This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Most other biblical figures have one, incl. Saint Joseph (Mary's most direct counterpart, I would think). Can we get going the discussion the comment at the beginning of the article requires? Deus vult (aliquid)!Crusadestudent (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree that we should have an Infobox for Mary. CookieMonster755📞✉✓ 18:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, please don't. They are for factual data, of which almost none exists as to her life. Wholly inappropriate, which is why we've never had one. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Just a note, Saint Joseph uses {{infobox saint}}, which puts more of a focus on things like feast days and other non-biographical information. clpo13(talk) 04:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, there was a discussion about the infobox that is archived at Talk:Mary, mother of Jesus/Archive 4#Infobox and the section immediately after that. I see no consensus for removal. It was removed here by an editor who no longer edits. HereJohnbod placed the warning not to add the infobox; perhaps he can explain why. Sundayclose (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
That is standard Arbcom-case-following treatment for a busy and often contentious article. I doubt I was aware of the previous discussion, some years before. The box as shown in that section is at least short, and not cluttered up, but also shows the uselessness of a box here. No dates for either birth or death for example - but better that than guesses. I still strongly oppose one, but if we must have one, let it be that. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
It looks to me like there's consensus for infobox saint. I'm moving the one from down below. May I close this discussion? Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 03:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Sure, feel free to close it up. CookieMonster755📞✉✓ 04:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I see no consensus here; there are very few respondents and the timeframe in which this discussion was 'decided' was too short. Let's be clear: there already is an infobox and it is present in the correct place in the article. The main discussion point should be whether we place an explicitly Christian infobox at the very top of an article which deals with an objective perspective of Mary (covering all different views, both Christian and non-Christian). I think the answer is categorically no. I cannot see a consensus for overturning that view. We do have a section covering specific religious perspectives of Mary; Christian as well as Islamic and other perspectives. There are also multiple sub-articles which deal with different Christian denominational views of Mary. I have moved the infobox back to its longstanding position in the article with the view that further discussion is needed... pending a real consensus it should remain in that place in the article. -- Hazhk (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll set the discussion going again. Perhaps a slightly more neutral infobox could be placed in the lead? Sundayclose notes that such a box was present in the past, before being removed without much discussion. We could take the icon that is already there, place a box around it and add a few (secular) biographical details (which details could be decided here). See the Jesus article as an example. A Saint infobox is inappropriate for reasons that should be obvious if one takes a cursory look at the lead.-- Hazhk (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Rather than creating a home-made infobox, why not use Template:Infobox person? That's certainly a neutral infobox. It's the infobox used for Jesus. There might need to be some discussion and agreement about specific content, but that choice for infobox should not be controversial. Sundayclose (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Support {{infobox person}} on top, very brief, keeping the Christian one where it is but where I didn't see it without this discussion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Infobox person is the template I had in mind. I support adding it. Hazhk (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Everybody please keep in mind that the "Christian infobox" also lists information relevant directly to Islam. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 18:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with @Gerda Arendt: here. I would also support a infobox person, with brief information and a infobox image. CookieMonster755📞✉✓ 14:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I've created a provisional infobox, following recommendations here. I have moved the image previously used in the lead. The artwork I have chosen for the infobox has been judged one of the finest files in Wikimedia Commons. Suggestions for improving the infobox are welcomed. -- Hazhk (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
AArgh! Change the image, it's horrible, with the subject way too small! FPs are selected on purely technical grounds. We have zillions of better images on Commons, but a classic close-up icon must represent the most standard traditional representation. Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Why we don't have death date? Ryan Pikachu (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
We also don't have a birth date, because we do not know the dates of her birth or death. Not to mention some Christian traditions hold that Mary did not die, but was assumed into heaven. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support. The uppercase "M" in "Mother" may be considered a religious honorific, however, an argument may also be presented for lowercase "m" — as it appears within the article's lead sentence. —Roman Spinner(talk)(contribs) 01:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
We already have Virgin Mary, Theotokos and actually about 50+ other articles covering the religious titles of Mary. "Mother of God" is a religious title, but "M/mother of Jesus" is not. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Oops, in fact over 150 in Category:Titles of Mary, but no "Mother of Jesus". The whole point of this article is that is neutral on the religious aspects, and the "mother of Jesus" used merely as the easist disambiguating phrase. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. The nom's rationale is wrong. The current title is the most natural and neutral one possible. Srnec (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Support, if "Mary (mother of Jesus)" with the lowercase "m" is used-- otherwise I oppose. tahcchat 03:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment. "mother" should clearly be in lower case. I oppose moving to (Mother of Jesus). Christhe spelleryack
Oppose – the current title is just fine. It is natural and neutral, as Mary is the mother of Jesus. CookieMonster755𝚨-𝛀 01:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. It's fine how it is. "Mary, mother of Jesus" is practically the person's name. I mean, it is a term in its own right, and how she's referred to, a lot. Like "Peter the Great" or "Ego the Living Planet", the descriptive has attached to them. Googling the exact string "Mary, mother of Jesus" gets quite a few results using this exact term. This result will include "Mary (mother of Jesus)" but few results seem to use the parens. It also includes various capitalizations, and "Mary, Mother of Jesus" comes up a lot, but probably less than 50% of the results (I didn't check far). Since we have a term that more-or-less is the actual name, let's use that disambiguation rather than our own made-up format (indeed WP:AT valorizes this "natural disambiguation" as the best choice, when available). Herostratus (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mary, mother of Jesus. 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.
