Jump to content

Talk:Mary Jones and her Bible

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opening comment

[edit]

Hello, I'm glad that the redirect worked but is it necessary to have "(Bible)" after her name? Can we just call her Mary Jones, then, since there is no one in Wikipedia by that name, yet?Brian0324 18:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, I'm afraid there is. There's a disambiguation page. Deb 18:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, there are others with the same first and last name. Still, since no one else is listed without a middle name or other qualifier - it wouldn't hurt to get rid of the "(Bible)". My main point is that if you type in Mary Jones Bible into the search engine - no page by that name exists.Brian0324 18:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but that's because the wikipedia internal search engine is rubbish. If you type in "Mary Jones Bible" on Google, it's the fifth entry. If you just type in Mary Jones in the search box on this page, you would get the disambiguation page, which would lead you to the one you want. The main reason there's a disambiguation page is because when you look at the links to "Mary Jones" from other articles, none of them actually refers to our Mary Jones. Sad, but true. Deb 21:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Mari Jones2006.jpg

[edit]

Image:Mari Jones2006.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the image is more than 50 years old, it seems to fall into the category of Public Domain for the UK, so I've tagged it as such. Tivedshambo (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primary usage?

[edit]

(Bible) is a horrible disambiguator. Could this be the primary usage for Mary Jones? Srnec (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you ask. The normal way of referring to her and her story in Wales is "Mary Jones and her Bible". If you used dates, it wouldn't mean anything to anyone, and I can't think of any other way of describing a teenage country girl who didn't have a job. She is really only famous for the Bible incident. In the Welsh wikipedia she is not disambiguated because, to Welsh speakers, she is by far the best known person of that name. Deb (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about Mary Jones (Wales)? There's bound to be stuff in the appropriate MOS about article title disambiguation, but I don't have time to look it up just now. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over the Mary Jones page and I cannot see any other Mary Jones that I would think is equally famous by that name. And article length backs me up in this. I am not Welsh, but she is the only Mary Jones I've ever heard of. Srnec (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might work in most cases, but Mary Jones is a more common name in Wales than anywhere else, so it's not the greatest of disambiguators, in my opinion. I suggest we think carefully before we move it again. Deb (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Jones (Wales) seems better to me, too. It's an easy leap from "Mary Jones of Wales" or "Mary Jones from Wales". (Bible) seems to imply that she made her own translation of the book, itself - whereas the article is not about the BOOK - so much as being about HER.Brian0324 (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd argue the toss on that last one! Deb (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
que?Brian0324 (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that she is only famous for her association with the book. Deb (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a WP Disambiguation project - WT:WPDIS. I expect they would provide guidance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only Mary Jones on the dab page that I think competes with the Bible girl is the one better known as Mother Jones. I think we could justify moving this to Mary Jones and forcing people looking for another Mary Jones to go through this page. Judging by the links to the dab page, this not a lot of people. Srnec (talk) 04:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (expired)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was to leave the page as is, no consensus. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 00:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Mary Jones (Bible) → Mary Jones — The Welshwoman with the famous Bible is the primary usage of "Mary Jones". Srnec (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move, July

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus whatsoever. —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Mary Jones (Bible) → Mary Jones (Welsh girl) — She is not a Bible and she is not in the Bible. The current disambiguator violates both guidelines and common sense. I think she is primary usage of "Mary Jones" and hence also the primary Welsh girl going by "Mary Jones". Also, "girl" would indicate that her fame derives from an act of youth. Srnec (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply Mari Jones? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was she known as Mari Jones? If not, I was going to suggest that she be moved to just "Mary Jones", with the disambiguation page currently at that location moved to "Mary Jones (disambiguation)". None of the people listed on the disambiguation page are known as just Mary Jones; they're all known by their middle names. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She was a Welsh speaker whose notability arises from her use of, and influence on, the Welsh language, and her grave states Mari in Welsh (Mary in English) - so I would have thought it entirely appropriate (and a lot easier) to use her name in Welsh here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable to me. The Welsh Wikipedia is using Mary Jones though, any ideas why? YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No idea - maybe they copied it from here?? Another ALT: "Mary Jones (Welsh bible)".... ?Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But she isn't a Welsh bible! Srnec (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've always seen her referred to as 'Mary Jones' in Welsh, never 'Mari'. Cydymaith i Lenyddiaeth Cymru (Companion to the Literature of Wales): 'Mary Jones'. An older example is in the book Trefecca, Llangeitho a'r Bala (a popular book of its period on the early Methodists) by Henry Hughes (Caernarfon, 1896). Also 'Mary Jones' in Wrth Odre Cadair Idris, an erudite and detailed history of the Tal-y-llyn and Llanfihangel area by the late Elwyn Roberts, a local man and cultured Welsh-speaker. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to oppose, I'm afraid. I could have accepted the previous proposal, but not this one. Although I accept the point that it is not an ideal disambiguator, "Mary Jones (Welsh girl)" is hardly better. She is not, after all, famous for being a Welsh girl. When you create a disambiguator, you should be thinking, first and foremost, about how people will identify the subject they are looking for. Contrary to what is being suggested here, there is no rule that says what should be between the brackets/parentheses, and there are bound to be exceptions to the convention - this is clearly a case where it is not easy to find a good disambiguator. I would suggest that "Welsh girl" is no better than "Bible". It's a bit like having a page titled "John Smith (Englishman)".

