Talk:Catholic views on the Virgin Mary

WP:POINT

The wholesale borrowing of text from other Wikipedia articles to simply truck them to this page and create it overnight is a clear case of WP:POINT in view of the merge discussion on Talk:Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)#Merge_proposal. This is as clear a case of WP:POINT policy breach, and a warning to Malke was issued as a result. History2007 (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's just meant to get things started. There's no violation here. The problem with Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is that it is a POV content fork. Merging it into Mary (mother of Jesus) is being suggested. Out of that discussion, multiple suggestions were made that BVM RC renamed to Catholic views on Mary. Thus, the start here.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not a rename it's a restart, there is a big difference. I personally think this page should either be moved to personal space or deleted. Placing this in article space should wait until discussion comes to consensus.Marauder40 (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please also see: Talk:Blessed_Virgin_Mary_(Roman_Catholic)#Name_of_this_article. This is just WP:POINT. History2007 (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT doesn't apply.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, but I do not share that opinion. Previously, you had repeatedly argued for "just one page on Mary" with no Catholic page - now, we suddenly see a total reversal of those arguments. I think this is clear to anyone who reads the previous arguments. History2007 (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The consensus is that they don't want to merge the POV content fork into Mary (mother of Jesus). A single article on Mary with all views presented would be ideal, including disambigs on all her titles. That would be the best solution for all readers coming to Wikipedia looking for information about her. But as other editors have suggested, there are already articles such as Protestant views on Mary and Islamic views on Mary and this title was suggested. It's a good solution to the POV content fork.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT requires an element of disruption, which I’m not seeing. Could you explain? ―cobaltcigs 22:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

First example from the WP:POINT page says: "If you have nominated an article for deletion, and others vote to keep it, do not create an article on what you consider to be a similarly unsuitable topic". It seems to me that this is a merge variant of that, given that the merger is in trouble and a new article similar to the one suggested for merge is being created. History2007 (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any element of disruption either. There's no case here for WP:Point. No article has been put up for deletion and then 'an unsuitable topic' created. The discussion is regarding a merger to eliminate this POV content fork. This article here is the result of discussions. You've not shown any rationale other than this to support your claims. You've even opened a section on the talk page of Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) acknowledging that the discussion is headed in that direction.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That is your view, but I do not share that view. In any case, there is an Afd. History2007 (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry But

This entire article is a POV fork to make a point, so i have AFD`d it. If you guys are in fact Catholics, feel shame now for this kind of carry on mark nutley (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, are you trying to insult catholics? I am a roman catholic and I do not support this page. So I have no shame for this deletion, thank you. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is a WP:POINT case, and agree with your Afd suggestion. History2007 (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge to doctrines

This article has no new information of any value, and its content was just "trucked in" from other articles, such as Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church. It should just be merged/folded into that since it simply repeats the doctrinal issues, with a bonus small section on titles. There is absolutely no new information here, and it does not teach anything new to a Wikipedia reader. It does not deserve to be a page. History2007 (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

History2007, it might be a good idea to stay CALM and give things a rest until the conclusion of the AfD before going in yet another direction.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but please do not remove tags at will. History2007 (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - support merge or outright deletion since this page does not add anything to already existing pages. It honestly shows one person's views on Mary, not the Catholic Church's views on Mary. There are numerous things about Mary that are not shown, just because the 4 dogmatic doctrine are shown, that doesn't mean the other things don't exist and are validly held by the Church. Just so it is explicitly clear I primarily support delete since I currently see no value in this page.Marauder40 (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - for reasons given above. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Why is there a merge discussion while the article is at AFD? mark nutley (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Because History2007 wants to make sure this article isn't here so that we can merge Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) into it so that we can eliminate the POV content forking of that article and put the Catholic views of Mary along the same lines as the other articles such Protestant views on Mary, Islamic views on Mary, etc, as per the discussion on Mary (mother of Jesus).Malke 2010 (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