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
This Section has become a moot point and subsequently begun to deviate from its original purpose. Hence, it is closed. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
She and Paul the Apostle met a few times after Paul's conversion, and Paul was acquainted with her (and also with James, Son of Joseph, stepbrother of Jesus) to some degree. This is at least one thing we know about Mary, as a historical fact outside of the Bible, and yet I don't see it mentioned in the Article as of yet. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Upon further reading, I may have been thinking of John rather than Paul. Maybe I'll get back to this matter some other time. Maybe. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually we don't know any historical facts about Mary at all. And certainly those within the Bible cannot be claimed as "facts". Contaldo80 (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Not quite. We do know that she was entrusted to the care of John the Apostle following the execution of Jesus. We also know that she gave birth to Jesus, given the scholarly consensus on the Historicity of Jesus. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mary, mother of Jesus. 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.
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
So I looked up the source linked next to the claim she was Jewish:
Raymond Edward Brown; Joseph A. Fitzmyer; Karl Paul Donfried (1978). "consonant+with" Mary in the New Testament. NJ: Paulist Press. p. 140. consonant with Mary's Jewish background
I'm not sure this is strong enough. Describing someone as having a "Jewish background" might refer to the faith of their parents, not necessarily them. For example Lauren Southern. I think perhaps the article would benefit from finding a stronger source to use to back the claim of Mary herself being Jewish. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The "mother" in the title of this article is not capitalized. Please chime in if you have any thoughts about this or objections to me changing the title to "Mary, Mother of Jesus." Thanks! GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The mother in the title should be capitalized. Okafor martin nicholas (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Mary in cathedral (main image)
As it is, the main image depicts Mary (with child) standing in a medieval cathedral. I think this is misleadingly anachronistic almost to the point of the absurd. Also, I think it might be unwise to represent her in such an overtly christian setting, since Mary was a Jew, revered by both Christians and Muslims.
I changed the image to the famous Byzantin icon Theotokos of Vladimir in this edit. It's stylized, mainly with regards to the Christ child. I would prefer if it wasn't so, but in my estimation it's still a better choice. It's recognizable, it won't fool or upset anyone whith regards to context, and Mary is also more realistic with regards to color and attributes. However, it was reverted on accusation of being "anti-realistic".
I tried with Madonna of the Streets (Madonnina), a realistic painting by Roberto Ferruzzi. It was reverted on grounds of being "horrid, and too vertical". This literally does not make sense to me. It's a well renowned, highly popular and beautiful painting. Too vertical?
In any case, is there any agreement that the main image is not optimal, and would need to be changed? Are there other suggestions than the above? Even if there is no perfect image, which one is preferable? St.nerol (talk) 06:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the main image is not too bad but the former would have been best. Okafor martin nicholas (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
if I had my druthers it would be Michaelangelo's pieta. if not the full version Full, perhaps a more cropped one croppedmore tightly cropped. Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
It is a respectable alternative, that I did not think of before. My considerations would be (in order of importance):
1) Without bringing up the full sized versions, the photos have a hard time doing the work justice. They (especially the second) are a bit low in contrast, so the statue risks melting in with the background and the features are not as clear.
2) Mary is arguably more well-known for and associated with the birth of Jesus than with his death.
3) For those of us who value realism: In "Pietá", Mary looks considerably younger than her own son. (According to the Pietà (Michelangelo) article, this is to emphasise purity.)
There are two sections in this article presenting the Roman Catholic view of Mary -- isn't one sufficient? Horatio325 (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to insert this, because it isn't a subject I know well. But, it seems to me that a genology of Mary should include mention of her mother. DOR (HK) (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Name of Mary in Islam
The article currently says:
In Islam, she is known as Maryam (Arabic: مريم, translit. Maryām), mother of Isa (Arabic: عيسى بن مريم, translit. ʿĪsā ibn Maryām, lit. 'Jesus, son of Mary').
