Talk:Immaculate Conception

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

Use of 'Catholics Believe' Incorrect?[edit]

In numerous places, this article refers to things that 'Catholics believe,' 'Orthodox Christians say,' or 'Old Catholics do not reject.' Forgive me if this is nitpicking, but isn't it more correct to say something like 'The Catholic Church teaches' or 'Orthodox Christian dogma states'? The current phrasing is, in my opinion misleading. As an example, the line 'Catholics believe Mary "was free from any personal or hereditary sin"' seems to speak for every Catholic everywhere, and in my own experience many Catholics hold personal views that are at odds with their Church. To really state what Catholics or Orthodox Christians believe, in my opinion, should require citing a poll showing that the belief is actually widely held outside of Church leadership and theologians.

However, I'm hesitant to go through and make this change because I don't know how Wikipedia treats churches - is it accepted practice to use 'members of the church believe' interchangeably with 'the church teaches'?


- Julien —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In this sense you are absolutely right, it should state what the church teaches. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Along the lines of these notes, I feel compelled to raise the question as to why you cannot state that the "Roman Catholic church" believes this, that, or the other, instead of saying The Church believes... etc. The entire premise of stating The Church believes... is no less than to foster catholicism as The Church, and no other legitimate church, but "ours" is relevant. Talk about dogma. To a substantial portion of the world, Roman Catholic, or any other Catholic denomination does NOT represent orthodoxy nor orginality to the 1st Century church. And not to be inconsistent, but that paradigm should be equally presented for any denomination. While all churches should strive toward the original intent and accuracy of the christian faith, the idea that all churches outside of catholicism are heretical, is still the tactical approach of the Vatican. This only fosters what many christians heartily believe, that the RC church is guilty of an immaculate perception. (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC) A. Augustine — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

On a quick look through I can't see any such statements except "Catholics do not believe that Mary, herself, was the product of a Virgin Birth", which is ok I think. Or has someone made the changes? Johnbod (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Whatever the Catholic Church teaches dogmatically, can be cited with "Catholics believe", as whoever does not believe so, whatever his good faith (secular or also theological sense) etc., can by definition not in this respect be called Catholic. By the way, show me a Catholic that actually disbelieves in the Immaculate Conception. There may be those who disbelieve original sin - and are quite consequently led to deny the Immaculate Conception (though it'd be more accurate to say they teach an imm. conc. of every person); there are those who think about all that as theoreticisms which they don't even give the credit of denying; some that are prejudiced against anything the Pope teaches; but to find a Catholic that straightforwardly professes that Holy Mary did contract original sin, or that there is at least doubt whether she did, will not be easy. -- (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
In the interest of avoiding the metaphysical uncertainty of whether bad Catholics are not Catholic at all, we should stick to the "Catholic Church teaches" formula. In the case of the sentence cited by Johnbod, it would make sense to rephrase this as a "should not be confused with" construct. Mangoe (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


Afterwriting's change of dogma to doctrine on grammatical grounds is theologically incorrect and introduces errors in the article. Needs to be reverted ASAP. He says he needs no theology lesson.....but the article itself says that it is a dogma. So his change is incorrect, period. History2007 (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, as it is in fact dogma. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference formats and Ibid[edit]

I saw the {{ibid}} template being used in the references section which asked editors to replace "Ibid" with named references.

I attempted to do just that but found that a named reference wouldn't quite cut it since they referred to different paragraphs in the same document. I figured the best thing would be to fill out the whole {{cite web}} template as best I could. I figured that someone would fix it further if need be.

Someone reverted my edit without comment, so I don't know what I did wrong. The current page still has the Ibid reference and the {{ibid}} template asking users to replace it.

Can someone else fix it "properly"?

Heavy Joke (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it because the format seemed off and notes was within refs. I am not sure how to fix it. History2007 (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

editing needed/tags added/deleted without improvement[edit]

The article needs to be edited for the redundancies, and to address the issues related to the tags: *The original research is fairly blatant.

  • Whole sections are without any citations.
  • The lead is interminably long and does not explain fully and succinctly what the IC is all about.
  • Same with the dogma 'controversies,' which not surprisingly are entirely bereft of citations.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As I stated specifically above, the article needs editing especially for the fairly blatant WP:OR. An examaple is the section on 'dogma.'

The only citation is to an article on the website which does not support the original research.

