Talk:Mary, mother of Jesus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mary, mother of Jesus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 30 days

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

RM, Mary (mother of Jesus) → Mary, Not moved, 1 November 2008
RM, Mary (mother of Jesus) → Virgin Mary, No consensus, 10 October 2010
RM, Mary (mother of Jesus) → Mary, Not moved, 17 February 2014
RM, Mary (mother of Jesus) → Mary, Mother of Jesus, Not moved, 19 March 2014
RM, Mary (mother of Jesus) → Mary, mother of Jesus, Moved, 11 May 2016
RM, Mary, mother of Jesus → Mary (Mother of Jesus), Not moved, 28 April 2017
RM, Mary, mother of Jesus → Virgin Mary, Not moved, 6 June 2019
RM, Mary, mother of Jesus → Mary, Not moved, 11 June 2022

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Template:Vital article

Christianity: Bible / Jesus / Saints / Catholicism / Eastern O. / Anglicanism B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Bible portal This article is supported by WikiProject Bible (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.
	Saints portal This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (assessed as Top-importance).
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Top-importance).

Religion B‑class Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jewish Women B‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History B‑class High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam B‑class Mid‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Women in Religion B‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 4, 2007	WikiProject A-class review	Not approved

Place of death

I am considering adding Ephesus as the place of death in the infobox (per sources 113 to 122 in the article), and next to that adding "or Jerusalem" (eastern Christians believe that the Tomb of Mary in Jerusalem is the resting place of Mary, where she was buried after her *possible* death in Jerusalem). Does anyone object to this or have another idea? Should I add "or Jerusalem"? Thanks. zenzyyx (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add the Brazilian movie "A Dog's Will" to the portrayals section

Mary is portrayed by Fernanda Montenegro (Brazilian actress) in "A Dog's Will" (2000), a movie based on Ariano Suassuna's novel. Jinxvilhas (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awful picture

Might have even been chosen on purpose as the front picture

Can I suggest a more beautiful one?

File:Or

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:8202:9860:4559:FBF2:867D:62A8 (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The first image you suggested would be extremely appropriate for this article. I have no idea what's going on with the current picture, and I would love for it to be changed. Please do consult with other users before making any sudden changes, though. Cheers! Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Unlimitedlead I completely agree. The current picture is awful (forgive me, Holy Virgin :( ) and I came here to actually start a new section on this talk page discussing this. It actually scared me. The first picture you suggested is fantastic and is what we'll go with unless anyone objects. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image indirectly came with this edit [1], constituting the previous image as "overly dark, very late (17th century) and overly eurocentric in style".

Desired was instead an early image, the one of the "Maria Advocata" was a rather early byzantine one.Medusahead (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on primary image for article

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Question: Which should be the main image of the Virgin Mary for this article?

To keep it official, I have opened an RfC since every few edits seems to change the picture without a real consensus. So, we will put it to a vote and discussion. I am proposing the following options, consisting of images used before and possible new ones as well so we have a wide selection to choose from:

Option 1: The current image
Option 2: The most recent image (prior to the last edit)
Option 3: Early Byzantine portrait
Option 4: Our Lady of Guadalupe, suggested by IP user above
Option 5: Maria Advocata, edited in by an earlier user
Option 6: Our Lady of Absam, suggested by me
Option 7: Another picture from the Commons (Jungfrun i bön - The Virgin in Prayer - by Sassoferrato)

Plenty of options to choose from here, so let's all try to agree on something great! — That Coptic Guy (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 7 is lovely. Option 1 is alright, but like other users previously complained, dark and hard-to-see images should be avoided. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 5 or Option 3 as they're the closest in time to the subject. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 7 is the best of the bunch. Option 1 is fine, but if it's too dark, 7 is the best of the rest. Nemov (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 or option 7. I like the option 1 maybe more, but if 7 is more liked by others, as it seems at the moment, I am completely happy with choosing it. Finncle (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 7 seems to be the nicest, although I basically could live with every image except option 2. Option 6 seems too drab.Medusahead (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 seems fine to me.--Karma1998 (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 5 per Ficaia – closest in time. Also, the image aligns with the time frame of the image of her son Jesus's feature article lead image. Option 3 is in fact a later copy of option 5 that is at least according to the German wikipedia article describing option 5 (i.e. Maria Advocata). --Guest2625 (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 7 as it is clear to see, and typical of modern depictions of Mary. Alternatively Option 4 is also a good option as Our Lady of Guadalupe is a wellknown image (though in this line other famous depictions would work as well).Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 5 should be used as it is closest in time to the lifespan of Mary, and if there is a closer image found it should be used. Using modern depictions may be severely biased in perception and even may cause offense. It just makes sense to include the historical precedent considering that it is the standard for Wikipedia. Finton the magical salmon (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm confused why a piece of artwork from the 6th century would be any more correct than one several hundred years later. These aren't official portraits. Were the depictions in the 6th century not biased? I think I'd agree if we had some idea what this person looked like (spoiler alert: Mary would look nothing like these depictions), but I don't get the reasoning here. Nemov (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Nemov. Given none of these are going to accurately portray the historical figure, it makes more sense to use something similar to what adherents are familiar with. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 5 was produced before the East–West Schism and the Reformation, so I think it best includes all adherents. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to this, Option 5 is the earliest and most accurate, as the other paintings would have a higher likelihood of having had a biased redrawing; We can easily rule out any versions of a white Mary as that is completely inaccurate. Frankly, we must work to provide within reason to provide the most likely accurate depiction available. Options 3 through 6 should be the only ones above in consideration. Finton the magical salmon (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 7 from this frankly pretty wierd selection, then Option 1. But there are literally thousands of better choices. Option 6 would rightly not last 5 minutes. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If a solid consensus is wished for, there are more pics to look at: Category:Paintings of the Virgin Mary. A "What pics should we discuss in the rfc" rfc is not unthinkable. Of the offered selection, I like Option 7 best, but there are not, for example, a lot of "with child" to chose from. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]