Shouldn't that be مريم أم عيسى Maryām umm ʿĪsā, lit. 'Mary, mother of Jesus'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.225.93.12 (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Either way, the ā in the transliteration should just be a regular a, 'Maryam' - ā would indicate an alif in the Arabic that isn't there. 5.225.93.12 (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Article title
I would suggest that the title Mary, Mother of Jesus is better Mary, mother of Jesus. Comments welcome!Amitchell125 16:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
If you are saying that the article Mary, mother of Jesus should be changed to Mary, Mother of Jesus, I remind you that mother is not a proper noun and Wikipedia normally avoids capitalization of words associated with religious figures that would not otherwise normally be capitalized. Editor2020 (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure these have been proposed in the past (here for example, in 2016), & won't achieve consensus. Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Consensus is to not move. Very strong policy-based opposition; clear consensus. (non-admin closure) В²C☎ 20:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
if this contradict Wikipedia's neutral viewing point, so why is there an article called Saint Peter and Saint Joseph, the Title Saint do not contradict the neutral point of view?(talk) 12:14 AM, 7 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatechismDatabase (talk • contribs) 04:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. Keeping in mind WP:RNPOV, the term "Virgin Mary' is more charged with sectarian symbolism than the simple and descriptive "Mary, mother of Jesus". More people worldwide would know of her as being Jesus's mother than ascribing to the religious belief that she was a virgin without sin (The Immaculate Conception) who gave birth to the Son of God/Jesus of Nazareth. Besides, if people do a search within Wikipedia for "Virgin Mary" they will still end up here since that term is a redirect to this article. Shearonink (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment – I'm reserving judgement for the time being, but it is worth considering Andrewa's comment from the 2010 RM before the discussion goes too much further:
We'd better get a few facts straight.
Firstly, the title the Virgin Mary isn't a Roman Catholic thing at all. Roman Catholics do tend to place more emphasis on St Mary (and on many other saints as well) than do Protestants, but that's not the issue.
The question here is rather, when we do talk about her, what's she called? The Apostles Creed is used widely and equally by RC and Protestant, and guess what... all versions (yes there are several) refer to the Virgin Mary.
In that this is probably the only time many protestants refer to Mary at all except at Christmas, the logical conclusion is that the phrase the Virgin Mary is more a Protestant thing than an RC thing. They use many names for Mary; We have only have one!
Yes, read that again slowly. It's not shoot-from-the-hip prejudice, it's considering the facts. They may come as a surprise.
Consider now the Nicene Creed, also used by all the larger denominations that use creeds, but not so commonly as the AC. Many versions, the oldest don't mention Mary at all, but the widely used ones all do, and guess what they all call her?
Consider now the other time we Protestants all tslk about Mary: Christmas. Let's consider a few carols... The Virgin Mary Had A Baby Boy... Silent Night... Need I go on?
I didn't see anyone in this particular discussion stating that "Virgin Mary" was chiefly a Roman Catholic term. If any editors want to refer to the whole of the Requested Move-2010 discussion it can be found in this page's archives at Talk:Mary, mother of Jesus/Archive 3#Requested move 2010. Shearonink (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I haven't seen anyone in this discussion suggest that the term Virgin Mary was principally Roman Catholic either. I figured it is, however, an issue that's likely to be raised (which is what I meant by "before the discussion goes too much further").
I should also note that I've added {{old moves}} to the top of the talk page in case anyone wants to refer to the six previous RMs pertaining to this article from over the course of the past decade or so which discussed a variety of potential titles. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard (reason: most relevant WikiProject, posting at which [unlike the denominational WikiProjects] won't introduce any intra-Christian sectarian bias). 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Weak oppose Assuming for a moment that the historical record is accurate: "Mary, mother of Jesus" describes a fact, "Virgin Mary" describes a belief. WP as an encyclopaedia should try to use WP:NPOV and report beliefs as beliefs, not facts. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Despite your striving for WP:NPOV, you seem to be presuming a particular epistemology here... 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. First, articles titles about people should generally start with a name. This is one reason for WP:HONORIFIC. Second, the article begins—quite rightly in my opinion—with a description of the historical Mary, mother of Jesus. Changing the title will mess up the intro. Srnec (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose: Current title is the more general description. It is independent of any religious beliefs. --Nillurcheier (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with Martin of Sheffield. Her supposed virginity is a controversial belief, since she is also the mother of the Brothers of Jesus in the Gospels. Dimadick (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Mild Oppose "Virgin Mary" is certainly the WP:COMMONNAME, which we should normally follow, without arguing the toss as Dimadick etc do above. The current name is actually pretty rare in RS, as searches in the discussion last time this was proposed showed. VM is most certainly the name most people interested in her know her by. But it might not be familiar to many from outside the Western world, and the current name is clearer for them. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
There's a redirect from VM, so anyone searching on that name ends up in the right place automatically. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
That never settles a RM discussion by itself. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Strong Support. The Virgin Mary is not "Mary" from down the street or your buddy from work. She should be addressed appropriately, and with the utmost respect. Additionally, I agree with the first comment--the article's name is too long. Why not address her with her PROPER title? Her being a Virgin is a well-known and well substantiated fact. BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, you are part of a small minority, maybe 5% of all humans. This minority position should never dominate Wikipedia.--Nillurcheier (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, you are part of a small minority, maybe 5% of all humans. ... what? Do you have a source for this, Nillurcheier? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment If name is too long and Virgin Mary can be conroversial name, is this possible to change for something other like Mary of Nazareth or Saint Mary? Is "Mary, mother of Jezus" more common name (in English)? Dawid2009 (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
SupportWP:COMMONNAME but it will be controversial for those who don't believe that Mary is virgin like most of protestants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelosornio (talk • contribs) 20:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
That's a significant misreading of Protestant beliefs! Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the information there, Johnbod, but I don't see anything backing up Rafaelosornio's assertion that "most of protestants [sic]" don't accept the virginity of Mary. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I thought that was you. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