The tags have been removed without any improvement to the article. The tags need to be put back so that other editors will see the problems and can contribute to the remedy.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually large sections come from the Catholic encyclopedia if you check, e.g. the dogma section. Clearly a high standard of scrutiny is being imposed here, yet references can be added without throwing the baby out with the bath water. To be "positive" you can do a few searches and add references, e.g. to the dogma section. And mark specific sections - given that there are already 28 references. The lede is a different issue from the rest, as usual, but seems to summarize what there is, and I added a few refs to it. You can search and add a few refs too. It is really easy, once you get used to adding them in a positive manner. You should state specific problems in the lede, not just blanket complaints. History2007 (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
See sources here:
Also, the Catholic Encyclopedia being used here was written at the start of the 20th century. Over 100 years ago. Certainly, there are current, actual reliable sources that have come along since then.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Catholic encyclopedia is widely, I mean widely used within Wikipedia. I see no reason against it being a WP:Reliable source. That discussion has nothing to do with this page. Catholic encyclopedia is used all over Wikipedia, so I see no reason why it should be questioned just here. Again, this seems to be raising a higher standard here regarding the Catholic encyclopedia than elsewhere in Wikipedia. I see no problem with using Catholic encyclopedia. History2007 (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The rules are very clear on using one source. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It is even more clear that there is more than one source. History2007 (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hidden text?[edit]

I went in to correct a small spelling error in the Protestantism section and was floored by paragraphs upon paragraphs of hidden text. (see here.) While I absolutely agree that this gigantic block of non-referenced "information" does not belong in this section (or anywhere on WP, for that matter) I don't understand why it's still included in the edit field. There are no comments or instructions and I'm not seeing anything in the Talk history. I'm too tired to pour through the history right now but I will if need be. I'd like to just remove the block entirely as it just makes for some distracting clutter while editing but I would love to know if there's a reason for this. 03:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocrasaroon (talkcontribs)


Should the Anglican belief in Our Lady of Lourdes be mentioned? Since there is an Anglican shrine at Lourdes, and the Anglican Communion officially approved of the apparition (although stating it is not necessary to believe in, but is encouraged)... and the Apparition called herself the "Immaculate Conception", I feel like it should be in the Anglican section.. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"Macula" is not the Latin word used for "stain" here[edit]

The original Latin is: "ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem." The article should be changed to reflect the correct Latin root. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Labe is correct. It is the original Latin term. Sine Labe Concepta. But ancient antiphons also refer to the sin as Macula: such as Tota Pulchra es Maria, et Macula non est te.

Macula or Labe are both good. It doesn't make a difference, really. The same concept is there. LoveforMary (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary

Spain's Official Patron Saint is Our Lady of the Pillar[edit]

Spain's official Patron Saint is Our Lady of the Pillar. The other principal Patron is Saint James the Greater of Compostela. Why are you removing the Philippines from the patronage title and retaining other countries when the Philippines has had that title way longer, since 1571? And how come we cannot tag the Manila Cathedral, dedicated to the Immaculate Conception on the page? Racist and separative. How demeaning to the readers!

No evidence has been provided for your claims. We have a source saying that the Immaculate Conception is Spain's patronness. Remember that the criterion on WP is not truth, but verifiability. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


Oh come now Esoglou, you don't need to BRD on me buddy - we could have just discussed it. I will not argue the point because it is not worth the debate, not because I agree with it. But the Aparecida statue has an unknown artist, no one knows what theme it represents and the crowds have assigned the IC theme to it at will perhaps to due to the hands, but that is not a definite indicator. There is no artistic basis for that assignment except popular acceptance. They could have assigned Queen of Heaven. It is anyone's guess what the artist intended. And it resembles no other IC representation. In fact the oversized crown is not typical of IC. But if you want to call it that, for old time's sake I will not argue. History2007 (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for quite unintentionally offending you, and I apologize. To my poor eyes (or is it my imagination?) the little statue has Mary standing on what may represent a globe and a crescent moon. Even if my eyes or imagination are right (and you can well dispute that they are), they are not a Wikipedia reliable source, so I gave a couple of sources that say the statue does represent the Immaculate Conception. I have since seen a few more sources that make the same identification, and I have seen none that disputes it. The sources attribute, perhaps tentatively, the presumably once polychrome statue to a friar in Brazil. Esoglou (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
No worries my friend, no apology is needed. I have been interested in that Basilica for long, because it is the largest after St Peter's (excluding the empty yard one). In any case. let us declare it an IC and once Wikipedia says that then it is so. A better reference to add is this which is a solid book, if you want to add that. My comment was however shaped by the fact that the IC declaration was by the fishermen and the local crowds who may not have been art historians. The general motif of Pacheco may have been known to the artist, but again no one knows, as indicated by the lack of art history books as refs. There are WP:RS sources, but they are generally travel guides, etc. In any case, now that this page will say it is an IC, then it is an IC. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
By the way, you may not have noticed, but I did not delete your text and refs just now, the other fellow did. I restored them now, and will add another ref and let us be done with this, unless more unsourced text/commentary gets added out of nowhere. History2007 (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A conception or a dogma?[edit]