Oppose, (Welsh girl) doesn't help explain the individual. I think the earlier disambiguation idea was far better, as Mary Jones (poker player) is far more easier to define than this one. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "earlier disambiguation idea" do you mean no disambiguation, this is the primary topic? Srnec (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The Encyclopedia of Wales lists Mary Jones as a "folk heroine" so something such as that (or perhaps "Welsh folk heroine") would be more descriptive and appropriate in my view. Pondle (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Mary Jones (folk heroine)' would seem a far better idea. Certainly "Welsh girl" could be seen as patronising and rather pointless. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is pointless, but the previous move request to simply "Mary Jones" failed. Anybody who believes this article should be at simple "Mary Jones" should say so, that way I can justify re-opening and re-listing the just-expired request. Srnec (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my view it's important that the word "Welsh" be in there - "folk heroine" by itself is too vague, though I agree that "girl" is patronising. WP:D states: "A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be: the generic class that includes the topic, as in Mercury (element), Seal (mammal); or the subject or context to which the topic applies, as in Union (set theory), Inflation (economics)". In my view, that would allow the use of "Mary Jones (Welsh bible)", as she is only notable because of her search for a Welsh bible and what that set in train. But I'd be happy with "Mary Jones (Welsh heroine)" or, better, "Mary Jones (Welsh folk heroine)" (as suggested by Pondle). Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one problem I can see with "Mary Jones (Wales)" is that Moelona (Elizabeth Mary Jones), who's listed on the Mary Jones disambiguation page, was a Welsh language writer and also related to Wales. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Helen Mary Jones, who I've added to the disambiguation page, is a Plaid Cymru politician who is Welsh. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

[edit]
Seems like a straw poll is the best way to resolve this, as we have several suggestions but no consensus. I've listed some of the suggestions below - feel free to support or oppose any or all - no need for reasons. I'd recommend leaving this up for a week, then hopefully there'll be an option which is supported more than others. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 10:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added another option (just "Mary Jones") per my above statement, hope that's ok. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's not really a viable option, as it's recently been discussed and rjected (see previous section above). I've removed it. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 13:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not proper to remove other editors' additions to a talk page without their permission; I've restored them. If a straw poll is to be done (not always a good idea after so much discussion), it should include all options; if not, it's perfectly OK to add one. Mary Jones was not rejected previously; there was simply no consensus. In the meantime, several editors have supported it in this discussion and in the straw poll. Station1 (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested an uninvolved admin at WP:AN to close this discussion and hopefully resolve consensus. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 12:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that premature? It would seem that none of the options are jumping out as excellent. If my new suggestion doesn't work, I'm sure our combined creativity can find a workable alternative. --Dweller (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Jones (Bible) (i.e. left unmoved)
Mary Jones (Calvinistic Methodist)
Mary Jones (folk heroine)
Mary Jones (Wales)
Mary Jones (Welsh girl)
Mary Jones (Welsh Methodist)
Mary Jones [as only individual known just by that name; with hatnotes added and disambiguation page moved to "Mary Jones (disambiguation)"]

New suggestions

[edit]
Mary Jones (founder of Bible Society)
Oh. Seems I misread the inscription: "THIS INCIDENT WAS THE OCCASION OF THE FORMATION OF THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY" --Dweller (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Jones (religious figure)
Mary Jones (1784–1866)
Mary Jones (Welsh Bible buyer)
Mary Jones (British and Foreign Bible Society)
Mary Jones (Bible society)
Mary Jones (Merionethshire)

(Bible foo) variants

[edit]