No worries – I've made the same mistake before. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Not entirely, but that's enough on it. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think I'm misunderstanding anything here. You still haven't provided anything backing up your assertion that "most of protestants [sic]" don't accept the virginity of Mary, Rafaelosornio. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't assert that at all. Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Remember that this is the English langauge Wiki, not the Christian Wiki. Once you've finished arguing Protestant/Catholic doctrine, consider Islam's POV. Then consider to a non-Abrahamic religion (or to an Atheist) what is the significant factor here. Mary being the mother of Jesus or a theological debate about her sex life? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
If Mary get name Mary, mother of Jesus why Paul the Apostle does not get Paul the Apostle of Jesus then? (We have article Paul, Apostle of Christ as film). Ratings of the wikiprojects suggest that Mary has significance also in Islam, meanwhile Paul the Apostle only in Christianity. Choosing "Mary, mother of Jesus" instead "Mary (mother of Jesus)" when other people do not get word "Jesus" in the title, can suggest that Mary is not significant so much. Saint Mary also could be worth discussion when we have already Saint Joseph. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, the current name is factual. Many names for her are common, it would be difficult if not biased to prefer one over others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Why "Mary, mother of Jesus" but not "Mary (mother of Jesus)" or "Mary of Nazareth"? Why longer name should be chosed to historical encyclopedia? Vitality of Mary is quite close to vitality of Jesus. Mary is sometimes called as "Mary of Nazareth" in forgein Wikipedia's language versions and Jesus also is called as "Jesus of Nazareth" in some forgein language versions of Wikipedia Dawid2009 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I would be ok with Mary of Nazareth. CookieMonster755✉ 18:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:NATURALDIS (which favors natural disambiguation) and WP:RNPOV (regarding that articles need to be neutral and unbiased). The title Virgin Mary is not a neutral or encyclopedic title, as it is religious-based on the belief that Mary was always virgin and other Mariology concepts. The current title is neutral, factual and unbiased. She is known for being the mother of Jesus, so it is straightforward. There is doubt whether she was "always a virgin" from other Christians and certainly from a secular standpoint. The proposal is shrouded in controversy, therefore the current title is the best one. CookieMonster755✉ 18:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Completely useless! Please sign your posts, & try to contribute at a higher level. Actually, I see it redirects (very wrongly imo) to here rather than Saint Mary (disambiguation). It would do very poorly for WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2019
This edit request to Mary, mother of Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This should be removed since their is no source "Mary also has a revered position in Islam, where one of the longer chapters of the Quran is devoted to her". It is at the end of the 3rd paragraph.
This should be removed since their is no source "Mary also has a revered position in Islam, where one of the longer chapters of the Quran is devoted to her". It is at the end of the 3rd paragraph. We should not allow non-sourced information on Wikipedia! Genesimmons2 (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Not done: This is well-covered in the Mary in Islam article as well as the § Islam section further down in this article. I have taken a citation from that section and added it to the lead of the article as well, though. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
This edit request to Mary, mother of Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Its showed about Jesus' brothers. Actually
from New Testment its clear that they are his cousin brothers.. Actually they are the sons of Joseph's brother... Jaisonbourdais (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Children
Jesus,[a] possibly the brothers and sisters of Jesus..
I just want to delete after [a]... Only need Jesus Jaisonbourdais (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2020
This edit request to Mary, mother of Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the first sentence of the subheading "Annunciation" under the heading "New Testament," please change "expressing incredulity" to "seeking clarifying detail." The New Testament does not portray Mary as "expressing incredulity" - "inability or unwillingness to believe," per Dictionary.com - at the Annunciation; it does, however, portray her asking for an explanation of how her childbearing is to be accomplished: "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" (Luke 1:34.) To portray this as "incredulity" would be to editorialize beyond the purpose of this section, which is to objectively summarize the event as presented in the New Testament. The distinction is especially significant because it is juxtaposed with the announcement of the conception of John the Baptist, at which his father Zechariah actually does express incredulity. Krmrichardson (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I think this may hinge on the meaning of "incredulity". Wiktionary (wikt:incredulity) includes in the definition "inability to believe" (bold added). Oxford ([1]) uses the phrase "unable to believe" in the definition. She is told that she will be pregnant, but she knows she has never had sex. I think something like that would be hard to believe, even if an angel of God is telling it to you. Sundayclose (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Debates about connotations should be handled outside of an edit request. By definition, edit requests are for non-controversial changes. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 04:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I support the request by Krmrichardson.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your support. The evident stonewall here against adherence to the definition of the word without superimposition of editors' personal opinions and possibly even prejudices is appalling, but is clearly beyond the application of reason, fairness, or accuracy. Krmrichardson (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
@Krmrichardson:Please watch your tone. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and content is often determined by consensus based on talk page discussion. It doesn't advance your request to attack editors who are involved in a discussion. If you continue making such comments my request will be escalated to a warning. Sundayclose (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
More specific redirect should be used
In the line "This alludes to the belief that Mary conceived Jesus through the action of God the Holy Spirit, and not through intercourse with Joseph or anyone else," I think "intercourse" should be wikilinked to "human reproduction#Copulation" instead of "Sexual intercourse." "human reproduction#Copulation" makes a superior redirect here due to the fact that it is 1. more narrow in scope and 2. biologically rather than socially oriented. The doctrine of the Virgin Birth makes a biological statement rather than a social statement. Granted, social aspects may be derived from the doctrine, but these are not covered in the "Sexual intercourse" article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Given no response, I'm assuming this is not controversial with the readers of this page. I'm going to improve the redirect now.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Not my favorite, but I can live with it. Editor2020 (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Mary's age
Mary was not 12 or 14 when she gave birth to Jesus. She was 15 or 16 Victoriamadison461 (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
There's no birth certificate for Jesus, but according to the customs of the time, Mary would have been around 13.Achar Sva (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Semi-Protected Edit Request / Typos
In the first paragraph, please note that the Quran does not mention the time Mary lived in, and does not give any implications that she was married to anyone. The Quran does not say either that she is from Nazareth, and only implies that she is from children of Israel (or Jewish). Therefore I suggest for accuracy reasons not to say 'and the Quran' but rather start a new sentence 'Mary is mentioned in the Quran as the mother of Jesus'.