I think this article should begin on the same lines as that on original sin: "Original sin is, according to a theological doctrine, humanity's state of sin resulting from the Fall of Man." That article does not say that original sin is a dogma. Strictly speaking, the dogma in that case is about original sin: it is not original sin. In the same way I think that the dogma here is not the immaculate conception of Mary, and that her immaculate conception is not, properly speaking, a dogma but is instead something that, according to a dogma, occurred. My doubtless imperfect attempt to express this was immediately reverted. Should it have been? Esoglou (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, on purely linguistic grounds - this is a pointless distinction, way beyond pedantic, as those better up in the vocabulary than myself can no doubt explain. Once you change that you have to change things like the following sentence: "It is one of the four dogmata in Roman Catholic Mariology." Original sin is something that is widely believed in by many who would come out in spots if told they held a dogma, hence the different phrasing.Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
A very minor issue either way really. History2007 (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I maintain my view, but from the start I have had enough sympathy with History2007's to have had no intention to quarrel about the matter and to have decided straightway to leave the decision to others. Esoglou (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
But I should tell you guys that my view remains the following: There are so many other pages so full of errors that it is not a good use of resources to debate these details. An example is the entire series of articles on salvation, salvation (Christianity), Second coming of Christ, etc. E.g. please see: this comment. Those pages are the lowest quality ever, of course, but even Annunciation has tags on it. So there are problems everywhere and I wish they would get addressed first before we get involved in too much linguistic detail. I would have preferred Esoglou's version, but for that reason will not debate it. Some IP may change it in 9 months anyway. History2007 (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm very open to other wordings, but actually you are right - there's more important stuff for all of us to do. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Repetition & reversion[edit]

I rationalised the section on Definition of the dogma, which has two accounts of the circumstances of the Papal Bull - one refers to the definition "above", the other repeats in a slightly fuller form the definition (but referenced to only an excerpt and not the full text).

I also changed the paragraph which included that the dogma "declares with absolute certainty and authority that Mary possessed sanctifying grace from the first instant of her existence" which seems to me misleading, as the word existence is not in the Papal Bull, and could be taken to imply from Mary's active rather than passive conception which I don't think is what the dogma means. See (I think the Catholic Encyclopedia has the Imprimatur.)

It was reverted, and the repetitiveness is still there, and it says something is certain that is not actually in the dogma.

Blue watcher 17:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloovee (talkcontribs)

Nope, reading the long WP:Primary source, i.e. the papal document and interpreting that yourself does not work. The papal bull long and various WP:Secondary sources have summarized that as such, e.g. also see this and see this one too. Both solid WP:RS sources that take total precedence over your own interpretation of what the WP:Primary source states. History2007 (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"From the first moment of her existence" is well-attested, but it's not what the dogma says, and begs the question, "When is the first moment of her existence?" (Active conception, passive conception, animation, birth?) If the phrase is generally (and authoritatively) used, it may be a minor point, but it still seems odd to say that that the dogma declares "with absolute certainty and authority" something it doesn't actually say.