First off don't theorize on the motivations of other users. I also find it interesting that certain people are referring to merges as if this article has existed for a long time and the much longer existing version and the much longer in size version should be merged into a newly created shell. In essence the creation of this article complicates what could easy have just been a rename.Marauder40 (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the theory is that either the article be outright deleted or at least merged into an existing article. Marauder40 (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Per Malke 2010, I suggest this discussion is put on hold until after the AfD. PhilKnight (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have remover the merger tags for two reason, one their is no companion tag on the target article, two such a discussion ought to wait until the AFD is over mark nutley (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It will make it all less confusing to other editors coming along.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, these few copied paragraphs are not worth a long debate. Whoever wanted to vote for a merge to Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church can suggest that on the Afd page anyway. I say let it be, let it be..... The lyrics would be appropriate here. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I note that someone changed the toplink on the Main Mary page from BVM(RC) to this page. I reverted the link back to BVM(RC), which is the fuller consensus page discussing Catholicism and the Virgin Mary. The move however does intensify the suspicion that this page was created as a stalking-horse fork/replacement for BVM(RC). Xandar 22:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not the case at all. You might want to make a closer reading of Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) and the repetitive theme of the article. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

How about seeing how repetitive and redundant this article is.. oh wait. --74.167.245.190 (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Tag removal

I find it interesting that a person that puts MULTIPLE tags on every article she encounters and complains to the world if they are removed, removes an under construction tag from this article. Anyone can see that this article is just a start and does not deserve to be linked in with other articles without it being labeled as under-construction. If you think that one section is the only section that needs work, let me tell you that you are wrong. I will not revert the tag back because I think the request for deletion tag shows a new reader of this page exactly what to think that the under construction flag shows.Marauder40 (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well Malke also removed the merge tags here at will. Go figure. History2007 (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Please comment on the article, this is not a place to attack editors. If you have an issue with the editor's actions, take it to that editor's talk page. This is not the place to air out personal grievances. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The talk page is the proper place to talk about tag insertion and tag removal (and the inproper use of tags). Normal procedure someone puts up a tag and explains it or if the tag is put up and people don't agree with the tag it is then discussed on the talk page. Not everyone seems to follow that. Marauder40 (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That is the exact reason for a talk page, yes. However you decided to make a personal comment about an editor's behavior. ANd that is not appropriate here. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Rescue and Assumption/IC

Given that there was a rescue flag, I started the rescue. One minor comment is that I am about 70% sure that the main Signorelli image is an Assunta and not an Immacolata Concezione, as the Wikimedia page states. I think the WGA.hu people (the source) just assumed it was an Immacolata. The image is most probably a Luca Signorelli but there are several clues as to why it is an Assunta: there are people below saying good bye, then there is God greeting from above, and the hands of the Virgin Mary are open as in most Assunta images (but not in all) unlike the clasped hands in the typical Immacolata image. These issues are discussed in de Bles's book on "How to Distinguish the Saints in Art" but it may just be safer to say that is an image of Mary by Signorelli instead of saying it is an Immacolata. History2007 (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It's the Immacolata. How exactly have you attempted to rescue the article?Malke 2010 (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I study AP Art History.. I must admit I have never seen this painting before. I could see it being the Immacolata, but it looks similar to the Assumption (other people below Mary, her hands opened out instead of together in prayer, etc).. are we 100% sure it is the Immacolata? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because it is by a somewhat obscure artist, namely Francesco Signorelli, Luca's nephew. I looked into this partly because the 1523 date did not fit, for Luca died that year while he was busy with a major piece that he did not manage to finish - so it was unlikely that he could have done it that year. Anyway, I built a page for the Diocesan Museum (Cortona) in the process. The painting is in that museum and is an Immacolata but the figures below are prophets (Ezechiel, Daniel, Solomon and Isia), not the apostles. Perhaps after Luca died Francesco and the members of Luca's workshop did this painting by borrowing elements from other paintings, for the value was still there, shortly after the death of the artist - but that is another story. Anyway, I have mentioned the need to rename the file also in Wikimedia. The museum itself does not list this painting, but the details are discussed in the Tosacana Oggi article referenced in the museum page and also added it to Wikimedia. History2007 (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Those who understand the Immaculate Conception also know that the man and woman below Mary are Adam and Eve and they are not waving goodbye.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to insult me because of my understanding of the Immaculate Conception? Most of the paintings I have studied of the Immaculate Conception are of Mary herself, sometimes with angels. I never said anything about people "waving" good bye. We already have established now with factual proof that it is the Immaculate Conception. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing anything you've posted.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What exactly were you addressing? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