In the last sentence of the last paragraph of the introduction the word 'devoted' is very inaccurate. It would be much better and much more accurate to say 'where she is mentioned quite frequently in the Quran, and where one chapter of the Quran was named after her (Mariam) while another was named after her family (Imran)'. Please note that these two chapters of the Quran addressed many other issues in addition to Mary and the birth of Jesus. The word 'longer' is really very insignificant here. Additionally, the part of 'Mariam' is not likely considered one of the 'longer chapters'.
I don't edit Wikipedia very often. Sorry if I'm doing this wrong. I just noticed a couple very small errors on the page.
In the paragraph directly above the table of contents, last sentence:
She is mentioned in the Quran more often than in Bible. This should say: She is mentioned in the Quran more often than in the Bible
where two of the longer chapters of the Quran is devoted to her and her family. This should say: where two of the longer chapters of the Quran are devoted to her and her family.
Done, thanks for pointing this out. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Another small error: under Names and titles: In Christianity:
often abbreviated to "BVM", or "BMV" after the Latin "Beata Maria Virgina" should say "Beata Maria Virgo" which is the correct Latin nominative (subject) case, or at most "Beata Maria Virgine" which would also be correct Latin though an ablative (instrumental) case.
Well According to biblical study Mary had only one son. Please edit and mention Jesus as only son. Leibert2020 (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done Sorry, this not a Bible-study website. Although scriptural references can supplement other sources, the content of Wikipedia is determined by the consensus of academic scholarship. Sundayclose (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
'Gospels' should be written starting with capital 'G' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marpaaa (talk • contribs) 20:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done It's not a proper noun in this context. It's not part of the title of the Biblical book (e.g., title is Matthew, not Gospel of Matthew). See MOS:CAPS. Sundayclose (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
It is pretty neutral. Eastern style of an image, but with significant Western devotion.
It doesn't pretend to be historical, which more modern issues have an issue with.
I think point 2 is a larger issue with a lot of Western images of Mary, and that the Perpetual Help image is in a particularly good spot to bridge the neutrality of depiction issue amongst the various Christian sects. I'm open to other images, but I thought this would be a good place to start and so I did it boldly. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
"The imam of time"
[2] As I am not familiar at all with esoteric Islamic writings: He also pointed out that Zachariah (The Imam of the Time) appointed Mary as one of his proofs – what does that mean? What does it mean for this article? (Adding a paragraph would be no minor edit in my view, but anyway.)--Medusahead (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2020
This edit request to Mary, mother of Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
IN ISLAM MARY MOTHER OF JESUS WAS VIRGINE SHE WASN'T MARRIED. NEED TO CHANGE JOSEPH WASN'T HER HUSBAND IN ISLAM. Mjaveediqb (talk) 07:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
This edit request to Mary, mother of Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please remove reference to Quran or Islam, as these information do not correlate with Muslim teachings. Thank you 37.211.50.202 (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Virgin Mary's husband's own city is Nazareth, not Bethlehem. Luke 2:3,39
Their going to Bethlehem had to do with his lineage of David, not his registering in Nazareth. They went to Bethlehem to attend Passover in Jerusalem, to fulfill prophecy (Micah 5:2), and be close to temple for rites. Leericmarvin (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Leericmarvin: I'm not sure what your point is. The article states that they went to Bethlehem to register, not Nazareth. Jesus was thus born in Bethlehem. They couldn't go to Bethlehem "to attend Passover in Jerusalem"; Bethlehem and Jerusalem are separate towns. The description in Luke discusses their going to Jerusalem for Passover as a separate matter, when Jesus was 12. What is your point? Sundayclose (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
My point is that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem for reasons other than the 5 Feb 2BC Augustus Oath decree. The Oath decree required Joseph to register in his own city of Nazareth (Luke 2:39). This Oath registration was taking place "in those days", of which John was born, ie 6 months earlier then Jesus. In Luke 2:4 Joseph ALSO goes to Bethlehem. This is an additional separate event 6 months later than the Oath registration he did in his own city of Nazareth.