Rationalising the repetition is a separate matter, nothing to do with interpretation or opinion, just tidiness. Blue watcher 01:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloovee (talkcontribs)

The Immaculate Conception (novel)[edit]

I have added a note to the talk page of the article The Immaculate Conception. It seems anomalous to me that that page discusses a fairly obscure novel rather than the Christian doctrine and I suggest this be rectified. --Lo2u (TC) 18:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, did so per WP:SNOW. History2007 (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
It needed a dab page anyway, so I made that. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Cathedral-Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, PHILIPPINES[edit]

Please correct the grammatical errors and spelling mishaps presented in the Patronage of the Immaculate Conception for Philippines? Can we not attach a link to the Cathedral-Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in Manila, as related to the patronage of the Immaculate Conception while Brazil can have a special link attached to the Nossa Senhora Aparecida Basilica? It is the highest seat of the Roman Catholic bishopry in the Philippines. Why the cultural favoritism?

POPE BENEDICT XIV - NON EST EQUIDEM - 1767 "Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe as the Patrona y Reina de Mexico, Emperatriz de las Americas e Islas Filipinas."

His holiness, PAPA PIO XI officially declared that Our Lady of Guadalupe was the patroness of Philippines at one time while Philippines IN 1938! Why no mention of this? Yet you will mention Rosa Limana and Santa Potenciana? Very selective and narrow of Wikipedia American editors.

This was replaced by the Immaculate Conception in 1942 by POPE PIO XII IN 1942 in IMPOSITI NOBIS papal bull.



The secondary patrons of the Philippines----all according Papal declarations are Our Lady of Guadalupe, Santa Pudenziana and Santa Rosa de Lima.

Please correct and allow the tag for Basilica-Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, informally known as Manila Cathedral and let things be fair if you are also going to allow Nossa Aparecida of Brazil to have their link.

And then one of you Allmighty-Wikipedia editors REMOVED a Photograph called "Retablo of the Inmaculada Concepcion" (1574 A.D.) photograph in Cebu city, Philippines dating back hundreds of years ago yet replace the photo with the current Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in Washington D.C. USA when it was patronized much much later----and you Americans don't even have a statue honoring the Immaculate Conception NOR a liturgical office authorized by ANY Pope for inside that Washington Basilica like Spain, Mexico or the Philippines and the Spanish or Hispanic cultures have annual public holidays and grand processions every year but we don't get credit for it.

Cultural favoritism on Wikipedia by almighty American editors who are biased and cherry-picking their content. And it is so obvious that American Catholics have very little regard for the Immaculate Conception title since the Guadalupe honors are given much more precedence and attention in many American Parishes. Yet no credit is given for older patronages here in Wikipedia and Brazil and American only gets to claim a link to their Basilica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The article informs that from 1760 Mary Immaculate was (secondary) patron saint of Spain and all its territories, western and eastern, to which the Philippines then (but no longer) belonged. It informs that, as an individual entity or province, the Philippines had Saint Pudentiana as patron from the 16th century and Saint Rose of Lima from the 17th. It also informs that in 1942 Pope Pius XII declared Mary Immaculate principal patron saint of the Philippines, keeping as secondary patron saints of the country the other two. The article gives information about patronage of whole countries, not of single dioceses, still less of individual churches within dioceses.
As you can see if you look up this set of books, the 1767 bull Non est equidem made Our Lady of Guadalupe patron saint of New Spain (corresponding approximately to Mexico), which like the Philippines was only one of the entities within the territories of Spain, those territories that, taken as a whole, had Saint James and the Immaculate as patron saints. Today too, patron saints are assigned to continents taken in their entirety, but individual countries within those continents have their own patron saints. Esoglou (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually Esoglou, this comment is most probably by Lloys Baltasar, given that the IP geolocates to his area and the topic is the same as his favorite topic. So I would not worry about him too much given that he was blocked. History2007 (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Immaculate Conception of Saint John the Baptist?[edit]

We now have Immaculate Conception of Saint John the Baptist. Is that so? If so, someone should phone the Pope and inform him to have them say something about it in the Catechism.... I think that needs to be Afd-ed. Just not the case. History2007 (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Added two valid references for recent expansion under Patronage[edit]

I understand that editing the Immaculate Conception comes under heavy scrutiny, and I have labored two hours of my precious time to add the following valid sources.

I inserted an expanded set of information regarding the Papal Approval of His Holiness, Pope Pius IX regarding the Immaculate Conception. I added the dates when it was first approved, then published. Both documents were signed by Cardinal Fransoni, prefect for the Congregatio pro Gentium Evangelizatione at the time. The source is from the same sourced used elsewhere in this article, and is backed by prominent Vatican researcher Mr. Mark Shea of EWTN in 1996.