Would people support or oppose in principle the idea of Mary Jones (Bible foo)? There have been various foo options mentioned on this page (purchaser, devotee, student etc). If we can agree the principle we can then argue through the options, but would people go for this? --Dweller (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you therefore mean "weak support", as your comment implies? I agree, there may be a chance we can agree on using the date formulation, but there's no harm in progressing down two avenues at once, esp. as there's already a couple of opposes there. --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment by Dweller

[edit]

I've opposed all of these options. Are there others we could come up with? --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added a new suggestion. --Dweller (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you believe the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography calls her "Mary Jones, exemplar of godly life" [1]. DrKiernan (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marvellous. Btw I like your last two suggestions, far better than my weak ones. --Dweller (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some possibilities suggested above but not in the straw poll include: Mary Jones and her Bible, Mari Jones, Mary Jones (Welsh bible), Mary Jones (Welsh heroine), Mary Jones (Bible seeker). Others: Mary Jones (Bible student), Mary Jones (Bible devotee), Mary Jones (Bible purchaser), Mary Jones (British and Foreign Bible Society). Station1 (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "Mary Jones (British and Foreign Bible Society)" to the straw poll since I think that has the best chance of all the above of getting general support. However I agree that none of the original options (including my suggestion of just "Mary Jones") got enough popular support to warrant a move. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that we should go back to first principles and identify "enough descriptive information that the reader can distinguish between different people with the same name" per WP:MOSDAB#People. In my view, what readers are most likely to know in advance are (1) she was Welsh, and (2) she had something to do with a bible. So, Mary Jones (Welsh bible) would do it, and if there is an insistence that "she was a person, not a bible", how about Mary Jones (Welsh bible pioneer)? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God knows! I seriously think I'll give up on this one, unless someone feels like supporting "Mary Jones (Innocent young girl from Llanfihangel-y-pennant who walked to Bala to get a Bible and left her Boots at home)" :-) Enaidmawr (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't add more to the excessive straw poll (can we narrow it down yet?), but I have three suggestions: Mary Jones of Ty'nyddol was the title of the English translation (1887) of a Welsh biography, Mary Jones Lewis was her married name, and Mary Jones (exemplar of godly life), based on ODNB's first sentence, which is too awesome to ignore. Srnec (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite a pickle. The current name was a good enough fix, as far as getting an article up. "Welsh Methodist" or "Welsh Protestant" are tempting, since her notability seems to stem from a religiously motivated act, but obviously disambiguating by religion will not ever scale -- this is not the only religious Mary Jones in Wales. "Folk heroine" is tempting, but has an obvious POV issue. Looking at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Qualifier between bracketing parentheses, I'm not really finding any inspiration, but someone else might. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also adding, I'm not sure if "Bible society" and such fit, either -- the article says she inspired the founding of said society, but doesn't mention any direct involvement with it. Using that qualifier seems to imply she was a member, I think. One more idea: "Welsh folklore"? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rename to (folk heroine)

[edit]

I've asked Jayron to reconsider the close and move, first because I believe it to be premature (there were ongoing discussions that were useful) and second because I at least strongly opposed (folk heroine) and I did so on policy grounds, that it is inherently POV.

Jayron appears to be offline now and if usual patterns are followed, will be for 5 or 6 hours (by which time I'll be offline, lol). I do not think anyone should revert the close or the move at this stage because with the conversation with Jayron barely begun this would be discourteous.