I know Bethlehem is a separate town from Jerusalem. But when Passover happens in Jerusalem, 2.7 million Jews attend. The crowds are dispersed to the surrounding towns based on their linage for lodging. This is why the Inns were full.
Luke mentions that they go to Passover every year. And their kinsfolk and friends also go in caravan. Joseph and Mary were not without family with them on this account. It would have been improper for an espoused Jewish couple to be alone with each other.
The shepherds up all night watching their lambing flocks is a spring event, about 6 weeks from mid March to mid April. While shepherds are out by day from Spring thru Fall, to spend all night happens only during the lambing season.
The Jews teach/believe that the Messiah will come on a Passover.
The registration at the time of Jesus's birth is separate from the earlier Oath decree. It was most likely that Joseph paid/register a Temple tax. The temple tax is paid annually at one of the three main feast of one's choice.
My bottom position is that the Oath registration and the temple tax are two separate independent actions 6 months apart in time.
Joseph register in his own city of Nazareth in those days of John's birth 6 months before Jesus birth.
And per Luke 3:4 ALSO
6 months later in Bethlehem he paid temple tax during Passover when Jesus was born.
Josephus records that King Herod punished 6000 Pharisees for refusing to sign the Oath. Which means he was alive "in those day" after the 5 Feb 2BC decree.
Herod was disposed as King by Augustus about 4 years before Herod died. His sons backed dated their reigns to that date.
In this page it is written that Mary(peace be upon her) was married to Joseph according to both Islam and christianity. But this is totally false. In Islam she is not married to anyone. I am changing this. Anyone want to talk can talk here. Khalidwarrior (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean i don't get it. Khalidwarrior (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
You didn't replied. Nonetheless for any statement on wikipedia you have to give reference not for a statement that is removed. More clearly if Mary was married to Joseph according to Islam then you have to give reference. Which is not there so removing it not required any reference at all. Do understand it. Khalidwarrior (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2021
This edit request to Mary, mother of Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The text states that (X) "Mary conceived Jesus through the Holy Spirit while still a virgin".
(Y) It would be more accurate to say that the Holy Spirit oversaw and enabled the conception. Mary was impregnated with (King) David's sperm ("seed") which God had miraculously preserved for this very event. (See, amongst other biblical references, Revelation 22:16; 2 Samuel 7:12-13; John 7:42; 1 Kings 8:19; Psalm 132:11; Romans 1:3; John 3:6; Acts 2:30).
The Gospel of Philip also states that people are in error if they think that Mary was made pregnant by the Holy Spirit.
It is my intention that the role of the Holy Spirit is clarified and not in any way diminished by this proposed edit.
There is a consensus that Jesus is a historical figure.(or at least there is a historical Jesus) But it’s hard to tell if Jesus’s parents or other figures are.CycoMa (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2021
This edit request to Mary, mother of Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I request to change the title as 'Mother of God' as Jesus is God 49.184.201.113 (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The article says in the infobox that she died "after circa" 30/33 AD, is it correct to say that? We really don't know the date when she died.I would prefer the word "unknown" or "after 30/33 AD" Rafaelosornio (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Assert facts, not opinions
According to WP:YESPOV and WP:ASSERT, we should assert here in the voice of Wikipedia objective historical facts, not the stuff of myth and legend. Her virginity at birth is not a historical fact. For theological beliefs about her virginity as a mother, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV should be used, since we never state in the voice of Wikipedia that some purely theological dogma would be the "true religion". tgeorgescu (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
While I agree with the principles you point out, imo ATTRIBUTEPOV is met since the sentence in question (the first sentence in the lede) is qualified by "According to the gospels of Matthew and Luke in the New Testament...". Therefore the statement about her virginity is not made in wikivoice but is properly attributed the biblical text. The "According to..." opening is a common pattern across other religion-related (and not just Christianity-related) articles and is usually considered sufficient for NPOV without additional qualifying phrasing. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
"objective historical facts, not the stuff of myth and legend" Are you suggesting to delete the article? We know nothing about her life, or whether she even existed. All we have are legends, often contradictory to each other. Dimadick (talk) 09:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
"Her virginity at birth" How could anyone not be a virgin at birth? 122.150.71.249 (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2021
This edit request to Mary, mother of Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please remove
a stone imported from Afghanistan of greater value than gold
and add
a stone of greater value than gold, which was imported from Afghanistan
Obviously the "greater value" applies to the stone, not Afghanistan, but the sentence structure sounds like the value applies to Afghanistan. I added "which was" because otherwise it could sound like a comparison with "gold imported from Afghanistan" rather than gold in general. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Done Definitely better! PianoDan (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Woman clothed with the sun
Is the statement The Catholic Church identifies "woman clothed with the sun" in the Revelation to John,12:1,5–6 as Mary correct, rather than being something that some Catholics do? If it was church dogma or teaching, I would have expected it to be in the 1954 papal encyclical Ad Caeli Reginam[3], which used the title "Queen of Heaven" and made it a feast, and had 63 references, just one of which was to the book of the Apocalypse but a very different verse about the King of Kings in Revelation 19:16. I would have thought that the lack of any mention of the woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars in the principal Catholic document on the Queen of Heaven might suggest we cannot say that the Catholic Church identifies this woman as Mary. 16:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Good Change
I think someone should remove the quotes, or change it or remove it - as if Mary was Tahira she could not have been purified, because there would have been no need - as she has not been touched by Satan at any point. If that were the case, as I believe it is, then she would be only one in two ever to not need purification.