I also expanded the patronage of Immaculate Conception from Pope Gregory XIII for the Philippine Islands. This is referenced by a Pastoral letter issued by the Conference of the Bishops of the Philippines dated February 2, 1975. I also have in my reference a book I have my possession called Ynang Maria: a written documentary regarding various Marian Icons in the Philippines. It is found on PAGES 60-61.

Please kindly allow the links of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington D.C. and Cathedral-Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in Manila to remain there. It does no harm but allow your readers to learn more about two great buildings valuable to historians and novelty researchers.

Thank you. LoveforMary (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary.

Wordiness and POV of lede[edit]

I have edited down the lede as it repeated the statement of the dogma. I also must insist that it make clear that this is something that Catholics— that is, those in communion with the Church of Rome— hold in contrast to most of the rest of Christendom. Mangoe (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is pretty much a pure Roman Catholic item. It is as RC as the pope. But let us see what other editors say. History2007 (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do you have to say something like that? Its common sense. If you are not Catholic, then you don't subscribe to the belief. I know you're Anglican and all that----but to me, that is just trolling. You dont see us editors go to Moslem pages and troll their beliefs by comparing them with ours. This isn't the platform to do that. Your Anti-catholic sentiments are unnecessary. So much anger, jEEZ. LoveforMary (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary

I admit to being a bit peeved now, but that's in reaction to your defensiveness. Look, I think it is necessary to say this, because it is not true of other Marian dogmas. The dogma of the Assumption of Mary, for example, is frequently treated as adiaphora by Anglicans, and is almost universally held in Orthodoxy even though it is not dogmatized. By contrast, there are a few Anglo-Catholics who subscribe to the doctrine of the IC, and perhaps a few of the Orthodox (I'd have to check that), but most Anglicans and pretty much everyone else actively rejects it. It's one of the defining differences of the Old Catholics. Stating the truth isn't anti-Catholic. Mangoe (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I will let you guys talk it over but the Orthodox do not accept the IC, FYI. There is usually no "few of the Orthodox" they are orthodox. History2007 (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


This is not the platform to do that ok? You don't get to come to article and change the wording to suit your religious beliefs against Marian dogmas. This is NOT the platform for it. GO edit the section on Anglican views below and make it your own. But don't vandalize the introduction. It was already fine for so many months and you come here and remove the Latin definitions because you think its too wordy! LoveforMary (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveForMary

Assumption is held by the Orthodox Churches, yes. But this is DISTINCT from the Immaculate Conception. Those two concepts are different and your Anglican view is not merited on this article. You can start a section on Anglican view on the Assumption of Mary if you want. Again, POV. LoveforMary (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary

Agree with Mangoe & History. Calm down, LfM. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually this is a free for all John. No one agrees with each other, but the issues are really minor anyway ... History2007 (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Look, I'm trying to be patient here. LFM, if you want to spell out the Latin further down, be my guest; I think that's appropriate. If it was in the state it was for so many months, then it needed improvement for that many months. If you are Catholic, you do not have the authority here to claim ownership of the article and defend it from change by Protestants or for that matter atheists and unbelievers. It's not going to look good that you attack me on the basis of my religion. I or any other reasonably knowledgeable person, of whatever faith, my come here and work on the wording and add material which I think needs to be covered. I think that an ignorant person who comes along needs to have spelled out for him that this is almost strictly Catholic and rejected by nearly the entirety of the rest of Christendom. That's not anti-Catholic; that's just what's true. My Anglican view is merited, because that's what WP:NPOV says about what gets written here. Mangoe (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Side point: I am not sure if the Eastern Catholics follow it. They do not celebrate the modern feast it seems. I think Esoglou probably knows that. So wait for him to clarify, anyway. It is probably just a Roman Catholic issue, not a Catholic item. History2007 (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't attacking. You were insisting to put your Anglican views on a ROMAN CATHOLIC article. There is a difference. This is not the platform for it. The Latin definitions that were placed there were good and synonymous with Vatican documents. You removed it! Why? Because you dislike the promotion of RC articles without Anglican views challenging it. LoveforMary (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary

You know what? If you really want to give your input regarding Anglican beliefs AGAINST the Immaculate Conception, there is a section placed there under Anglicanism. Just make sure your info is well-documented and has verifiability for other readers. There is no need to alter the introduction to suit your single-religious belief otherwise we would have to accommodate EVERY single religion in the introduction. Do u get it? The Anglicanism section is all yours, you know so much about it. Go ahead. But don't impose it on the intro. Like what you said "Not all Christians outside the Roman Ctholic church, especially Anglicanism agrees with this belief". Seriously??? LoveforMary (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary

You are making personal attacks, and if I take this to WP:AN/I, they will agree with me that this is so. I am being more patient with you than you deserve, at this point. Your dogged insistence that there are unofficial dogmas is flatly in contradiction with our article on dogma, and that article is accurate in its representation of not only common but official usage. If I appeal to WP:CHRISTIANITY, I have confidence that they will back me up on this. Mangoe (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What was wrong with the introduction in the first place? It was fine all these months. What needed to be changed? You keep insisting that its "wordy" but they are all cited properly by other past editors using the Latin definitions from the official Vatican website. Nobody is censoring you for your contributions, except that the article was fine in the first place. LoveforMary (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary

I do not really want to interrupt this lovely conversation, but both LoveforMary and Mangoe have now crossed over the WP:3RR line, a bright-line rule, I should say... I have only done 2 edits so I am not there yet. So I could restore it back to what it was yesterday until things calm down. I would prefer to do that, but let us see what John, or other users says.... History2007 (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that taking out "official" again will put me over the line in spirit, if not literally so; I haven't actually counted out the changes. We have edited forward, so I'm going to object in an official way if you undo the whole thing. Mangoe (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
As I said this is much ado about nothing by and large anyway, yet you have both crossed the line over not very much. As I said, I will wait for other editors to comment before I make an edit. History2007 (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not scared to take out the word official. But I just want to point out that Im really really upset that you had to take out the Latin definitions previously placed there by past editors. Those editors worked hard to consensus to agree on that Latin definition, and you just walk in here and take things out because you deem its too wordy. It was absolutely fine from the beginning without your Anglican inserts and you know it. LoveforMary (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary

What were the Latin definitions please? In the midst of this hoopla, I cannot even see what they may have been. Please clarify. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Just the definition (in English), as here. I agree this is in too technical language for the lead. Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I see, but the reader needs to be informed about macula, immaculate, etc. What is the big deal, wordiness? I do not see it as wordy... Just makes it uninformative. What was your justification for deleting that Mangoe? History2007 (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The bits, and links, removed should go into the top of the next section, which was a repetition of what was in the lead. I think that's enough. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Anyway, this is how Wikipedia eats life. Minor irrelevant discussion with no encyclopedic value, lots of "genius level talk" and before you know it a day has passed.... And any IP with a heartbeat and a modem can change it in 3 months anyway. A waste of time discussion from the very start. Congrats to all participants here.... This discussion can add zero encyclopedic content but is about "removing Catholic POV from an article on Catholic theology" in the name of wordiness.... The wisdom of that attempt is just breathtaking, just breathtaking.... way to go.... How about removing physics POV from all physics articles next... that would be just as wise and useful...History2007 (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I've re-added the stuff taken from the lede at the top of the next section, and also the "only formally in CC" bit. The concept of things too obvious to need saying does not work on WP, least of all in this area. I think we can all move on now. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hat notes[edit]

As I said here, this revert re-added incorrect links; Immaculate (disambiguation) is now Immaculata (disambiguation), and the link to Immacolata (character) is unnecessary as she's included in the relevant dab page. Additionally, the separate hat notes make clear what the different pages are for: one disambiguates the article's title (Immaculate Conception (disambiguation)) while the others disambiguate terms that happen to redirect here. The "see also" tag is a bit confusing here since it usually implies the listed articles are related in topic, not that the titles are the same. As such, I've restored the earlier hat notes and correct links.--Cúchullain t/c 16:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Granted about the deletion of the character--but everyone can clearly see that this page is called Immaculate Conception. Is it valuable to make it even more explicit that the title of the page is "Immaculate Conception" by separating the hatnotes? I would say that it's more worthwhile to get the reader past the hatnote and to the information they're looking for. That means that whether they type in "Immaculate Conception" or "Immaculate" or "Immaculata" wanting a different article, they're able to quickly go to the link... and if they in fact are - as is most likely - looking for this article, we get the hatnotes out of the way as soon as possible so as to quicker show the content to the readers. Red Slash 04:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
As I said twice now, the "see also" tag isn't for dab pages, that's "other uses" and "redirect". And Immaculate (disambiguation) is now Immaculata (disambiguation). We can talk about other solutions if anyone else has a problem with this presentation, but restoring these errors isn't kosher.--Cúchullain t/c 12:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
We should get some additional input here. Esoglou, Steel1943, what do you think?--Cúchullain t/c 14:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion either way, as long as the hatnote template used isn't {{Hatnote}}. However, I would agree that two hatnotes is appropriate. Steel1943 (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I would like to see the response to the unquestionable statement that there is now no Immaculate (disambiguation) page, before I would venture an opinion on what at first sight seems a rather abstruse matter. Esoglou (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Damn Protestants[edit]