Can I please request that people who've participated here so far continue to watch this page. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider the closure to be premature - the poll had been up for a week before I requested closure. I must admit I'm not keen on the new name either, but it's probably the best of a bad situation, and on a wiki you have to accept compromises sometimes. Remember that it's the contents of the article that are important, not the title. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 13:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no deadline: the poll was not inactive for a week - just open for one. There's absolutely no rush, especially with new ideas coming forward and discussion remaining useful (not to mention unheated). On your other point, because one thing is more important than another does not mean the latter is unimportant. If the title were unimportant, we wouldn't have started discussing this in the first place. The titles of the articles are important, as can be seen by the trillions of words expended in discussing some of our more contentious ones. --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to it, it was one of the better proposals along with using the dates, although I'm not sure how much popular support the proposal got. There were six expressions of support, and five expressions of opposition, including one "strong support" and one "strong oppose". Having said that, the new qualifier is a significant improvement on what we had before, and I did support it originally. Also, adressing the whole POV thing, this person isn't exactly controversial and seems to be remembered for being a good person, so I don't think we need to avoid the somewhat romantic qualifier here. I see the spirit of POV opposition, but does anyone disagree that she is remembered as a folk heroine?YeshuaDavid • Talk • 13:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV doesn't just apply to controversial issues - it's a policy. Wikipedia does not have a point of view. Who does consider her a "heroine"? "The folk"? What folk? --Dweller (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NB The word "heroine" (rightly) does not appear in the article. --Dweller (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folk as in tradition, folk culture. I don't think it necessary to have the qualifier within the bulk of the article. As for neutrality - there doesn't appear to be any group or individuals I can find who contest her status as a folk heroine, or her status in Welsh/Protestant culture. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 14:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the online sources are religious (Christian) in nature and, while they might be reliable about her story, and even about her importance in Welsh culture, they are not neutral in deciding whether she was or wasn't a "heroine". John Davies' "History of Wales", by the way, describes her in the text as Mari Jones (as does the caption of the image in the article here), and in the index as "Mary Jones (of Bala)". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at this discussion after seeing it listed on WP:AN and I too agree that the closure of the discussion was rather premature. There clearly was no consensus to move this to the (now) current title, and choosing to do so as a sort of "compromise" while discussion was ongoing is not a well considered solution. Given the confusing and somewhat contentious nature of this debate, I'm not sure picking the single choice with the highest "apparent" support is a good way of finding a solution at all. More constructive, I believe, would be to allow the discussion to identify a small number of viable alternatives, and then ask which of those alternatives is the best. For what it is worth, the editors here should feel free to continue this discussion until a viable target is found and a new move request (to that title) can be made, regardless of whether or not Jayron chooses to reverse the closure of the prior request. Shereth 15:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, but how would people think about "Mary Jones (Welsh tradition)", or "Mary Jones (folk culture)"? The current title inspired me to have a look around Welsh mythology, which brings up a few alternatives we haven't really touched on. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those would suggest to me that she was not a real person - which clearly she was. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning in this sort of direction, myself. I suggested "Welsh folklore" above -- looking at folklore I don't see any strong implication the subject is fictional, just that it's talked about in stories of the culture... much like this Mary Jones seems to be. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But looking at this guidance, it's not "a single, recognisable and highly applicable word regarding the person at hand", or alternatively a "clear term" that describes the person or her activity. It's one, not very clear, interpretation of how some would interpret her story subsequently. I'd prefer (Welsh bible ....something). (Welsh bible pioneer)?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would be an unusually difficult discussion to close at any time. I probably would have let it go on a little longer myself, but Jayron32 should be applauded for taking on a difficult decision and clearly detailing his reasons for doing what he did. I think his explanation is reasonable. My only quibble would be that Mary Jones need not be "the primary Mary Jones in the world", but only the primary Mary Jones on Wikipedia, which she was, at least until a few hours ago, when an excellent short article Mary Jones (poet) was created. In any case, the archived discussion need not be reopened; a new discussion can as easily be started if someone wants to suggest an (even) better qualifier than folk heroine. In the meantime, we have what at least some people feel is an improvement and what I believe literally no one thinks is any worse than Mary Jones (Bible). Station1 (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... I fully agree with Station1's sentiment, can we not at least agree to a provisional title while we sort out the best option? "Mary Jones (folk heroine)" may not be perfect, but it's much better than the "Mary Jones (Bible)" option. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 23:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to me that, before the kerfuffle of the last 24 hours, the discussion here was going pretty well. Getting to a consensus can sometimes take a long time, but on an issue like this it's more important to get it right slowly than to rush into over-hasty decisions, in my view. Anyway, I'd like to endorse Shereth's comment above - "to allow the discussion to identify a small number of viable alternatives, and then ask which of those alternatives is the best." Let's stick with the title we've got for the moment (and personally I don't think it's any worse than "folk heroine"), and agree a process of moving forward towards a better alternative. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I quite like the idea of Mari Jones, not least because it avoids any sort of qualifier, and is a term that has been used in other sources. It's certainly plausible that someone would search for that term, more so than any title other than perhaps Mary Jones on its own. Aubergine (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought - Mary Jones (devout girl) or Mary Jones (devout Welsh girl). I've come round to accepting "girl" as she was only known for the actions when she was a girl - by modern standards she was a teenager, but that word was not used at the time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, but the word "devout" is almost archaic and would mean nothing to a large proportion of wikipedia readers. Deb (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Jones (godbotherer), then? Apologies for any offence caused by this fatuous suggestion  ;) Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plausible options that haven't yet attracted significant opposition seem to now boil down to Mari Jones or a variant on Mary Jones (Bible foo). I'd support either. We have RS for the variant spelling - her tombstone, no less, so I'd prefer that, as it saves further discussion! Does anyone seriously oppose Mari Jones as the preferred outcome? --Dweller (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the Welsh Wikipedia article introduces her as "Mary", but then, on the other two occasions it mentions her, calls her "Mari". --Dweller (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much though I love Mary Jones (Godbotherer), as we now have evidence that she was referred to as Mari Jones and buried under that name, I'd go with Mari Jones (and hope to God nobody else called Mari Jones surfaces!). Skinsmoke (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to throw another spanner into the works, but the Welsh for Mary is Mair, e.g. cy:Mair o Teck, or the place-name Llanfair meaning St Mary's ('m' mutates to 'f' in certain circumstances). —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 14:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, I see that Mari appears on the Welsh wording on her memorial. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 14:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure we need to worry about it, as we have RS (her headstone). --Dweller (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this isn't yet another spanner, as it was my suggestion originally, but it's only fair to point out that, way back at the top of this thread, Enaidmawr, who I respect, commented as follows:

"I've always seen her referred to as 'Mary Jones' in Welsh, never 'Mari'. Cydymaith i Lenyddiaeth Cymru (Companion to the Literature of Wales): 'Mary Jones'. An older example is in the book Trefecca, Llangeitho a'r Bala (a popular book of its period on the early Methodists) by Henry Hughes (Caernarfon, 1896). Also 'Mary Jones' in Wrth Odre Cadair Idris, an erudite and detailed history of the Tal-y-llyn and Llanfihangel area by the late Elwyn Roberts, a local man and cultured Welsh-speaker."

Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. WP:COMMONNAME would suggest Mary is the way forward then. Is it time to explore Mary Jones (Bible foo)? --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No harm in exploring, but it will be problematic, as whatever the "foo" might be, there is likely to be some ambiguity with some character who appears in the bible. Problem is, it is the consequences of her actions for which she is remembered, not her actions themselves, and that creates a difficulty. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to cause this process any more problems, but the headstone is quite explicit in using "Mary Jones" as her English Jones, and "Mari Jones" in Welsh. I don't think we should use an uncommon spelling of her name, just because we can't think of a good qualifier. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 14:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article scope

[edit]

I wonder if this article should be more like the Murder of John and Betty Stam - and be titled Walk of Mary Jones for a Bible? It would still be biographical enough, but it really is her only claim of notoriety. I originally created this article as Mari Jones but as the above comments prove & this is English Wikipedia - we have a difficulty.Brian0324 (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This ref is interesting: "Many of the facts are uncertain and, sadly, cannot be verified so we must therefore call it a legend." Any takers for Mary Jones and her Bible ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The article is about her walk and the memorialization of her walk. "Mary Jones's walk" seems to be concise, accurate, and lacking a lot of the problems that other titles of the form "Mary Jones (characterization)" have.--Atemperman (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Mary Jones and her Bible" is the phrase that immediately springs to mind whenever she's mentioned. It was one of the first things I thought of, hence the title I gave the article "Mary Jones (Bible)". Deb (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could probably go for Mary Jones and her Bible. --Dweller (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise.--Atemperman (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the best solution. Thanks to Ghmyrtle we have a reference to her as 'Mari' rather than 'Mary' in John Davies' weighty tome, but this is rare. The form found on her memorial can be regarded as retrospective "PC", I'm afraid. In support of 'Mary Jones' I could add Merioneth-born Thomas Iorwerth Ellis in his volume Crwydro Meirionnydd. Also, and this tends to support moving this to "Mary Jones and her Bible", the Atlas Meirionnydd (Atlas of Merioneth), an authorative source for the old county, has a list of famous people from the area. Under Llanfihangel-y-pennant we find: Mary Jones. Cymeriad yn y stori enwog "Mary Jones a'i Beibl". ('Mary Jones. A character in the famous tale "Mary Jones and her Bible"'). My suggestion made in desperation above, Mary Jones (Innocent young girl from Llanfihangel-y-pennant who walked to Bala to get a Bible and left her Boots at home), wasn't entirely facetious, summing up as it does the only reason she is famous. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like Mary Jones and her BibleBrian0324 (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
....or Mary Jones' Bible (or Mary Jones's Bible) - shorter. By the way, is it agreed here that "Bible" should be capitalised? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Jones and her Bible is better, I think. For one thing, this is about her not her Bible, which would be the perhaps overly literal interpretation of 'Mary Jones' Bible'. I suppose the capitalisation or not of Bible depends on several factors, including religious sensibilities. Makes no difference to me, but I can't see any harm in the capitalisation. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I should keep the discussion going, there's a danger of consensus breaking out... Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, I fear you may be right. Perhaps the best thing to do is to move it anyway and then have another nice long debate on alternative titles? "The Legend of Mary Jones, Barefoot Bible Belle of Bala" has a certain ring to it... Enaidmawr (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having been critical of others for being over-hasty, I think I'll wait a day or two. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a good idea. I'd also support Mary Jones and her Bible... not something I would have expected, but the maze of discussion above certainly illustrates the difficulty of finding a viable alternative -- good call, this one. (I don't think you got an answer, above, but my understanding is that "Bible" should typically be capitalized, yes.) – Luna Santin (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good. Let's wait and see if any serious objection rises to Mary Jones and her Bible. If not, I suggest the move is completed on Monday (UTC)? --Dweller (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, for what it's worth, my choice is :-
  • (1) Mary Jones (Godbotherer)
  • (2) Mary Jones (Barefoot Bible Belle of Bala)
  • (3) Mary Jones (Innocent young girl from Llanfihangel-y-pennant who walked to Bala to get a Bible and left her Boots at home)
  • (4) Mary Jones and her Bible
It's a reluctant 4th option, but I'm guessing there's no other takers for the first three. Or for Mary Jones (Desperately Seeking Bible)! Skinsmoke (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons not to move to "Mary Jones and her Bible"