See where it is written in the article:
She is also called "Tahira", meaning "one who has been purified" and representing her status as one of two humans in creation (and the only woman) to not be touched by Satan at any point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.142.39 (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
The book Mariology
The author of the book Mariology: A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons is Mark Miravalle, not Raymond L. Burke. You can search the ISBN 9781579183554 to confirm it.-- İskenderBalas💬 16:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for mentioning this. Maybe the error was due to the fact that Raymond Leo Burke wrote the foreword and is the only one who is mentioned on prominent place on the front cover of the book. I corrected that, anyway.--Medusahead (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)--Medusahead (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Jesus had brothers and sisters (could have been half brothers and sisters) according to all 4 gospels, yet only Jesus is listed.
Also, if Joseph died early, then Jewish custom dictated that the youngest unmarried brother marry the widow, thus Mary would have been married a second time, but only Joseph is listed. 24.101.193.22 (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
"Woman of Nazareth"
Although Luke describes Joseph (and presumably his betrothed) as residing in Nazareth, Matthew does not. Matt 2:23-24 has them returning from Egypt thus: "And because he [Joseph] had been warned in a dream, he departed for the region of Galilee. He went and dwelled in a town called Nazareth."
Shouldn't this uncertainty be reflected in the opening?Rozsaphile1 (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Categories
Since the inappropriate categories "deified people" and "mother goddess" were inserted several times by the same user: User:MagicatthemovieS, it was asked for reliable sources. In this case it is not sufficient to refer to a passage of the article which clearly states that the deification of Mary has been found heretical (i.e. the passage you are referring to actually says the opposite). Furthermore, you haven't said anything on the point of why you want the article to be categorised to "Mother Goddess". Please comment (and credit the source) before categorizing this again. --Medusahead (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Requested move 11 June 2022
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Almost nobody agrees that this Mary is the primary topic. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Mary, mother of Jesus → Mary – This article subject seems to be the WP:PTOPIC for "Mary" throughout almost all of the past 1500 years. As such, I propose that this usurp the disambiguation page and that the dab page be moved to Mary (disambiguation). — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment. If you'd like to propose usurping the disambiguation page, this should be structured as a multimove request. However, there are really two different questions involved here: whether this is the primary topic of "Mary", and whether the article should be there. Another possible outcome would be a redirect from Mary to the current title, in which case only the disambiguation page would move according to WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. In either event, please request all associated moves explicitly. Dekimasuよ! 04:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Previous unsuccessful move requests to move this to "Mary" took place in 2008 and 2014. There was a successful move request to the current title (with a comma rather than a parenthetical, which might indicate that the second part of the title is not simply a disambiguator) in 2016. Dekimasuよ! 04:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. It doesn't seem like there's a primary topic between the biblical figure and the name itself. The safest bet is to have the disambiguation page at the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Support certainly more notable than all other topic put together including even Mary (name), pageviews are flawed but in google trends she has more than almost every single died biography except maybe only Jesus. More than every country boyind few exceptions like USA. I could weakly support it if we would take into discussion primary topic for Jesus (name) over Jesus. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Support. Yes, there are other Marys out there. However, she is the primary topic for "Mary." The other notable Marys are primarily known by other names, not plain old "Mary." -- Vaulter 18:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per clickstream data. If nom is right, a majority of viewers landing at the Mary dab would actually be looking for the mother of Jesus (moJ) (and thus be somewhat surprised that the page called "Mary" actually contains something else). Many are indeed looking for the moJ, but even more are looking for Mary (name), and not many of those looking for even that are looking for the moJ, either. For context, fewer than 700 of the over 100,000 views the moJ page receives are from Mary. Doesn't seem like the moJ is the Mary most readers seek. Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 20:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. The given name is so extremely common and widely used that I don't see even Jesus's mother being able to claim a clear PT on it. ╠╣uw[talk] 12:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. As for myself, I'd prefer Blessed Virgin Mary, but Mary, mother of Jesus is clear and distinct in every context. Why change it?--Medusahead (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I would absolutely oppose Blessed Virgin Mary as that is a religious title that not all Christians even use (e.g. Protestants). See MOS:SAINTS. cookie monster755 00:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
In case this has been unclear: I said analogously that (*although* I'd rather prefer B.M.V.) I am * in favour of keeping* the existing Mary, mother of Jesus. --Medusahead (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. Her name wasn't Mary which is only the English translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose there are many Marys, and she is not a primary topic. Nillurcheier (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. Certainly no primary topic here for this very common name, although I don't like the current title much. Virgin Mary is easily her WP:COMMONNAME in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. In fact, she is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of “Mary”. Rafaelosornio (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Strong oppose Far too common a name to be an obvious primary topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2022
