Talk:Mary (name)

Etymology origins

shouldn't we make a universal way of treating etymologies and their origins??

like: "English<Latin<Greek<Hebrew" instead of "Hebrew (via Latin via Greek). so that the reader can get how the word came in the modern language...? 150.140.226.104 (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn´t it more probable that MARIA is of latin origin? It´s certainly the gentilic of the family MARIUS. It IS possible that the name of the mother of Jesus was Myrian, but the name Maria is then not DERIVED from Myrian, but only a latin mistranslation, because the origin, including the name ending in A, is certainly a latin name that was already used way before the Mary from the New Testament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.180.173.251 (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The new testament is written in Greek...122.61.157.138 (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who would name their kid "bitter"?! LOL. In this context you have to go w/ "beloved" b/c it just makes common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.92.214 (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Application

Mention should be made of the use of "Maria" (in Spanish, Italian, and German) and "Marie" (in French) as a second name for males, a naming custom not uncommon among Roman Catholic populations. I'm not sure if "Mary" has been used this way in English; though it may be rare, it's probably happened, and this too should be explored by some competent contributor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jro571 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The image caption says: The reverence for Mary, the mother of Jesus, is in large part responsible for the use of the name Mary and its variants which is a reasonable statement. But the image itself (by a somewhat obscure artist) does not convey reverence at all. I will look for a better one, say a Rubens, Raphael, Boticelli or something that conveys that message, unless there are serious objections with accompanying rationale. History2007 (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I added a Boticelli that is better quality art and conveys the message. History2007 (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw no rationale for user:Bookworm857158367's revert, so unless a reason is provided, I will have to assume I will have to restore my version. Please provide a clear line of reasoning. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the Rossetti image, which is an illustration of the Assumption and is quite appropriate to illustrate the subject matter. Leave it alone, please, or add the Botticelli image lower in the article. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did not say the art in itself was wrong, for there is very little wrong or right in art. But that the image did not convey reverence, as the caption suggested. So there is an inconsistency. Your statement that "I prefer it" seems to imply that others need to follow your personal tastes - not a Wikipedia policy really. But it is not really a question of taste but logic here. I am not attached to the Boticelli, but think the image and the caption should match. My suggestion: Please find another image yourself on commons that matches the caption by implying reverence and use that. Then the inconsistency will vanish. Else I can try several images. Please select another image that you feel works, but also matches the caption. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that it doesn't convey reverence, as I said on your talk page. It's a more human portrait of Mary, conveying her fear and awe and reminding those looking at it that she was human as well as the mother of the divine. If you'd like to add the Botticelli image lower in the article, go ahead. There's room. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will follow the suggestion you later made on my talk page: keep the Rosetti image on the page, but attach the Boticelli to the infobox text that says reverence. Thank you for being cooperative on this issue. History2007 (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the name

I looked up the web site behindthename.com used in this article and it is absolutely not WP:RS. The website says it was just stared by Mike Campbell and that "etymology is a hobby and linguistics has always interested" him. It is a hobby website, no serious scholarship there. History2007 (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Considering the historical popularity of the name, we should certainly be able to build a descent article without relying on such a websites.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is any help at all, most of the stats taken from that site check out with the social security administration.Alvesik (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Alvesik[reply]

File:Sheet music cover - MARY'S A GRAND OLD NAME (1920).jpg

This image was recently removed with no explanation. It was the only image in the article related to contemporary common use in the english language and illustrates social context. I'm going to add it back to the article unless someone can explain why it shouldn't be there. Thanks. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it's necessarily needed in an article that has a fair amount of art already. Why don't you try to find smoe other sources that suggest how Mary is a Grand Old Name relates to the name -- maybe the title is a reference to its being the most popular name for girls at that time? The image makes more sense if it's also referenced somehow in the text of the article. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article does contain a lot of art... I wasn't going to bring that up, but now that you mention it, it seems like a lot of variations on a single theme, when the article is about the name itself, not a person. I added the picture as an illustration of an appearance of the name in the context of the popular culture of a time and place, not to assert that "Mary is a grand old name". The popularity of the name is referenced in the article already. I'm just failing to understand why the collection of images in the article should consist entirely of a repetition on a theme, with each repetition not really providing a reader with any more sense of the status of the name through time. It's quite clear that the person Mary has been a popular subject of art, I think. :) Anyway, it's nothing I'm going to go to war over... maybe somebody else will have an opinion. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mary which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page links in people section

Why is there a bunch of Disambiguation page links in a section for people? You can just copy the names from that page, also adding their relevant birth/death info, and paste them to the section.

Do we need a page stub for notable people with first name Mary? RCSCott91 (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]