[edit]

(in no particular order)

  1. It is the title of a book. The article is not about the book. Though the book's title may be famous, I think it is wise not to steal its title for our article.
  2. The article is really about Mary and what she did. It should be biographical in focus. Of course, as with most biographies, it will emphasise some aspects of her life more than others, but it will try to cover the whole as best it can.
  3. The article is not about her Bible and will contain precious little information on it, i.e. it will not feature Mary in one section and her Bible in another.
  4. The title sounds like that of a story, but the article should tell the story without being a story. This is an encyclopaedia.
  5. It sets a bad precedent.

If it had everybody's okay, I'd open a new straw poll with more limited suggestions based on which ones received the most support in the previous straw poll(s). And I would establishing voting as follows: no comments with votes (have a separate comments section), vote accept or reject at each and every suggestion, this way every participant has made plain where they stand (what they can stomach) without some voting only once and others voting with "2nd preference" and so on. Each participant should vote on each suggestion without regards for preference but with regards to acceptability. Srnec (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if that is done, it will need to include some options not in the previous poll, which have been suggested subsequently - like (Mary Jones and her Bible), (Mari Jones), ..(devout girl), ..(Bible purchaser), ..(Welsh tradition), etc. Secondly, if there is to be another poll it would be useful if participants could indicate whether, and why, they consider the proposal contrary to this guidance, as well as whether or not they like it. Thirdly, I don't accept Srnec's argument 1 - as currently written, the article is set out as a bio, but it would take very little editing to turn it into an article about a story/parable. We should note that her story itself is not that exceptional (lots of people walk 26 miles), and in some ways she is not notable as a person - what is notable is that the story (possibly embellished if not apocryphal, we don't know) was used by others to do other things that are notable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually nothing wrong, technically, with the present title. It was chosen carefully, taking into account all the above arguments before other people voiced them, and I don't really see what the objection to it is. I can't imagine that even the most ignorant reader would see the title and imagine that Mary Jones is a Bible. It does not conflict with any rule - it is just one of those unusual cases where there is no obvious disambiguator. Deb (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, still think she is primary usage and this is why there is no obvious disambiguator. The current title is aesthetically displeasing and there is 'technically' nothing wrong with that. I'd prefer disambiguation by her dates to the current situation, since it is a standard method, used, for instance, by the ODNB. Srnec (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But surely disambiguation should help the reader to find the Mary Jones they want, not hinder them? Deb (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At Mary Jones there will be a line like:
This is unambiguous and the reader will be in no doubt as to which link goes to the Mary Jones they want. Srnec (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Srnec, but your suggestion of Mary Jones (1784–1866) goes directly against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) which reads (my emphasis) :-
"Some standardisation of the bracketed disambiguator is possible, for example "(musician)" and "(politician)" are very recognisable. Try to avoid abbreviations or anything capitalised or containing hyphens, dashes or numbers (apart from where more specific guidelines specify particular exceptions to that), and also try to limit to a single, recognisable and highly applicable word regarding the person at hand. Years of birth and death should not be used in a page title to distinguish between people of the same name (readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it)."
Skinsmoke (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put little to no stock in the written conventions. Srnec (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't be surprised then if your suggestion is considered as coming from the fringe element on Wikipedia. Nor should you be surprised, if you had your way, to find other editors seeking to change the title again.
Having just read the treatise on Mary Jones by E Wyn James on the Cardiff University website at Bala and the Bible: Thomas Charles, Ann Griffiths and Mary Jones it is clear that the young Miss Jones was not unfamiliar with the Bible, as she had studied it, and was able to quote large sections from it. By the age of nine she was already a member of the local Methodist seiat, and by the time of her barefoot hike had been regularly studying the Bible in a farmhouse 2 miles from home for six years. She merely wanted a copy of her own, partly to make studying easier, and partly for the reason that we all save up for something we desire. On the basis of this, I would have thought that an apt title would be Mary Jones (Bible student). Skinsmoke (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(old) Requested move