This edit request to Mary, mother of Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would like to add Mary could have told Gabriel no. She would have said yes either way, however the clarification is important so when woman learn about Mary they know a messenger didn't just show up and say your pregnant and leave.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Don't see in the cited Bible quotes where this is clarified. Cannolis (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2022
This edit request to Mary, mother of Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change date born 13-14 BC to 18-20 BC
The source sited lists Mary as 14 when she was married and then gave birth to Jesus, referencing the Gosple of James. This information is interpolated to say she was born 13-14 BC. The editor incorrectly assumed Jesus was born 1 AD. On the "Date of birth of Jesus" Wikipedia page. Jesus is listed as being born 4-6 BC. Thus the correct estimate for Mary's birth should be 18-20 BC. FrozenArrow73 (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
"The Catholic Church holds distinctive Marian dogmas, namely her status as the Mother of God, her Immaculate Conception, her perpetual virginity, and her Assumption into heaven." > Eastern Orthodox hold these same dogmas, and possibly Oriental Orthodox among others; I'm not one of them so I can't say. 2601:1C0:5880:6D0:D839:6C82:4145:CD86 (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Place of death
I am considering adding Ephesus as the place of death in the infobox (per sources 113 to 122 in the article), and next to that adding "or Jerusalem" (eastern Christians believe that the Tomb of Mary in Jerusalem is the resting place of Mary, where she was buried after her *possible* death in Jerusalem). Does anyone object to this or have another idea? Should I add "or Jerusalem"? Thanks. zenzyyx (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Add the Brazilian movie "A Dog's Will" to the portrayals section
Mary is portrayed by Fernanda Montenegro (Brazilian actress) in "A Dog's Will" (2000), a movie based on Ariano Suassuna's novel. Jinxvilhas (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Awful picture
Might have even been chosen on purpose as the front picture
I agree. The first image you suggested would be extremely appropriate for this article. I have no idea what's going on with the current picture, and I would love for it to be changed. Please do consult with other users before making any sudden changes, though. Cheers! Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
@Unlimitedlead I completely agree. The current picture is awful (forgive me, Holy Virgin :( ) and I came here to actually start a new section on this talk page discussing this. It actually scared me. The first picture you suggested is fantastic and is what we'll go with unless anyone objects. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The image indirectly came with this edit [4], constituting the previous image as "overly dark, very late (17th century) and overly eurocentric in style".
Desired was instead an early image, the one of the "Maria Advocata" was a rather early byzantine one.Medusahead (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2022
This edit request to Mary, mother of Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Remove the statement that says that Mary offered a sin offering, for it is unsupported by the citation. Replace with a statement that directly quotes the cited text (Like 2:22-24), which is being misrepresented. The offering in the cited text (only source for the assertion) states that the offering was the kind that was required by the Jewish law to be made as a rescue for the firstborn. That is not a sin offering. It's not a sin to be or to have a firstborn child. It is also not a sin to be ritually unclean (due to menstruation, night pollution, childbirth, or other bleeding), which was the reason for the days or Mary's purification (also by law). DragonView2 (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Not done:@DragonView2: It may be a translation issue, but sin offering mentions that one was to be made after childbirth. —C.Fred (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
In general: you cannot expect the Bible to have a coherent story upon something, since too many different people have written it. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
If the prophecy from Isaiah is of application, she was 12-13 years old, otherwise all bets are off. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, we do not know. Bible does not mention her age. Some apocryphal transcripts, that are not a part of the official Bible canon, give her different ages during her pregnancy, usually 16. In general, in the ancient Near East “Girls were usually engaged sometime between the ages of 12 and 15, and would be married sometime thereafter, at 15 or 16”, according to Paula Fredriksen. -Finncle (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Assuming he was her first child, which we just don't know for sure. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
"The Catholic church holds distinctive Marian dogmas, namely her status as the Mother of God... her Perpetual Virginity... and her Assumption"
This wording is deeply problematic, and either it should be removed or reworded. We may even have to question the legitimacy of the source in this section, the "Mary Mother of Jesus" book. It is easily verified within the text and other references IN this article, that the perpetual virginity of Mary and her status as the Mother of God is NOT a doctrine distinct to Roman Catholicism. Those, are doctrines held by others, as other sections of this very article demonstrate. This should not even require a citation.
The sentence and reference need to be rewritten or removed. desmay (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing that up, I think you are absolutely right. I tried to reword, please feel free to change or remove the sentence entirely.--Medusahead (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Not done: This is well-covered in the Mary in Islam article as well as the § Islam section further down in this article. I have taken a citation from that section and added it to the lead of the article as well, though. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Done, thanks for pointing this out. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Done (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: 
Not done Sorry, this not a Bible-study website. Although scriptural references can supplement other sources, the content of Wikipedia is determined by the consensus of academic scholarship. Sundayclose (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done No source is given. Also, no WP:Shouting. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Already done SkyWarrior 21:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
.png)
