Jump to content

Talk:Catholic views on the Virgin Mary

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Nota Bene: All copied text from Catholic Church, Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary was replaced with new, original content on 10/18/2010.

    • WP:POINT

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

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

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Sorry But

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

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

    Merge to doctrines

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Thank you, but please do not remove tags at will. History2007 (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Support - for reasons given above. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why is there a merge discussion while the article is at AFD? mark nutley (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

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

    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)[reply]

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

    Tag removal

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Rescue and Assumption/IC

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    It's the Immacolata. How exactly have you attempted to rescue the article?Malke 2010 (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I wasn't addressing anything you've posted.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly were you addressing? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    [1]. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Merge discussion Nov 2010

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I think an apology to you is in totally order Marauder. History2007 (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See here. Under, "It all boils down to this." Malke 2010 (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    POV addition

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Non merged item discussion

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

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

    Call for Consensus to Restore Catholic views on the Virgin Mary

    [edit]

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

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

    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)[reply]
    Consensus can always change.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    However, WP:Forum shopping is not a good idea once consensus has been achieved 24 hours before. History2007 (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Comment I'm no expert on this subject, but I do think about proper process. The discussion that 007 speaks of was an AFD of a different article. The article should go through an AFD process......not just say "we had a discussion over at article "B" about deleting article "A". North8000 (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Admin who closed that Afd stated that the "specific proposal" there had to be followed, and that involved the merge of content. There was no major deletion of content here, except for repetitive items, and Moonriddengirl, who is the copyright expert Admin even marked the proper attributions for how text moved from this article to several others. So no deletion took place, but a movement of text. The piece of text being discussed above is the sticky point and we are deciding what to do with it and where, if anywhere, it can move to. So the merge process followed the "full merge protocol" including the careful attribution flags placed by Moonriddengirl. It totally conformed with policy. History2007 (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy about legally attributing where content came from has nothing to do with this discussion. Moonriddengirl's involvement was only to assure that the merger was correct. She was not commenting on the merger itself.
    This is a discussion about restoring this article.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, this is WP:Forum shopping after consensus went the other way less than 24 hours ago. No point in flogging a dead horse. History2007 (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Merging is essentially deletion. There's only one right "forum" for such, and it certainly isn't at an AFD for a DIFFERENT article. North8000 (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually a merge is not a deletion. That is why they have different tags. A deletion loses text, a merge moves text. You could have also said the same about Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church. So do you want to restore that too? The fact is that there was a long discussion, a consensus and a merge that totally followed policy. History2007 (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with North8000.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello History007. Again, my angle is more correct process rather than on claiming to know where this should end up. This whole thing looks shaky. First, the only thing that most of the folks clearly weighed in on was the question at hand. Only a few said they were weighing in on the merging/deleting all three. Second, the only thing the closing admin clearly directed was the question at hand, the AFD for the one article. You are trying to interpret a sidebar comment potentially involving other articles (not the subject of the AFD) as an operative decision to merge/delete the other articles. Lastly whoever heard of merging/deleting an article without even putting the notifications on the article and having the discussions specifically about the article being nominated? North8000 (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello North8000, you're absolutely right. There really wasn't any consensus to merge this article.Malke 2010 (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok North8000, please let me answer your last question first: Mergers do happen as a result of Afds. There were several Afds by Malke, and some resulted in mergers, e.g.:

    The 4th one, is the one that merged with this article. There is no policy that requires a merge flag on this article when it is being discussed as part of another Afd. As you can see there were 4 Afds that resulted in mergers (and there were more Afds in that mass Afd that were speedily rejected) so it does happen. This has been part of a mass Afd issue and resulted in a merger, as did 3 other Afds. And please note that Talk:Catholic_views_on_the_Virgin_Mary#Merge_discussion_Nov_2010 on this very talk page discussed the pending merger, so those watching and interested in this page were aware of the discussion all along and could have commented there. History2007 (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No such discussion was taken.Malke 2010 (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is where you took part in it: Talk:Catholic_views_on_the_Virgin_Mary#Merge_discussion_Nov_2010. Remember?
    • Support Based only on my "lack of due process" concerns and other process concerns expressed above. I guess, more specifically, that the merge was improper and should be reverted. And then if someone wants it merged / deleted, they can nominate it and have it go through the proper process. North8000 (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well the Admin who closed that was obviously supportive, and in this edit a 2nd Admin, stated that it was nice that the merge was getting done. And the 2nd Admin, Moonriddengirl, knows Malke well. I think both Admins thought that the merge was proper, as did the 9 editors who voted for it. Although you have a separate opinion, it was a well supported merge decision. History2007 (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi. I just have to note that I don't have any opinion on whether merge was the best outcome. My comment merely reflected the fact that it was the consensus reading of an uninvolved admin and moving forward on the merge in the articles as so noted was the right thing to do. I don't have any particular opinion on the best method of handling Mary articles on Wikipedia. As a scan of my contributions will show, except for copyright concerns, I'm not typically involved in articles related to religion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. For reasons already given. The owner of this page was given proper notice that the merge disucssion was happening and including her page and even commented on the page. This is just a sour grapes attempt to return her POV fork. It is interesting that she wants this page to exist yet wants to merge/delete every other Marian article. As someone who has been following this from the start I have never seen a more blatent case of point within the realm of Catholic articles.Marauder40 (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no merge discussion.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Catholic Mariology clearly show you knew about the discussion and the fact that "your" page was included in the discussion. You had ample chance to address the issues there and clear concensus was for a merge. If there was a problem with the procedures I am sure Moonriddengirl or the closing admin would have addressed it. Clear case of forum shopping. Marauder40 (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You quote Moonriddengirl all you want, it doesn't make this forum shopping. This is something else altogether. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There was indeed a discussion of merging this article as soon as it was created. Just STOP already. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment / response to 007. I think I counted 4 people (including you) that voted specifically for your 3 way proposal. Others just said "merge" under the topic of the page which was the Mariology article. North8000 (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to speak for History2007, but thats not correct. There were 8 people who supported History2007's merge proposal, 2 who specified a merge proposal but who didn't specify if they liked or disliked History's proposal, and only one user Malke2010 who didn't want the merger. Just to simplify things, below are each of the editors who agreed with History2007's inputs into the merge discussion:
      1. [3] -- Johnbod
      2. [4] -- Dylan Flaherty
      3. [5] -- Marauder40
      4. [6] -- Chhe (me)
      5. [7] -- Willthacheerleader18
      6. [8] -- Sandstein
      7. [9] -- John Carter
      8. [10] -- Shirt58
    And below are the two editors who voted for merge, but who didn't specify if they supported History2007's proposal.
      1. [11] -- Twilight Chill (may support History2007's proposal due to his removing that part in diff about the specific location of the merge)
      2. [12] -- DGG
    Needless to say there was overwhelming support for History2007's merger proposal and it was accordingly ruled by the administrator Pax:Vobiscum as such [13]. I hope this clears things up.Chhe (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed the meaning of "per history" when I went through it. I raised my main concerns earlier, again based on process rather than having an opinion on what the final outcome should be. I don't have much to say beyond that so I'm planning to "sign off" here. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    North8000, about Chhe, you should know that he's been wikihounding me since I started editing the Karl Rove page last year. Btw, you're correct about the "vote," and since this "decision," is being claimed as part of an AfD, it can be appealed.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Chhe, speaking as someone who knows the feeling, if that's true (whether blatant or wrapped in officialness) please stop. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the person who was previously blocked for WP:Wikihounding was: Malke2010. Because she Wikihounded yours truly. That should probably be noted. History2007 (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I was not blocked for wikihounding you. That block was found to be a bad block and was lifted. You were, and still are, wikihounding me. That's what this "merge" is all about here. You have consistently stalked and reverted all my edits on all the Marian pages I've tried to edit, and you've deliberately tried to get this article deleted. You are wikihounding and apparently according to one of your supporters below, you have an agenda. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well we can start on archeaology, but from what I recall, you were blocked twice, and the second one was lifted, not the first. That is what I remember. History2007 (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Malke, maybe if you stopped tagging all these articles and creating pages such as catholic views of mary (which, thank God, was merged) people would back off. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying you and the others are doing this for retaliation? And by extension, all the "supporters" who are saying the exact same things on all the AfD's of the redundant articles are against the deletion or mergers just because they're retaliating? What specfically is the retaliation against? Malke 2010 (talk) 12:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You both need to stop this and make a genuine effort to work together constructively. I'm not an admin & don't want to dragged into this, but if you carry on like this someone else will intervene. Malke's "liberal" Catholic perspective does need more representation in the articles in this area, which also are still somewhat repetitive, but these afd proposals etc are not the way to proceed. Equally History should avoid WP:OWNing behaviour, and accept some additions, and removals of excess and somewhat POV material. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you. I've tried many times to create a collegial atmosphere for editing but the incivility and edit stalking/reverting never abate. As well, History2007 never fails to bring up my mentorship or blocks, etc. He posts warnings on my talk page if I make a single edit. I'm not the only editor who has had these problems with History2007. I'd appreciate support for restoring this article so at least one Marian article can have new material. I've noted you've done an excellent job on the art article Xander started, Art in Roman Catholicism. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    John, no one has objected to a more liberal view anywhere. And there is no "you two", this is a multi-person discussion. I have never objected to the addition of a liberal view anywhere provided it is referenced. The discussion here is just sidetracking and needs end. if there is a liberal view to add, please feel free to add it John to the Mariology article, as you suggested, given that you know the topic, or in cooperation with others. I have seen no objection to that provided it is correctly done. Please just add it and let us be done. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Solution: I think the best solution here is to stop bickering and ask John and Malke to write a section together called "liberal views on Mary" and add that to the Mariology article and let us be done. Why don't guys cooperate to do that? Then everyone will comment on it after the fact. Why not cooperate together to do that? History2007 (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not a solution. Why can you write separate articles at the drop of a hat, like the Consecration and entrustment to Mary, but I'm not allowed to create an article? And referring to the above comment you made about "two" actually, it does take two. I've tried many times to reason with you, as have others. But you use behaviours and tactics that preclude input from others. You even use my mentorship. Well, you should maybe consider getting one yourself. Just because you have a lot of edits and have created a lot of "articles" doesn't mean you don't have to get along with others.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to History's previous post.....there does seem to be an air of nastiness here and I think that someone's advice to mellow that out is germane. As I noted here before, my angle is more on process concerns rather than having any opinion knowing on where it should end up. The other concern was the allegations (which, at first glance appeared to be true, but I must confess that I have not taken the time to fully learn for sure) was that at the same time that you are lobbying for merge/delete of the "Catholic views" article at the other place you were forcefully editing the Catholic views..... article towards being duplication of the other article. In any case, everybody, please don't hound, and my advice is to mellow oout and have some fun buildingn the articles or article. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never been uncivil, nor exerted any sense of ownership over an article.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    North8000, I would like to know why John and Malke and yourself will not work together to write a section called "liberal views on Mary" with good references and add that to the Mariology article instead of debates and bickering. Would you like to do that and end the debate? History2007 (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    History2007, the better question is why can't we use this article? Why does it have to be a "section" in one of your articles? The topic is large enough for it's own article. Why won't you allow it to exist?Malke 2010 (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is getting circular, so I will stop for a while. However, I do think what John suggested which was the addition of a "liberal views section" as he called it, to the Mariology article will be the easiest way to end this debate. And I think if John, Malke and North8000 cooperate on that it will be nice. Let us stop and see what others have to say. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're avoiding the question. You often do that. There is no need for a "section" when an article will do. Or should we AfD Consecration and entrustment to Mary? That's already a "section" in Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), so you're saying having that section there is enough and we can AfD the Consecration and entrustment to Mary. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't want POV forks - whatever main articles cover the Catholic view of Mary should present both liberal and traditional perspectives together in a balanced way. I don't really want to start writing but I will comment on drafts, changes etc, which are brought to my attention (on my talk - there are too many edits flying around here for me to keep up with them all). Both views need to be in the lead(s) as well, not just in a section at the bottom. But the liberal view is essentially to place less emphasis on Marian devotions and it doesn't take as long to say that. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me again invite you to write it. History2007 (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnbod, please explain how Catholic views on the Virgin Mary that will be about the conservative and progressive views is a POV content fork and yet Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) which is all about veneration from a non-neutral POV, is not?Malke 2010 (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec x 3)Because it was there first, apart from anything else. If an article does not present a balanced or complete view of a single topic, the answer is not to set up a new one just on that view, but to alter the existing one. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But then why is History2007 allowed to create so many content forks but nobody else is allowed to start a new article with entirely new content?Malke 2010 (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Answering History's question to me above, that question has an implied premise of resolving the question YOUR way. But the answer to it with respect to myself is easy. As I've said, my angle here is limited to proper process. I have neither an opinion nor the expertise to write anything in these articles. North8000 (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he always phrases like that.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me agree with Johnbod above, once again invite whoever wants or knows the topic to write about the liberal views and leave it there. I think we all know the views of each other now. History2007 (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So you agree with should restore this article. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the answer is well known, as above. History2007 (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not understanding. Could you please be specific? Do we delete Consecration and entrustment to Mary since as Johnbod says, the answer is not to create a new article. Do we restore Catholic views on Mary?Malke 2010 (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer is not to restore Catholic views on Mary because it doesn't add anything new. How can you justify adding a Catholic views on Mary page when you claim there are too many pages? It is like saying my arguement applies to everyone but me. I can create a new page but I want every other page merged. You have not said how "your" page is any different from content included in other existing pages or why what you add can't be added to existing pages. Before History added to your page it was just a couple paragraphs that provided they were better sourced could easily have been added to another page. Just because History2007 created a new page doesn't mean you can create a new page. It is circular reasoning. Every page needs to exist for a reason and just because an editor created a page doesn't give you the right to create a page. I think this entire discussion is beating a dead horse. Let the horse go. Marauder40 (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The questions is for History2007. So again, History2007, you're saying we can restore Catholic views on Mary. Let me remind you of your comment on the AfD for BMV RC:

     ::Comment I agree with Avaya1 that the article must be kept. However, I think it is also clear that hypertext-based information delivery does require some summarization, with an expansion via a Main. So let us ask: is History of the automobile a content fork of automobile? Is Automotive industry a content fork of automobile? Is List of countries by motor vehicle production a content fork of Automotive industry ? Is Kinematics a content fork of Classical mechanics? Is Circular motion a content fork of Kinematics? There is a clear pattern here among these articles: a summarization, with a expansion via Main. Here the article for automobile acts as the backbone that leads to the other articles on the topic, as does Classical mechanics. That is how hypertext works. That is how most of Wikipedia is structured:

    • There is a paragraph or two giving the general idea.
    • There is a Main that expands the idea.
    • The interested user clicks on the Main to zoom in.
    Else the Classical mechanics article would be a long book on physics. Instead it is a manageable article with hyper-expansions. This style of "hypert-text based" information presentation is used throughout Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Using this rationale, it's clear that Catholic views on the Virgin Mary should be allowed. Afterall, the same rules have to apply to all editors creating articles. Therefore, just as an article like Consecration and entrustment to Mary can be justified using the above rationale, so can Catholic views on the Virgin Mary, especially as the content is new and not in any of the redundant, but somehow acceptable, other Marian articles.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't speak for History2007, but it was clear to anyone that arguement you display was to justify the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) page not the Consecration and entrustment to Mary page. Are you saying that in your view "your" page was going to be the new portal for all Marian articles? Clear concensus was to merge this page. The only explanation of what "your" page I have seen was that it was going to present views of Mary that weren't included elsewhere. Why not include the views elsewhere. Leave it alone. Work with the existing articles.Marauder40 (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It really should be History2007 anwsering the questions. They are specific to statements he's made.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If I were History2007 I certainly wouldn't want to continue this conversation. You have been nothing, but uncivil towards him and he already has consensus to have this page merged with Roman Catholic Mariology. Not to mention that some of these questions are just plain irrational.Chhe (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Chhe, can you show diffs of uncivil comments?Malke 2010 (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:CALM

    [edit]

    Well let us all invoke WP:CALM here, wait a day, because this is getting heated and circular. Let us wait a day for all parties to reflect and calm down. Tomorrow is another day. Thanks History2007 (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It's probably a better idea to answer questions when they are asked rather than open a new sections, etc. It doesn't appear that any of the conversations above are 'heated.' The discussion can't really be engaged by all if you ask questions and get answers, but you don't do the same. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Malke, leave everyone alone. Nothing you are doing is benefitting wikipedia. Nothing. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you mentioned something along the same lines earlier:
    Malke, maybe if you stopped tagging all these articles and creating pages such as catholic views of mary (which, thank God, was merged) people would back off. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying that all of you got this article merged as retaliation because I nominated redundant pov forks for AfD?Malke 2010 (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, you are assuming things. That is not what I said at all. You have my quote right above you. Did I say I got this article merged as retaliation? No. Also, my two comments were different. One was stating that your unnecessary nominations are what are angering people, and the other states that nothing you are doing here is helping wikipedia. But I must say your nominations are extremely redundant, to the point where you have simply become a nuisance. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholic_views_on_the_Virgin_Mary&oldid=1200145457"