[1]. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well we all agree it is an IC, so we can stop bicckering. There is an analysis here. Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion Nov 2010

A merge discussion regarding this article is taking place on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Catholic Mariology. Changes here are best addressed in that context. History2007 (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There's not to be a merge, as the discussion is about an AfD for another Marian article. How many articles can be merged? This content for this article is to be different than all the identical Marian article content, and it will be if you would please stop reverting my good-faith edits.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The AFD for this page was started by user:MikeNutley. In any case, the merge discussion is taking place, and I support it. History2007 (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't see any policy on Wikipedia that says all editing must stop because of any merge proposal.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The WP:BRD stands on its own, but also refers to that AFD since it is relevant. History2007 (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no merge discussion. The AfD is not relevant at all and cannot prevent editing. This is what you're suggesting. That no edits are allowed to take place. Are you claiming ownership of this article?Malke 2010 (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not agree, and no. But please explain what was "incorrect" in the text you deleted and reworked, per WP:BRD. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the Catholic school student who is asked to write about a painting that depicts Mary, and he fills his bluebook with this:

"Joe the artist painted a picture of Mary. Mary is venerated the world over and Catholics consecrate themselves to her, and prostrate themselves in front of the painting Joe made of her. Catholics love Mary so much they think about her day and night. In some cases, Mary grants the truly faithful a special favor, giving them the ability to see her image everywhere including in pizza slices and grilled cheese sandwiches. Both of which were recently offered for sale on eBay."

Like that. And when you don't allow other editors to contribute, since the article should be edited by all, it reminds me of this.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

And this diatribe is supposed to help the article or the project how? History2007 has only undone an edit in which you removed or refactored a large portion of stuff which is his right via BRD. He has not undone any additions made to the article, since there hasn't been any. Feel free to add new material. Marauder40 (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Diatribe? Nonsense, there really was a grilled cheese image of Mary sold on eBay: [2]. Catholics everywhere are making grilled cheese sandwiches by the thousands, praying day and night for Mary to put in a similar appearance at their house. There's a whole new Mariology of the Grilled Cheese Sandwich developing. Sure, they're still fringers, but they'll get papal recognition someday. And may I point out that the final bid for that first sandwich––in what is hoped to be the start of a long line of same––is something to rejoice over in this economy, my friend. Try one, you might like it.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Malke, the word nonesense does not apply to Marauder's comment at all. Not at all. Your statement is completely inappropriate. Completely disrespectful. An apology would be in order. Be respectful to him, show respect. An apology to Marauder would be in order. History2007 (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I repeat how is this diatribe helping anything Malke. How does your comments both before and now help in the editing of this page and the project overall? You are basically trivializing the edits of History2007. It is really getting hard to AGF with you in the Marian sections.Marauder40 (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think an apology to you is in totally order Marauder. History2007 (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

See here. Under, "It all boils down to this." Malke 2010 (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I personally don't care. I am just waiting to see how the "Defining Mary" section turns out. I sure hope it is still a work in progress because right now it look like a lot of WP:SYN of somewhat related things merged together to give an impression different from what the facts actually are. I am holding back on my actual impression on the section. Marauder40 (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the section does seem to have errors. But we will wait and see, then point out the errors. History2007 (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No, these aren't blended excerpts from Google book previews like some editors rely on. These are actual, whole books, written by scholars and not the random religious who wants to write a faith promoting bit for My Sunday Visitor. Big difference there. Happy Turkey Day!Malke 2010 (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Will wait for you to complete your work (it seems incomplete now) then point out the errors in due course. Signing off for now. No point in chit-chat here. And again, an apology to Marauder would be in order. History2007 (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. So you're saying that your edits cannot be touched but my edits will be "corrected" by you and Marauder? They have a place for attitudes like that. In the meantime, enjoy this with the Turkey. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that, and I see no point in tangential comments on Turkey, etc. Leave it at that. Enough said. History2007 (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

