Talk:Mary Magdalene/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Display name 99 (talk · contribs) 03:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to begin work on this review. You can expect comments in about one day. Display name 99 (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Display name 99: I suspected someone would probably pick up this review rather quickly, given the high level of interest and controversy over the subject. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Mentioned "by name at least 12 times." Why is it that we cannot get an exact figure? Display name 99 (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know for certain why it said that because that particular phrase was already in the article before I came along, but I am guessing it is because there are twelve occurrences of the name Mary Magdalene, but, if one identifies her with Mary of Bethany, as the Catholic Church traditionally did until the 1969 revision of the General Roman Calendar, then she is mentioned more times. I have removed the phrase "at least" from the article because it is confusing and because the identification of Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany is almost certainly wrong, as is explained later in the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Life

"nor were any works later forged under her name." I understand that it was common in those days for someone to attribute his own writings to another as a tribute to that person, and that this may have happened with several books in both the OT and NT. Someone less well-acquainted with the study of Scripture might not know this, and so it would be good to mention. Display name 99 (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection of Jesus

I question the reference to the pre-Pauline Creed which says that Simon Peter was the first to witness Christ's Resurrection. After having read through the account, I find no reason to believe that the text existed before Paul wrote it. It does say that Jesus appeared to Peter and then to the Twelve, but it does not deny that He appeared to the women. Display name 99 (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR. It does not matter if you personally doubt that the passage is really a Pre-Pauline creed, because you are not a academically respected expert on this subject; neither am I. What matters is that Bart D. Ehrman, the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, very clearly states on pages 137 through 143 that this passage is accepted by most scholars as containing a pre-Pauline creed. On page 139, after spending a full paragraph summarizing the evidence for this view, Ehrman directly states "This passage almost certainly contains a pre-Pauline confession, or creed, of some kind." --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it through the end of this section and will do more later. Display name 99 (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General

If there are multiple citations being given at the same time, it's important for them to be presented in ascending order. They should be listed as 1,2,3 instead of 2,3,1 etc. I'd appreciate you checking the remainder of the article for this. Display name 99 (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you absolutely insist that having all the citations in ascending numerical order is necessary in order for the article to pass for GA, I am willing to do it, but, since I suspect this will probably involve a large amount of drudgery, I must raise an objection. As far as I am aware, this is not a Wikipedia policy and it is not a requirement for "Good Article" (or even "Featured Article") status. This is the twenty-third Good Article nomination in which I have been involved as a nominator or co-nominator (not including ones in which I have been involved as a reviewer) and this is the first time anyone has ever mentioned anything about the citations needing to be in ascending numerical order. Even during the "Featured List" review for List of Mesopotamian deities, no one mentioned anything at all about citations needing to be in ascending numerical order. This seems more like a personal nitpick rather than something that is actually "important." Also, I have currently ordered the citations based on which sources are most directly relevant to the statement in the article; if a source devotes more attention to the explaining the information behind the cited statement, I have therefore tried to give that source priority in the citation order over another source which mentions the information but devotes less attention to explaining it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone mentioned it during an FA review, but I can't find that now. If you want me to undo my edits to the article (or you'd rather do it on your own) that's fine. Display name 99 (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the purpose of listing the exact same source as a citation for multiple sentences if there's nothing in between. For example, imagine that the number in parenthesis is the citation number for this sentence.(90) There's really no reason for the number after this sentence to be the same as that.(90) Just get rid of the first 90 and it will be assumed that the second will apply for both sentences. Doing otherwise just seems superfluous. Display name 99 (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know the repetitive citations seems strange at first, but I do this for several reasons:

It is common for users to insert uncited statements in the middle of cited paragraphs, which, if the only citation is at the end of the paragraph, makes it look like it supports the entire paragraph, including the uncited statement that has been inserted into it.
It is also common for users to split cited paragraphs into two, which means, if the only citation is at the end of the paragraph, then the first paragraph that the paragraph has been divided into will appear to be uncited.