[edit]

I've archived the proposal, since it didn't seem to be the right way forward. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 10:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed move proposal to "Mary Jones (Bible student)"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Mary Jones (Bible) → Mary Jones (Bible student) — For the reasons laid out above by Skinsmoke, and for a simple resolution to the tangle of problems in naming this page. I think this is quite a clever option. 1) Unlike "Mary Jones", there is no question of if she is the primary topic 2) Unlike "Mari Jones", there is no question if this is a common name for her in English 3) Unlike "Mary Jones (folk heroine)", there is no question of whether that violates NPOV 4) Unlike "Mary Jones and her Bible", there is no question of if that sounds like a story, and the problem of it being a book title 5) Unlike "Mary Jones (Bible)", it doesn't make her sound like a Bible. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 14:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query POV alert. Do we have RS that say she "studied" the Bible? "Study" carries connotations not in the word "read". If I read a book about physics, that doesn't make me a physics student. I'm not convinced we didn't already have consensus for "...and her Bible". If there isn't this particular option is just one, flawed, variant of the Mary Jones (Bible foo) genre that we've not properly explored. --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A big part of me wants to say that this would be an acceptable solution. However, I agree with Dweller's thoughts that the term "Bible student" has connotations which don't apply in her case - and, in particular, the term (albeit capitalised) now has quite a specific meaning - here. So... probably not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been having a look online, and I can't see anything that really fits the definition of "Bible student". I'll leave this request open for now, but since I'll be away for the whole of the next week, if no one can find any evidence I suggest an editor archive this request. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 15:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that Bible student, in particular, implies piety, not academic studies. We could use the contemporary Scripture searcher, I suppose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Scripture searcher" is not bad, especially because of its possible double meaning. It is an improvement on the current name and on the proposed name. I'd support it. Srnec (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence that she was "searching the scriptures", which is what that would suggest - she was trying to buy a bible. Sorry. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote?

[edit]