POV addition

I've reverted the POV addition by History2007. I haven't finished adding to the "Defining Mary" section and these POV additions, such as "victory for Mariology" is another example of asserting ownership over yet another "Marian" article. I point to the example of the simple edit I made on Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) that simply added the full content of what 'consecration' to Mary actually means and it generated 'warnings' and edit warring by History2007. As we all know, he owns that article, as well. Let's not have the ownership problem spread to this article. This article is meant to reflect progressive/conservative views and not more of the same POV pushing that suggests Mary is viewed as something she is not.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

So, do you "own" this article then? The articles do not suggest that Mary is something she is not... Catholic belief is very different than other Christian beliefs of Mary. We pray to her as our greatest intercessor. She is the Queen of Heaven, Immaculate Conception, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and was Assumed into Heaven according to Catholic beleif. We do consecrate ourselves to the Virgin Mary, especially to her Immaculate Heart. Infact, the Marian apparition of Our Lady of Fatima informed us to consecrate our hearts to Mary, and later for the Pope to consecrate the nation of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You're mixing doctrine with non-doctrine. And we consecrate ourselves to the Sacred Heart of Jesus in the divine sense of consecration, but in terms of Mary it's a devotional 'consecration.' We aren't separating Mary as divine. It's an important distinction as non-Catholics often like to use Mary to claim that Catholics worship Mary and therefore are not Christians.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

When did I say anything that mixed "doctrine" and "non-doctrine"? I am talking about Catholic beliefs of Mary in general, in the fullest sense. The Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary are not only doctrine but infallible dogma. We DO consecrate ourselves to Mary, and through that we consecrate ourselves to God. Perpetual Virginity and Mary being the Mother of God are also doctrine. Mary as the Queen of Heaven has been part of our Sacred tradition for centuries. As for Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix, also part of our devotional tradition, is considered doctrine by many and many not only support it being infallibly defined as dogma by the Pope but beg him to do so. Mary as the Mediatrix and Co-Redepmtrix of the Faith is even approved by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The Second Vatican Council even referred in its document Lumen Gentium to the Blessed Virgin Mary as the "Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix." Wikipedia is to provide information, not provide a view of catholics that will make protestants "okay" with catholics. I am a devout catholic and very pro-marian devotion. Stop trying to cover up what we as catholics believe about Mary. We are not ashamed of hiding our devotion to Mary. We do not worship her as a goddess, if protestants want to think that then fine, it does not matter. Wikipedia is to provide information. What better than provide all this information about Mary for protestants to learn our true views of her, than for them to have misconceptions. If we provide all this information, they will less-likely think of our veneration as adoration. Not including this information about Mary, and trying to cover up our beliefs, is an act of reparation. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Non merged item discussion

Based on the consensus, a multi-merge was performed, but there was one paragraph that I would like to discuss before merging, after it has been modified, if there is multi-user agreement to do so. It is:

Putting Mary at the center of devotions had it’s origins over the question of Christ’s true nature: Was he divine, human, or both? Those who favored the human nature, the flesh and blood Jesus, pointed to his mother, herself merely human and not divine. Those who wanted to secure the divinity of Christ pointed to Mary's favored position in being chosen by God to bear his son and claimed the Gospels as proof, in particular, Luke 1:28, “And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” Reference= Douay-Rheims Bible, Baronius Press edition, London, 2007.

I am not sure if this is correct in its current form, but the general issue is already discussed in the appropriate places in Wikipedia in the context to which it belongs. There are some "elements of historical truth" here but not the way it is stated. The discussion of the impact of Marian views on the Divinity of Christ did take place at the Council of Ephesus, but to say that the Catholic Church made a concerted effort to use Mary to confirm the Divinity of Christ is pure speculation and moreover, as we all know, there are Protestants who consider Christ Divine, but pay almost no attention to Mariology. Thus the belief in the Divinity of Christ does not really need Marian discussion for support. However, historically, the issues at Ephesus regarding monophysitism, miaphysitism, hyposthasis, etc. that related to the nature of Christ did involve a Marian discussion.

