with this section here:

1.

2.

3.

Tomorrow, I will fix another section. History2007 (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in Marian prayers, poems and hymns

I have now checked/cleaned up the Marian prayers section. Please list items that you think are WP:OR, NPOV or uncited. I do not see any. Please only deal with this section here:

1.

2.

3.

Tomorrow, I will fix another section. History2007 (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in Mary's role in redemption section

I have now checked/cleaned up the Mary's role in redemption section. Please list items that you think are WP:OR, NPOV or uncited. I do not see any. Please only deal with this section here:

1.

2.

3.

Tomorrow, I will fix another section. History2007 (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in Mary's role in redemption section

I have now checked/cleaned up the Mary's protection and intercession section. Please list items that you think are WP:OR, NPOV or uncited. I do not see any. Please only deal with this section here:

1.

2.

3.

Tomorrow, I will fix another section. History2007 (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in Catholic Saints and the Blessed Virgin Mary section

I have now checked/cleaned up theCatholic Saints and the Blessed Virgin Mary section. Please list items that you think are WP:OR, NPOV or uncited. I do not see any. Please only deal with this section here:

1.

2.

3.

Tomorrow, I will fix another section. History2007 (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in the Papal teachings on the Blessed Virgin Mary section

I have now checked/cleaned up the Catholic Saints and the apal teachings on the Blessed Virgin Mary section. Please list items that you think are WP:OR, NPOV or uncited. I do not see any. Please only deal with this section here:

1.

2.

3.

Tomorrow, I will fix another section. History2007 (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in the music and societies sections

I have now checked/cleaned up the two sections on music and societies. Please list items that you think are WP:OR, NPOV or uncited. I do not see any. Please only deal with these 2 sections here:

1.

2.

3.

Tomorrow, I will fix another section. History2007 (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in the apparitions and devotions sections

I have now checked/cleaned up the apparitions and devotions sections. Please list items that you think are WP:OR, NPOV or uncited. I do not see any. Please only deal with these 2 sections here:

1.

2.

3.

Tomorrow, I will fix another section. History2007 (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in the From veneration to theology section

I have now checked/cleaned up the From veneration to theology section. Please list items that you think are WP:OR, NPOV or uncited. I do not see any. Please only deal with this section here:

1.

2.

3.

Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in the From Christ to Mary section

I have now checked/cleaned up the From Christ to Mary section. Please list items that you think are WP:OR, NPOV or uncited. I do not see any. Please only deal with this section here:

1.

2.

3.

Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

House of the BVM

Doesn't this subsection seem a little tacked-on? It's part of a section on shrines and pilgrimages, but given the huge number of shrines, can we really justify having this one singled out? Better I think to hive it off as a separate article with a note here under the see also section. PiCo (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea actually. I will do it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Every paragraph in every section of this article has now been reference checked

I have now referenced checked every single paragraph in every single section of this article. There were very, very few items that had questionable references, e.g. there was a statement referenced to Baumer that: "The house of St. Ambrose in Rome is said to have been first female convent Sant'Ambrogio della Massima" I could not find an exact confirmation of this, so I commented it out. However, I built a new page for Sant'Ambrogio della Massima which interestingly enough according to Italian Wikipedia was founded in 353 as Sanctae Mariae de Maxima. So Italian Wikipedia states that it was a Marian establishment at the time of St. Ambrose, but it does not say that it was the very first convent. My guess was that this was not a key issue for the article, although historically speaking it would have been interesting to know where the very first convent may have been. I may find a reference for it yet later, but for now, it is commented out.

In any case, although I may have missed one or two things, this article has been fully checked, and with over 200 reference points it is far, far better referenced than many other Wikipedia articles. The multi-colored display of tags atop this article is no longer justified. History2007 (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

With no challenges after two weeks, it is clearly time to remove that article tag. Xandar 22:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact, given that there have been no factual issues regarding any of the other flags, all flags need to be removed in 2 or 3 days anyway. History2007 (talk)

Name of this article

Comments have been made about the name of this article. Personally, I do not like parentheses in article names so I would be in favor of removing the parentheses. Possible names, plus comments are as follows. Please provide suggestions, Thanks.