Sick of the trucking Protestants WHO KEEP HIGHJACKING THIS ARTICLE and inserting THEIR VERBOSE imaginations on what the Immaculate Conception means.

At the end of the day, I want a CLEAR CONCISE SIMPLE article that is easy to read, easy to understand, and easy to share. Rats who act like Armchair experts should know better than to mess with the Lead, every 15th of August every 8 December and COMPLICATE THE WORDING of a Simple definition. NOBODY knows what your words mean, USE Plain English. This is not the article for Brain Surgery!

Furthemore, inserting crap details like "Pope Pius XII consecrated the dogma in 1942" is totally BS! QUIT HIGHJACKING THIS ARTICLE, you Rambunctious Protestants. Go back to Luther's coffin and stay there! TreasureIslandMediaBoss (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The article isn't what you want? That's an awful shame. What you need to understand is this is an encylopedia article, not a catechism or a "doctrine for young Catholics" textbook. Wikipedia is an enyclopedia, meaning that some big words will be used (I see you're an expert in using big words!) and alternative viewpoints, i.e. Protestant views, will be included too. Your attitude on this talk page has been unnecessarily aggressive. Insulting other users and accusing people of "hijacking" the article flies in the face of WP:GOODFAITH. Please calm down and work with other users to improve the article, rather than imposing your own biases on the article. -- HazhkTalk 18:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Bold edit[edit]

Would the editor now going by the name of User:TreasureIslandMediaBoss try to defend his edit-warring bold edit that, among other things, sourcelessly maintains that the Immaculate Conception means that Mary was "directly" (how could it have been indirectly?) filled with "the" (is this English?) sanctifying grace by God "throughout her entire lifetime" (not just a matter of her conception then?) Esoglou (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Then fix the article yourself and make it plain English easy to understand. You guard this article all the time. You should be responsible to prevent foolish edits trying to complicate the lead. You are letting these people make VOLUME 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 OUT OF A LEAD which should be PLAIN and EASY to READ. TreasureIslandMediaBoss (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That is no defence for inserting false information. Esoglou (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh just shut up and do your proper job and stop letting these people clown the article all the gotdamn time. TreasureIslandMediaBoss (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Will you then refrain from edit warring and let other try to improve the presentation of accurate information? Esoglou (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That Pope Pius XII consecrated the dogma in 1942???? Are you that obtuse? Those words you see there are MY EDIT WORDS. they are SIMPLE, BRIEF and EASY to read. Compare those Simpleton words with the BS Grandeur "flowery crap" that the other Protestant self-serving editor inserted there, which YOU IGNORED. That damn useless REDUNDANT worthless verbose run-on sentence lead was longer than Princess Diana's wedding train. FACEPALM. TreasureIslandMediaBoss (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Confusing wording in lede[edit]

It was claimed in the last revert that I introduced "elevated vocabulary" - I did nothing of the sort. I merely shuffled word order, so as to prevent confusion about what was meant by "former" and "latter" because there were three things being mentioned in the text. I am still not happy with the wording, because "former" and "latter" could still be confusing, but the previous text was more unacceptable to me. I don't have the time now to look at it, but I am sure that it can be phrased elegantly and clearly. Elizium23 (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

NOR violation regarding unconfirmed quote[edit]

As a further favor to my fellow editors, it is currently the 82nd footnote. - Exodus2320 (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Immaculate Conception. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Immaculate Conception. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Immaculate Conception. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


Is there space for Ælfric_of_Eynsham's view? It's not immediately where in the article it would go. Springnuts (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I think there is always room for well cited content that further explores the topic. -- HafizHanif (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)