My view is that it is better to risk the reader feeling mildly annoyed with redundant citations than it is to risk the reader experiencing confusion over whether or not a citation applies to a particular sentence. Perhaps I am just being paranoid, but having a citation at the end of every sentence makes it clear that the citation applies to each of the sentences after which it appears, and furthermore reduces the likelihood of ambiguity should someone attempt to separate the paragraph at some point in the future. It also will make it more clear what has happened if someone does insert something uncited in the middle of the paragraph. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it looks bad. But I'm not aware of any policy, so I'll look the other way. Display name 99 (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:Text-source integrity. Won’t help if someone adds an uncited claim into the middle of a sentence, but otherwise, the practice tends to ensure integrity. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Early Middle Ages

The conflation of Mary Magdalene with Mary of Egypt isn't very clear to me. What exactly were the characteristics of Mary of Egypt that were attributed to Mary Magdalene? Display name 99 (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Display name 99: The legend of Saint Mary of Egypt is that she was a prostitute who travelled to Jerusalem to solicit sexual favors from pilgrims there, but, after being prevented from entering the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, she repented of her sins and became an ascetic hermit living in the desert, completely isolated from all civilization. She lived there for decades. Then, when she was very old, she received the Holy Communion from Saint Zosimas of Palestine, to whom she told the story of her life. A year later, Zosimas returned to where he had found her and found she was dead and it was written in the sand beside her that she had died the same night he had given her the communion. The whole story about Mary Magdalene being a hermit in the desert and receiving her last Communion from Maximin is a result of her conflation with Mary of Egypt. The way I describe it in the article seems clear to me, but I am willing to clear up any wording issues if you can point out specific places where it is unclear or ways that this could be made more evident. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could've missed it, but I couldn't find where in the article it says that Mary Magdalene became a hermit. Upon second glance, it does seem clearer than it did to me at first. Display name 99 (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean to be buried "uncovered?" Display name 99 (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the source for that statement (Ephesus After Antiquity: A Late Antique, Byzantine, and Turkish City (1979) by Clive Foss) is extremely ambiguous about this point. In fact, "uncovered" is the exact phrase that Foss uses and he never clarifies what exactly he means by this, so I am not entirely clear on this point myself. Since the text was unclear, I decided the best thing to do was to use the exact same word and thereby avoid any possibility of erroneous interpolation. I do have two guesses as to what it most likely means:

that they dug a hole, laid her body in it, and did not "cover" her in dirt, leaving the hole open and exposing her to the elements, or
(the more risqué possibility) that they buried her naked, without "covering" her with clothes.

Either of these are possible, but I cannot know what Foss originally intended by this phrasing. I can remove the part about her being "uncovered" if you would like. That would probably resolve the confusion. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If even you yourself can't tell me it means, than yes, I think it should go. Display name 99 (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Display name 99: I have now removed the word "uncovered," as you have requested. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this article is very well done. It's very fascinating to read. If you have not already done so, you should look into nominating this as an FAC once this review is complete. Display name 99 (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Late Middle Ages and Renaissance

Do we have any idea how reliable the claims that the Cathars viewed Mary as Jesus's wife or concubine are? I'm familiar with the Cathars, having brought the Albigensian Crusade article to GA status. The Cathars regarded sex as evil, and so I found it rather odd that they would ascribe such behavior to Christ. If you can find anything from a historian saying that they either believe in or are skeptical of the claims, that would be appreciated. Display name 99 (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the Cathars believed that there were actually two Christs; according to them, the physical Jesus described in the gospels, the one who had Mary Magdalene as his concubine, was evil, but the true Christ, they believed was pure spirit and was crucified in a spiritual realm rather than an earthly one. This view is similar to those of certain Gnostic sects. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side note: In general, it's not common or accepted for someone to include the birth names of people being mentioned in parenthesis. I think it's justified in this article because we're contending with such a long time period and it's easy to get thrown off track. But be prepared for someone to mention that if you make this an FAC. Display name 99 (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review continued

Reformation and Counter-Reformation

I feel that the Latin title of the book in the first sentence should be either augmented or altogether replaced by the English title. Display name 99 (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. In all the places where I have seen it mentioned, the title is always in Latin and I have yet to find a place where it is given in English. Nonetheless, I have provided my best attempt at an English translation. I, unfortunately, have not really learned Latin yet, so, if you know more Latin than me and you think I have it wrong, feel free to correct it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modern era