• Roman Catholic views on Mary
• Roman Catholic views on the Virgin Mary
• Roman Catholic views on the Blessed Virgin Mary

I think a look at Mary (given name) suggests that Mary by itself is not universally understood to be the Virgin Mary. Indeed, a search on Mary and Catholic quickly produces results about Mary Magdalene as well, not to mention Mary, Queen of Scots and others at times. So it is not a universally understood issue. But there was a comment that Blessed Virgin Mary may get objected to on various grounds, so I would suggest "Roman Catholic views on the Virgin Mary" which uniquely identified the Virgin Mary, and avoids the Blessed in the title, so we will not get objections on that front. The article name is not, however, a crucial issue for Wikipedia, since all these titles will redirect anyway. Comments will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

An editor has created the following page Catholic views on Mary. I personally think the creation of this page flies in the face of development by concensus. Especially when that is one of the proposed names for renaming this page. It would be one thing to create the page in user space another to create it in active article space. It appears to be that editors attempt to create a page in their own image. I would like to propose someone nominate it for deletion, but due to my history with said editor I think it would be better for someone else to do that.Marauder40 (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

As stated on Talk:Catholic views on Mary, I think Malke's creation of that page was a clear breach of WP:POINT. Who knows what will happen next, but will there be a merge flag to merge this article with Catholic views on Mary later? Your guess is as good a mine. History2007 (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is already created, Catholic views on Mary. Please merge it there. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That was why I asked for a guess above. First, carry tuck loads of existing text to a new article in a 2 hours (no new info), then a suggestion for a merge flag. A clear case of WP:POINT once the initial merge suggestion was failing. History2007 (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Xanderliptak. It's time this article was merged into Catholic views on Mary per discussion.Malke 2010 (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Two editors do not make for consensus, especially when the developing consensus was to RENAME the Blessed Virgin Mary page, not start from scratch by cutting pasting and making minor changes from other article. As History2007 pointed out your creation of that page goes against WP:POINT and does not promote working within consensus to improve articles.Marauder40 (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you give an exact example of that?Malke 2010 (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

At least four users have talked about renaming on the Mary Mother of Jesus page. Different proposals have been put up for the name. One of the proposed names was the name you picked. Of course since this discussion is spread over two pages, it makes for confusing viewing especially to people that are new to this. This still looks like someone out to win instead of people working together to develop an good article by consensus.Marauder40 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

In any case that hurriedly created Malke article has no real content to speak of, so no need to make a big deal really. It is a strawman article. History2007 (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If the "Catholic Views of Mary" article has been created in an attempt to eliminate this article or make major changes to it, then that is abuse of process. This article has been built up over a long period and is useful and comprehensive. I don't wish to see major hurried changes. As far as renaming THIS article goes, I would prefer something like:

"Mary in Catholicism", or "Virgin Mary in Catholicism", because it covers devotional practices as well as "views". Xandar 22:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Nobody is abusing any process. This article is a POV content fork (about veneration) and the discussion on Mary (mother of Jesus) lead to the creation of the Catholic views of Mary so that this article could be named that. That is all that has happened. This article here is merely a hodge-podge of sections all discussing veneration. It needs improvement which can be had by allowing other editors in to edit.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I would deny that this article is a POV content fork from the main Mary article - any more than "Nuclear Physics" is a POV content fork from "Physics". The article performs a necessary function in providing specific information on Catholic views and devotional practice with respect to Mary. This information is notable and useful to readers, but is too detailed to appear in the "ecumenical" Mary article. Xandar 23:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Consecration to Mary?

There is no such thing as the practice of "consecration to Mary." This is entirely original research. This article is getting worse every day. We don't line up on a special day to declare ourselves 'consecrated to Mary,' there is no such thing in the Catechism of the Church, it is not a rite of passage in the Church, we don't worship Mary, we don't consecrate anything to her, etc. Tag added.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? Try thius chapter. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that isn't what is needed for a reliable source. Where in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is there a practice whereby we all consecrate ourselves to Mary? Where in the Sacraments of the Church is this part of our practice? Can a lay person consecrate anything? Who consecrates the Host at Mass? Where in the Mass is there is 'consecration to Mary?'Malke 2010 (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

