Talk:Saint Joseph

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Article stability[edit]

Apologies for the new section, but if discussing what next after this RM, be best not to be boxed in green when the RM above closes without going anywhere because of the "father" problem. Whether it's in a week or six months RM 4 to Joseph (husband of Mary) as the title used in ABD and other standard work encyclopedias and dictionaries (and strangely the Bible below). And then the discussion will be over. "Saint" for Category:New Testament people is not supported in Google Books, is not WP:COMMONNAME and per Matthew the Apostle once articles are moved to a neutral title they stay there, and no attempt is made to move back to a sectarian title belonging to only one branch of Christianity. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Not really a coherent comment there. Sounds more like a general gripe. - Boneyard90 (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't really consider the "sectarian title" complaint very relevant, per MOS:SAINTS. Complaining that usage of Saint Joseph is limited to a sect is like complaining that the usage of Hulk Hogan (rather than Terry Bollea) is limited to sports fans. Rwflammang (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, I've adjusted the first sentence to make it marginally more coherent. Unfortunately it's a specific gripe about "a sectarian title belonging to only one branch of Christianity." The meaning of "sectarian" is limited to one sect of religion, like:

Dilip Hiro A Comprehensive Dictionary of the Middle East 2013 "Thus Shias refer to Ali bin Abu Talib as Imam Ali, whereas Sunnis call him Caliph Ali."

For comparison a non-sectarian name is one shared by both sects Protestant and Catholic, and in fact secular writers and primary source:

Matthew 1:16 "Joseph the husband of Mary"

Boneyard90 , Rwflammang , can you provide a secular or Protestant commentary which refers to Joseph the husband of Mary as "Saint Joseph". In ictu oculi (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to ping.
In ictu oculi (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
From above "There are enough hits for "Saint Joseph Evangelical", "Saint Joseph Lutheran", Saint Joseph Methodist, "St Joseph's Presbyterian church" etc to disprove any claim that the term is restricted to the Catholic & Anglican traditions." As for "secular", words fail me; "Saint" is clearly the most common usage, though of course he only comes up in a religious context. Why will no-one use the neutral and correct term "denomination" instead of the POV and incorrect "sect" - is this another one of your hobby-horses, Iio? Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Johnbod, one of the main reasons why these RMs are reoccuring is because of you repeatedly filling them with plain Google hits on church building names. I asked Boneyard90 , Rwflammang to "provide a secular or Protestant commentary which refers to Joseph the husband of Mary as "Saint Joseph"." that means a book, preferable something later than 1900. You ought to be able to distinguish their User names from your User name, and book from building. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
No, they keep recurring because you keep launching them, and the community keeps rejecting, inter alia, your belief that the only relevant RSs for cases where disambiguation is needed are New Testament commentaries by theologians (and mainly for other theologians). This simply misunderstands how the policies work. I was responding to reinforce Rwflammang's point above, which you have ignored as usual. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The RMs at Talk:Matthew the Apostle, Talk:Andrew the Apostle were placed by User:Michipedian. The previous RM on St Peter was placed by User:Johnpacklambert. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

(Out-dent.) I have to agree with Johnbod, that his examples are legitimate. It seems to me that "Saint Joseph's Evangelical Church" ought to be parsed as the "Evangelical Church of Saint Joseph" and not as the "Saint Evangelical Church of (just) Joseph".

While the charge of "sectarian" might seem grave due to the fact that the number of of sects where usage of "Saint Joseph" is most common can be counted on the fingers of one hand (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Jacobite, Nestorian), and thus is only a small minority of all the sects, this charge is blunted by the realization that those five represent the majority of all the world's Christians, and so WP:COMMONNAME still applies.

Your mention of Matthew the Apostle as a paradigm for this case is somewhat problematic because the only distinguishing titles for Joseph that I can think of are even more sectarian than "Saint" or are not really very common. I already mentioned Saint Joseph "the Worker", there is also, "Most Chase Spouse of the Virgin" as he is called in the Roman liturgy, "Terror of Demons", etc.

The Bible calls him "Son of David" and "Of the House of David" and "From Galilee", but these phrases do not seem to be commonly used as titles in English.

Rwflammang (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
So, no.
Matthew the Apostle is a paradigm for article stability, it shows that once moved to a WP:NPOV title articles stay there.
As regards whether Matthew 1:16 "Joseph the husband of Mary" is sectarian, sources show that it is also acceptable to English-speaking Catholics:

"We don't know much about Joseph, the husband of Mary. Scripture tells us he was an honorable man. He struggled with how to deal with Mary's pregnancy;" Stoltz, E., Tomkovicz V. Ascend: The Catholic Faith for a New Generation 2009 p.149.

But the subject here is article stability. Just because those opposed to "Saint" for New Testament characters cannot agree on alternatives does not make a title which contradicts one of the WP:Five Pillars a stable title. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that a title which contradicts WP:Five Pillars or a title which contradicts WP:NPOV should be allowed to stand, but the present title contradicts neither policy. Rwflammang (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


The article says: “In 1870, Pope Pius IX declared Joseph patron of the universal Church and instituted another feast, with an octave, to be held in his honour on Wednesday in the second week after Easter. This was abolished by Pope Pius XII […] in 1955 […]”. The feast referred to was despite its rank, rivalling that of the traditional feast of the 19th of March, not provided with a Mass Proper of its own, but simply used that of the votive Mass of St. Joseph, already in alternative use on Wednesdays along with those of Sts. Peter and Paul and of All Holy Apostles.Pamino (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


Thanks to my fellow Wikipedians for including some beautiful artwork with this article. I'm not a Christian, but I'm a father. The "lead image" by Remi has as much parent and child tenderness as any picture of the Madonna and Child. Thanks for giving fatherhood a nod!!! PurpleChez (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


Can this be clarified in the introductory section. '.....make no reference to Jesus' father; nor does the Gospel of Mark.[6] Geza Vermes notes that the Gospel of Mark identifies Joseph as Jesus' father.' (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)