Talk:Mariology

Name

REDIRECT [[Mariology (Roman Catholic)]] is POV.

You moved Mariology to Mariology (Roman Catholic) on 16 April 2008.

When you move, it is your duty to find all articles that link to the old name and rename them individually. ("You are responsible for making sure that links continue to point where they are supposed to go.")

Any that have not been redone by now should be about Mariology in general, not Roman Catholic Mariology.

This name has to link to Ecumenical Mariology.

There is no statute of limitations on being POV. --Carlaude (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Need for consensus and disambiguation

The orginal redirect change by Carlaude was without consensus or discussion and invalidated many links. I therefore disambiguted the page since various pages related to this topic are currently changing name in a haphazrad way, and disambiguation is the most logical way. History2007 (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Whole whole point of a disambiguation is to list similar topic article pages together.

Mariology (Roman Catholic) and Protestant views of Mary -- teachings on Mary are similar topics from different POVs-- and need to be in the same group.

Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) on veneration and Mariology (Roman Catholic) on teachings -- are unsimilar topics and should not be listed together-- if Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is listed at all.

If you think that the meaning of Mariology is important in some way that I am missing, you need to be more clear-- but if I don't know why "Protestants do not have Mariology," as you say, then we cannot expect the reader will know this either.--Carlaude (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ontological metrics

Actually Ambrosius reorganized that, not me, but from a technical point of view that happens to be provably the best hierarchy since it imposes the minimal cognitive distance between the immediate siblings in the ontology tree. I happen to be an expert on this topic, much more than in religion, so I am sure here. Please read: Ontology (information science), Semantic relatedness and Semantic similarity as a start, then carefully apply those metrics herein. But to put it differently and more simply, from the cognitive factors viewpoint, the use of an implied double negative such as similar from different POV places a higher cognitive burden on the user compared to the alternative design and should be avoided. There is no doubt that technically all metrics would lead to Ambrosius's hierarchy as being optimal.

Anyway, since other entries are appearing now, I will wait a day or two, then eventuallly create the optimal cognitive structure once the entries have stabilized. Let the above reasoning act as the rationale for my future reorganization of the said ontology. History2007 (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the flowers. I think this was good progress. As we have more mariology articles, the structure may need some subdivides but as a whole, its good. Many encyclicals are missing. Please improve. Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

mariology

When do you propose we capitalize mariology? It is not consistent on this page.--Carlaude (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Webster's Third New International says "usually capitalized", so I recommend we capitalize it consistently. —Angr 23:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the encyclicals or summarize the topic of each so as to disambiguize.

Please remove the encyclicals or summarize the topic of each so as to disambiguize. The typical reader does not read Latin.--Carlaude (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Carlaude is right. Encyclicals are not relevant here, unless they refer to the methodology and definition of mariology. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Josephology

There is a related field of theological study called josephology on St. Joseph that was rather prominent during the papacy of John XXIII. [1] It would be intersting to have an article created on this. Also, there is the topic of anti-Marianism which might prove of some interest [2]. ADM (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Those are "fields" but in terms of the amount of interest in and attention to them, they are much smaller than Mariology. E.g. please see Marian papal encyclicals and Apostolic Letters on how much interest popes have shown in Mariology, then compare that to other fields. History2007 (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Re anti-Marianism, a reference I think ought to be made to the common accusation (usually from Protestants, but from some members of the Catholic community) of Mariolatry - that is, of direct or indirect (and even unintentional) worship rather than simple veneration of Mary and of Marian votive statues.

Also, on a somewhat related subject, the article might touch lightly upon the once-prevalent auto-identification with Mary of some male clegy, to such an extent that they would actually wear female garb; and as such, surely an instance of integrated and sublimated transvestism or even transsexualism. Possibly even a Catholicised version of the Diana/Cybele cult.

Nuttyskin (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I really see no reason for adding any of these issues to this page. The protestant issues are already addressed in the Mary (mother of Jesus) page and some in the Blessed Virgin Mary page. The others are so remote and so "fringe" that they are of no major educational benefit or relevance here. I am sure there have been 1,000 different forms of strange behavior in the past 20 centuries, but they are not part of Mariology as it is traditionally studied. History2007 (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

...And neither is human sacrifice a part of Judaism; but I'd still think it appropriate to touch upon the subject in a discussion of, say, the Blood Libel, wouldn't you? Covering the subject of Mariology merits at least a link to somewhere these matters will be discussed.

The Internet is just such a garden of 1,000 different forms of strange behavior, and it is very POV to differentiate negatively between them.

Nuttyskin (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree at all. That approach leads to verbosity in articles with fringe topics that have very little to do with the subject at hand. And it does not lead to "encyclopedic content". If you look at the general encyclopedias such as Britannica you will not see the Thousand dead end fringe avenues approach used in them. And Wikipedia should conform to the general encyclopedic norms. The goal of Wikipedia is to educate the readers about the topic, not deliver unrelated material. If one is teaching a course in physics, one should stick with physics. And if one is teaching a course in Mariology, the same applies. What if 8% of Mariologists have drank 4 coffees on a specific Tuesday in June? What does that have to do with educating the reader about Mariology? That discussion would be a waste of time for the reader. Just as this discussion is turning into a first class waste of time on unrelated fringe topics that lead to verbosity in articles without delivering substance. There are so many articles in Wikipedia that have "needs improvement" tags on them because they lack references, etc. Any effort should go into improving those first, increasing quality within Wikipedia, not adding irrelevant items . History2007 (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Britannica was a major source of popular anti-Catholic disinformation (consider the matter of Pope Joan), so can hardly be held up as a paragon of virtue in this regard. And I would further add that That approach leads to verbosity in articles with fringe topics that have very little to do with the subject at hand is simply indicative of an ailment to which Wikipedia is singularly prone. In fact, it is endemic to the entire site - seems, indeed, to be promulgated as a positive virtue in some parts of it - so excuse me, I'm sure, for merely adjusting unconsciously to the general tone of the household.

The problem, if I may add in parting, is not that there are articles lacking references, but that artificial standards have been imposed by the site as to what constitutes a valid reference. I'm not disputing that standards ought to be set, but arguing that perhaps the need to improve some articles seems to be taken as an excuse for not improving others.

Nuttyskin (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Mariology

Could someone with the necessary knowledge please add information on the Mariology of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the other ancient churches of the east? Koro Neil (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, a year later, I eventually got around to it. I added some material today, and will add more later. There is plenty to write about actually, specially about the modern Orthodox Mariology (a good deal of it Russian) that has started to present a systematic approach. It differs from the Roman Catholic systematic Mariology and that may well be an interesting thing to highlight as well. History2007 (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Problems with feminist mariology

Theologian Manfred Hauke has coined the term feminist mariology to describe a thought current within feminist theology which reflects on the role of Mary in the life of the Church from a modern feminist perspective. The article should consider mentioning these issues, which tend to affect the practice of contemporary marian theologians. Affiliated theologians such as Mary Daly and Uta Ranke-Heinemann have of course been sharply criticized by mainstream theologians within the Catholic Church. [3] ADM (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Marianism redirect

I don't think Marianism should redirect here; religious/spiritual faith directed toward Mary is a completely different topic from an academic focus on her.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mariology. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229120525/http://www.walsingham.org.uk/romancatholic/history.html to http://www.walsingham.org.uk/romancatholic/history.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Mariology in Ethiopian/Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Christianity

This is a major facet to these subdivisions of Christianity, & needs adding in order to complete this article. this probably deserves its own article, but let's start with acknowledgement that it exists. -- llywrch (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)