These are straw men. The section does not say any of these things. Johnbod (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Mary is not sacred, not divine.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This again shows how much this person needs to learn about Mariology. Consecration to Mary is and has been something that has been around for awhile.[7] [8][9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] again it is a practice that some within the Church does and has been accepted by the Church, but it isn't required and the article does not say it is required.Marauder40 (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, as you pointed out Marauder, The Pope performed Marian consecrations on May 12, 2010. And the Vatican Press Office, in their the official Raccolta prayer book, publish an act of consecration to Mary on page 280. And the act is indulgenced. So the Vatican clearly believes that there are Marian consecrations. History2007 (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we sure Malke is even a catholic? all their statements are very contradictory to our beliefs... consecration to Mary has been practiced for a long time.. what about the apparition declaring that Russia needed to be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There have been a number of other "obviously incorrect" statements about this topic on this page, such as "there is no veneration of Mary in art", etc. Eventually they are usually settled when several editors point out the errors after much discussion. These discussions have taken up time that in my view could have gone into more productive work. There are many "almost unreferenced articles" in Wikipedia that could have been helped with the energy that went into those discussions. History2007 (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

text corrected

Unless there's a special right to ownership of this article that I and other editors are not aware of, I believe any editor is free to make accurate and reliably sourced edits without fear of immediate revert by History2007. btw, page 153 of Introduction to Mary didn't say at all what was being claimed. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No ownership has ever been invoked. However, before I could type here, 2 other editors called your views incorrect. I issued a warning to you and I think per WP:BRD your edit should be immediately reverted until it has been discussed. Your statement at the top that "There is no such thing as the practice of "consecration to Mary." is 100% incorrect, and reflects the errors of the statements you are making, as Maruader said. We have seen one wrong statement here after another. One mistake after another. One edit blunder after another. Is this just too funny? I think it is time to go and see the Pope. History2007 (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary. There are not 3 editors here protesting my edit. And as well, I examined the Vatican website being used to make these claims and found the text that clarifies that consecration to Mary is not at all the same as consecration to God. It makes it very plain that consecration in this context as applied to Mary is not at all the same as consecration to God. So I added that. I also removed excess text that confused the issue and offered nothing in the way of additional enlightenment. Here is the Vatican website text:

Consecration and Entrustment to Mary

204. The history of Marian devotion contains many examples of personal or collective acts of "consecration or entrustment to the Blessed Virgin Mary" oblatio, servitus, commendatio, dedicatio). They are reflected in the prayer manuals and statutes of many associations where the formulas and prayers of consecration, or its remembrance, are used.

The Roman Pontiffs have frequently expressed appriciation for the pious practice of "consecration to the Blessed Virgin Mary" and the formulas publicly used by them are well known(251).

Louis Grignon the Montfort is one of the great masters of the spirituality underlying the act of "consecration to Mary". He " proposed to the faithful consecration to Jesus through Mary, as an effective way of living out their baptismal commitment"(252).

Seen in the light of Christ's words (cf. John 19, 25-27), the act of consecration is a conscious recognition of the singular role of Mary in the Mystery of Christ and of the Church, of the universal and exemplary importance of her witness to the Gospel, of trust in her intercession, and of the efficacy of her patronage, of the many maternal functions she has, since she is a true mother in the order of grace to each and every one of her children(253).

It should be recalled, however, that the term "consecration" is used here in a broad and non-technical sense: "the expression is use of "consecrating children to Our Lady", by which is intended placing children under her protection and asking her maternal blessing(254) for them". Some suggest the use of the alternative terms "entrustment" or "gift". Liturgical theology and the consequent rigorous use of terminology would suggest reserving the term consecration for those self-offerings which have God as their object, and which are characterized by totality and perpetuity, which are guaranteed by the Church's intervention and have as their basis the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation.

The faithful should be carefully instructed about the practice of consecration to the Blessed Virgin Mary. While such can give the impression of being a solemn and perpetual act, it is, in reality, only analogously a "consecration to God". It springs from a free, personal, mature, decision taken in relation to the operation of grace and not from a fleeting emotion. It should be expressed in a correct liturgical manner: to the Father, through Christ in the Holy Spirit, imploring the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to whom we entrust ourselves completely, so as to keep our baptismal commitments and live as her children. The act of consecration should take place outside of the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, since it is a devotional act which cannot be assimilated to the Liturgy. It should also be borne in mind that the act of consecration to Mary differs substantially from other forms of liturgical consecration.