In fact, as it happens, on November 15, 2010 (a few days before the Afd started, and a week before the text above was introduced, I should point out) I did clarify these facts at Talk:Christology#Christology.23Council_of_Ephesus, as I was clearing various issues in that article, and they are also referenced in that article (see the paragraph with the Proclus sermon). Therefore, it is clear that there was a historical Marian link at Ephesus to the questions of monophysitism, miaphysitism, and hyposthasis; but there was no specific effort thereafter; and indeed the Protestants who do consider Christ Divine pay no attention to Mariology anyway. In any case, those issues really belong to Christology, and are already discussed in that article, where they should be discussed. So I am not sure if it is even needed. History2007 (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It is definitly not correct in its current form. It is also totally unsourced considering the only source is based on the Bible quote included in the paragraph. Also upon reading the paragraph it gives the impression that the Catholic church leaves it unsettled as whether Christ is divine or human, when in fact it has said for a long time that he is both human and divine. Many heresies (i.e. Arianism) in the past have been fought over this and it pretty much has been settled for a long time that Christ has both natures, he is fully human and fully God. This is specifically what I was talking about when I said that section was WP:SYN, related sentences strewn together to imply something that isn't the case. This paragraph is just synthesis and needs to not be included in any merges.Marauder40 (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a very good point on Arianism, given that it was discussed in 325 well before Ephesus I in 431. So over 100 years before the Marian issues got involved in the Divinity of Christ discussion at Ephesus, the Divinity issue had already been addressed at Nicaea against Arianism without any Marian discussions. History2007 (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The article was never allowed to be developed.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the point should certainly be included. The point is that the emphasis placed on Mary is an assertion of the Orthodox/Catholic Christological position. This is undoubtedly the main theological reason behind the greatly increased emphasis on Mary in Late Antique Christianity & this should be made clearer. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have refs for that John, if so, please add the refs and suggest where it would be best added. And what is the best wording now? Can you suggest a suitable wording? And what about Marauder's point on Arianism? Please provide suggestions. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

John, the complaint isn't over what you suggest adding, it is over the current paragraph. In its current format the paragraph isn't sourced, gives an inproper view of what is going on and doesn't really contain much information. It isn't even a shell to work with. What you wrote above is a better starting place then was originally in this article.Marauder40 (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I can source it. Also, Johnbod seems to have understood the paragraph. The emphasis on Mary is from the Christological position. Everybody Catholic school kid knows that. If the article had been allowed to develop, it would be apparent what the 'view' is by now as it would be fully developed in the article. I think the article should be restored.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Article space isn't the place for articles to "develop". Writing something sub-par and then either expecting someone else to fix it or expecting to come back to it much later isn't the way to go. The paragraph as it stood looked like something a sixth grader would write, not very encyclopedic. If you are going to take a long time to develop an article it is better to do it in userspace, not article space.Marauder40 (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In any case Marauder, this paragraph is a separate issue from the bygones of the article and the concluded merge discussions therein. Let us let the article bygones be bygones, and let us see what to do about this paragraph. Let us see what specific references and wording can be provided, then go from there. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually articles are started as stubs all the time. That's what the "under construction" tag is for. And as regards the writing, it was well written and well sourced. Perhaps you're just accustomed to the various writings in the multiple Marian articles that cite trivia from Google books excerpts. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a major difference between say starting a stub for a minor notable topic and coming back to it and creating a stub adding links to it from major articles and then putting out AfDs for the major articles. But I am not getting involved in a tit-for-tat. Leave this page alone and move on.Marauder40 (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Call for Consensus to Restore Catholic views on the Virgin Mary

I propose that this article be restored and allowed to develop.

Support. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not even know if there is a Wikipedia policy for attempting to discuss this, against consensus achieved 24 hours ago. This may well be a case of WP:Tenditious in which repeated attempts are made against consensus, where an editor "continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors". There was a long and detailed discussion regarding the merger and there was clear consensus to do it. Consensus was achieved by 9 out of 11 votes and the merge took place. The rest may well be WP:Tenditious in a repeated manner. History2007 (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus can always change.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

'Support --'The Ninjalemming' 22:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)