It is general practice, when referring to the Church as an institution, to capitalize the c. I am referring to an incident in the second paragraph of this section. Display name 99 (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In western art looks good. Display name 99 (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Incidentally, that is probably the section I worked on the least, because it was already in relatively decent condition before I came along. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholicism

Third paragraph: It is proper to use a lowercase c for the word century. Display name 99 (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protestantism

There are two paragraphs in this section. With the exception of a single sentence on Lutheranism, it all seems to focus on Anglicanism. Is there any way you could add onto the section by finding what Presbyterians, Methodists, or Baptists have to say about her? Display name 99 (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Display name 99: I will see what I can find. There are not as many sources dealing with Mary Magdalene in current religious traditions as there are dealing with her in past ones. Also, she generally seems to play a much less prominent role in most Protestant denominations than in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katolophyromai, any progress here? This is really the only issue left. We're almost there. Display name 99 (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Display name 99: Oh sorry. I completely forgot about this and was busy working on other articles. I thought I had responded to all your criticisms and I was beginning to wonder why you had stopped adding more criticisms but still had not passed the article. I apologize once again and I will try to find information on this by this time tomorrow. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Display name 99: Alright. I have been looking for information and I have found some, but it is all very general and basically just what the gospels themselves say about her, with nothing that seems to be specific to the particular denomination. Here is a Presbyterian handbook for ministers that I found. It calls her the "apostle to the apostles" and summarizes the account of her encounter with the risen Jesus from John 20, but gives no details regarding her specific role in the denomination. Here is a slightly more promising book on Methodist theology, which summarizes and quotes from the account in Matthew and does talk about Mary Magdalene and the other Mary becoming the "first missionaries," but this idea is not specific to Methodism, so it is not really of much use for the present situation. Here is a book about requiems in Methodism, which quotes the resurrection accounts from John and Luke, followed by five pages talking (or, more accurately, boasting) about the role Methodism has played in Christian history and its general beliefs, which is then followed by more pages talking about Methodism's view on the resurrection, but none of those pages even mention Mary Magdalene. I tried to find works dealing with Baptists' beliefs about Mary Magdalene, but, unfortunately, while I found a large number of search results, all of them were dealing with John the Baptist or with baptism rather than the Christian denomination. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katolophyromai, I would just add one or two sentences saying that Presbyterians also refer to her as "apostle to the apostles" and that Methodists consider her to have been among the "first missionaries." I know it's not different from views found elsewhere, but we do need to provide some explanation for how non-Anglican and non-Lutheran Protestants view her, even if it's essentially the same. A very short summary is fine. Display name 99 (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Display name 99: Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with Jesus

I think that you ought to briefly restate the claims that Mary Magdalene may have had a romantic relationship with Jesus and where they can be found. I know that they're discussed already, but it's a ways up and a newcomer to the article would have a difficult time finding them. Display name 99 (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the entire passage about Jesus and Mary Magdalene's alleged marriage from the "Modern era" section to the beginning of the "Speculations" section to avoid redundancy and to group related material together in one place. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I actually meant to suggest you to do that, but forgot. Glad to see you figured it out on your own. Display name 99 (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

All of the sources appear to be from good scholarly works. For the most part, you are using a Harvard citation style, which is regarded by many editors, including me, as the best way to cite material. However, I noticed that you have some books (14 and 24 for example) which deviate from this style. It is important to maintain a consistent style of citation throughout the article. I recommend that you therefore convert all books to the Harvard format. Display name 99 (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent citation formatting is not a requirement for "Good Article" status; it is only required for "Featured Article" status. Since this is a GA review and not an FA, consistent citation style is not necessary. Once again, you are getting ahead of yourself and expecting standards that are not required for a "Good Article." Please try to stick to the Good Article criteria. If this article is nominated for FA, then consistent citations will be a relevant concern, but they are not a relevant concern for this review. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will let it go then. Display name 99 (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katolophyromai, I have completed my first run-through of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Passing. Display name 99 (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]