In addition, the claims that page 153 of Introduction to Mary supported that, is not at all true as I am sitting here with a copy of that book and page 153 discusses Mary as Mediatrix. It doesn't say anything about consecration.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the clarification of what "consecration" here means is welcome, now that Malke has educated him/herself & found that there is such a thing after all. But much of the original section, especially the later bits, can now be added back. We are now overlinking and perhaps overusing Louis de Montfort in this and surrounding sections. Johnbod (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I meant that there is no consecration in the traditional use of the word. There is no God content there. I agree about St. Louis, but I have many texts on Mary and St. Louis was, as you know, a real devotee of hers. So he's quoted all over the place. And as it was already in there I kept it, but I thought it a good idea to add in the modern view by John Paul II. The text I removed, seemed not to add anything new in that regard. What would you propose we add back? Malke 2010 (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I wanted to point out that the caption under Lucia's picture in the section is not correct. I looked at the citation and page 248 does not say Lucia asked that we 'consecrate' to Mary. 248&f=false. There is however, on that page, what Lucia said Mary's words to her were regarding encouraging devotion to her. So that text needs to be corrected.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Clarified Text:

"Personal Marian devotions among Roman Catholics sometimes use the terms "consecration" or "entrustment."[112]

However, the Catholic Church makes it clear that use of the term "consecration" in regards to Mary is only applied in the "broad and non-technical sense" and not at all meant to suggest that this is the same definition of consecration which is to be reserved for "those self-offerings which have God as their object, and which are characterized by totality and perpetuity, which are guaranteed by the Church's intervention and have as their basis the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation."[112]

For this reason, the Church prefers that "alternative terms such as 'entrustment'" be used when referring to the personal act of devoting oneself to Mary. And that further, "The faithful should be carefully instructed about the practice of consecration to the Blessed Virgin Mary. . .it is, in reality, only analogously a "consecration to God," and should be expressed in a correct liturgical manner: to the Father, through Christ in the Holy Spirit, imploring the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to whom we entrust ourselves completely, so as to keep our baptismal commitments and live as her children. The act of consecration (to Mary) should take place outside of the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, since it is a devotional act which cannot be assimilated to the Liturgy. It should also be borne in mind that the act of consecration to Mary differs substantially from other forms of liturgical consecration."[112]

Individuals declaring their "entrustment" to Mary are making a personal act to show their devotion and dedication to Mary as the Mother of God and not as a divine being herself. Her intercession before God is sought only through her son Jesus Christ, and not because of any divine nature the individual attributes to Mary. [113][114]

Devotions to Mary are commonly directed to Mary herself, to the Immaculate Heart, and/or to the Immaculata. In Catholic teachings, true consecration is only to God. [115]

In the 18th century, Saint Louis Marie de Montfort became a tireless advocate of "total consecretaton to Jesus through Mary."[116] In his writings, True Devotion, St. Louis stated, ". . .the most perfect consecration to Jesus Christ is nothing else than a perfect and entire consecration of ourselves to the Blessed Virgin and this is the devotion I teach; or, in other words, a perfect renewal of the vows and promises of holy Baptism." [117]

In modern times, Pope John Paul II clarified consecration to Mary in his 1987 encyclical, Mother of the Redeemer in which he stated, "Mary's motherhood. . .is a gift which Christ himself makes personally to every individual." [118] John Paul II suggested Christians could best 'entrust' themselves to Mary by becoming her spiritual sons and daughters. [119]"

I think this makes it very clear what is meant by 'consecration to Mary' so as not to confuse it with the way most people understand the divine meaning when we call something consecrated. And it offers the old view by Louis Montefort as well as the more modern view by John Paul II. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: a few minutes ago there was "no such thing as the practice of consecration to Mary." and now there is? May I suggest we first establish if:

• "no such thing as the practice of consecration to Mary."

is accepted or rejected before we go further. Is it now agreed that there are Marian consecrations, and that original WP:OR claim was incorrect or are we still debating that? Once that has been established we can go further. In any case, per WP:BRD, you need to revert yourself Malke, then discuss, as pointed out to you. History2007 (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarifications

I just merged the Malke additions with the prior versions attributable to History2007's contributions among others. I perceive reasonable consensus here as to the old and the new and what is accurate and not (myself having been educated, educated, and consecrated to Mary). The opening paragraph source contains both what Malke prefers and what History2007 is trying to keep on the article; the extended discussion about the difference between consecration to God and consecration to Mary explains what Malke proposed to add, so I think it is fine opening as it is presently. The rest of the article now contains St. Louis de Montfort and John Paul II in addition to the saints listed there previously.

I hope I did not make mistakes in attributing various contributions to the editors involved; in any case, I assert that what is presently in the section (as of this edit) is correct and complete.

References could be cleaned up, simple web links changed to {{cite web}} and redundant book references cleaned up. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 02:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I say let us stick with what you have Paul and end this Marathon. It started with a tag and a statement about there being "no consecration to Mary" and now we have much more about it. Overall I think you did a good job to try to end the debate, although there are minor issues, but we will let it be. For the record, I take it everyone agrees that the original statement about "no consecration to Mary" and the placement of the WP:OR tags were completely incorrect and have now been rejected by all parties involved, so we will not go back to that any more. The interesting thing is that every time one of these debates starts, we end up getting more Marian items.... Probably we will get 20 more Marian articles by the time the debates end.... Should be fun.... History2007 (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh boy, yes, article proliferation does seem to abound in this area.–Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 02:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ya, I noticed that this amounts to a WP:CONTENTFORK. nb: thanks for the "←"-fix; script was tripped-up by <-->. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, lots of content forks on Mary. Good work Paul!Malke 2010 (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That debate took place here, just a few weeks ago: Talk:Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)#Merge_proposal. So much talk, so much talk. History2007 (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sure if History is happy I am too. I didn't notice the discussion required before a change of citation format btw. Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Moi? Happy? I have used up 7 Kleenexes since this discussion stared. Valley of tears... valley of tears my friend.... just kidding. Let us be done with it and move on. History2007 (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You still need to refactor those personal attacks.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I never made any personal attacks in my view. History2007 (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You did not. Malke needs to stop putting false information and removing resourced and factual information from articles. Why would someone be part of wikiproject catholicism if they obviously do not know much about our beliefs, such as venerating images or consecrating ourselves to Mary and Her Immaculate Heart (as Our Lady of Fatima asked). --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Many deletion tags on Marian articles now?

By the way, given that tags had been mentioned, I just noticed that a really large number of "Article deletion tags" went up on Marian articles, all placed by Malke. There are too many articles nominated for deletion in a short time period to see which ones there are, so I will try to gather a list later. History2007 (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Deletion tags (ongoing):

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Catholic Mariology
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marian art in the Catholic Church
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marian devotions
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariology of Pope Pius XII
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariology of Pope Leo XIII
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariology of Pope Pius IX
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the rosary
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marian apparition
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hymns to Mary
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosary and scapular
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marian papal encyclicals and Apostolic Letters
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic)

I will add more, as I figure out how many tags there are! History2007 (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we block Malke from editing wikipedia.. they're just destroying it. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Willthacheerleader18: If you like, you can simply suggest that here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents and put a link to this section and it may eventually lead to that. History2007 (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried it, but my computer never loaded the page. -Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess you are using Internet Explorer, and that can take time to load some pages, but here is the direct link: The link . And in general, there are always abbreviations in Wikipedia, e.g. WP:ANI is used for this and should be the same link, while WP:DYK is used for "Did you know" etc. Those should work, even on MS-explorer, but the WP:DYK page itself says that it takes time to load. And in general, you can always leave a message at the WP:Helpdesk if a page does not load, etc. History2007 (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Outcome of mass deletion flags

12 mass Afd discussions above have now concluded. Of these 12 Afds, 75% (i.e. 9 discussions) were speedily closed prior to the 7 day Afd period. During the 12 Afd discussions, 63 votes were cast by editors excluding the nominator. Some were for speedy keep, strongkeep, keep, merge, etc. Overall, not one vote out of the 63 votes was for deletion. History2007 (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

My intention in nominating the multiple articles was to solve problems of redundancy with them. However, in discussing it with another editor, North8000, and reviewing suggestions by others across multiple talk pages, I had to concur that an alternative solution existed by opening up a wider community discussion with an RfC to address the multiple articles. As a gesture of good faith, I asked admin HJMitchell to close the AfD's with "speedy keep." The articles remain problematic on many levels and will now benefit from wider community attention. I think several editors are best suited to helping build an appropriate RfC on WikiProject Catholicism to address all the various Marian articles. Johnbod, Paul Nuygen, and Marauder had some good ideas in that regard. In this way, more editors will be drawn in with suggestions and editing skills the articles can only benefit from. A community based solution is always the best solution. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There is really no point in spending more effort discussing your or any other editor's intentions. The vote numbers and the Afd discussions speak for themselves. These batch of Afds were all keep and speedykeep anyway, without a single vote in support of deletion, and would have certainly closed as keeps in 48 hours, regardless of any intervention. Let us leave it at that and move on. Life goes on. History2007 (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is very important to understand an editor's intentions, especially as a gesture of good faith has been made. It appears to me that besides myself, Johnbod, North8000, Marauder and Paul Nyugen are more than willing to work on these issues. It would benefit the work if you were to add your name to the list.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I assure you that I am not a mind-reader, so I will not speculate on intentions. Just leave it at that, and let us move on. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)