Can I suggest that a way forward might be a two-stage vote here. First, to identify the options (say, no more than six) to be included in a vote. Second, use a system of first, second etc, preferences to vote on them. It's annoying that there is no "obvious" answer, and it seems there may be little chance to achieve a consensus without some process like that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sensible. --Dweller (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some of them... I suggest we put them alphabetically when we vote. --Dweller (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I didn't expect this discussion to go on for so long, or for so many users to be involved. But as there's still no dicision, here's a couple more suggestions to be mulled over and rejected...
 —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 11:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) I don't think (Bible foo) would work - we need to have specific words, that's half the problem. (Bible seeker) perhaps? I'd also suggest adding to the list (folk heroine), (Welsh girl), and (Welsh Bible pioneer). I also think a random order might be better than alphabetical. See this for an example of the process (much more contentious and complex than this) in action. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we haven't ever explored Bible foo, because people keep rushing to end the debate. Bible enthusiast, Bible lover, Bible seeker, Bible devotee, Bible activist, I dunno. Of that lot, I'd probably go for seeker, but there may be more. --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't intending to rush anyone, just to reach a conclusion! Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, I most certainly wasn't referring to you! :-) --Dweller (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On rereading the article, I think we could do worse than defining her the way she defined herself (but correcting her spelling) as Mary Jones (Bible owner). --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be going anywhere: I think a new way forward would be just have a straight comparison of two options only along the lines of: Which do you prefer "Mary Jones (Bible)" or "Mary Jones (Bible owner)"? The sole decision to make is which is preferable not whether there is something else better or what else it could be. Once that is decided then the page either stays where it is or moves to "Mary Jones (Bible owner)". Then, there is another straight two-choice comparison: do you prefer "(Winner of round 1)" or "Mary Jones (Christian paragon)", and so on. This is a simpler way of doing a preference vote rather than a complicated multi-option poll. DrKiernan (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think the deep well of interest in this subject has probably run dry in recent days, I'd personally prefer (Bible seeker) - which at least illuminates her actions - over (Bible owner), which is passive and less specific. But I agree there's a need to make a decision. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd approve of (Bible seeker) or (Bible owner), but not (Bible), because she wasn't a Bible. --Dweller (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too prefer either of those over "Bible". DrKiernan (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about Mary Jones of Ty'nyddol? From the title of an 1887 biography. Avoids parentheses and descriptions. Other spellings of Ty'nyddol exist and I don't care which one is used. Mary Jones Lewis, her married name, also avoids parentheses, but is not recognisable. I support DrKiernan's method, but I don't like the whole "Bible" genre, though "Bible seeker" or "owner" is an improvement on the present. Srnec (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But once again I'm afraid you're missing the point. The disambiguator should be something by which the reader can recognise the subject. Deb (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see why. No reader will arrive at this page wondering which Mary Jones this is. Either they will have clicked a link in an article or on the disambiguation page, which will have a brief description. Srnec (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Moved to Mary Jones and her Bible.
— V = I * R (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Mary Jones (Bible) → Mary Jones (Bible seeker) — After extensive and exhaustive discussion on this page, it seems possible that this wording might best meet the needs of readers for a clear disambiguator which summarises the actions which led to the notability of this Mary Jones. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support Clear and concise; fits the bill. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sounds like someone who has mislaid their bible. Hippo (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Or someone who hadn't got one and wanted one. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hippo: Do you still favour (folk heroine), which others have criticised as POV, or do you have a better suggestion? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hippo, is it preferable to "Bible" or not? DrKiernan (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't find either the current name or the proposed name satisfactory. To be blunt, both display a lack of vocabulary to me... (my apologies to those of you who have been discussing this, my intent is not to be insulting here). I would offer "Mary Jones (Pilgrim)" as one possible solution, since the word Pilgrim describes what she is purported to have done.
    — V = I * R (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Being a pilgrim requires a journey to a sacred place. She went to a bookseller in Bala. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the only definition of "Pilgrim". According to Dictionary.com, the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, states in part: "2. One who embarks on a quest for something conceived of as sacred.". More importantly, even going only by that narrow definition ("journey to a sacred place") the word pilgrim still fits unless you also define "sacred place" so narrowly that wherever she supposedly went to purchase her bible at wasn't a "sacred place". Alternatives could include "Trekker" (notwithstanding the Star Trek connotations, it's an accurate term), "wayfarer", "sojourner", and "traveler". "Traveller" also has many other synonyms.
    — V = I * R (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bala certainly wasn't a sacred place! Only a few years earlier a traveling preacher had to flee for his life when he was set upon by the mob. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone in the world is supposed to automatically know that? The fact that a "preacher had to flee" from some town at some point in history is relatively trivial information, in the scheme of things. More importantly, that information is not presented in this article anywhere (rightly so, since your description indicates that it occurred in the future from the events in the article, and is not directly related regardless).
    — V = I * R (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever. Most readers would be unlikely to think of her as a "pilgrim", "trekker", "wayfarer", "traveller" or "sojourner" - they would think of her as someone who wanted to buy a book. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article asserts that she's primarily notable for traveling to purchase a bible. She's therefore most notabile for being a traveler. Since the travel was for religious purposes, that naturally leads me to conclude that "pilgrim" would be the most apt adjective. I'm perfectly willing to accept that "pilgrim" may not fit however, which is why I offered additional alternatives. Regardless, just about anything almost has to be better then either the word "Bible" (which isn't adjectival at all) or the clumsy phrase "Bible seeker". Shortening it to just "seeker", or the earlier alternative of "folk heroine" would acceptable as well; I don't think those are the best choices, but my opinion is really limited to disliking the "Bible" or "Bible Seeker" adjectives.
    — V = I * R (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mary Jones (seeker) would be meaningless. Mary Jones (Bible seeker) would be self-explanatory. Why is it "clumsy", and why does that matter anyway? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ohm's "oppose" vote above is invalid for the purposes of this requested move. Since the editor dislikes both the proposed and the present title equally, then the !vote is not an oppose: it is "Neutral". DrKiernan (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's perfectly appropriate to oppose a move to a bad title, even if you would support a move to a better title. Jafeluv (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per previous comments,[2] (shared by two other editors: Dweller and Srnec) as it is preferable to the current title, which implies she is a Bible or features in the Bible. DrKiernan (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, i'm not particularly concerned if my "vote above is invalid" or not, to you personally. It would be much more constructive if you would read and participate in the discussion which is occurring below. Consensus seems possible based on that discussion.
    — V = I * R (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have participated constructively and my "!vote" is accompanied by a rationale. Your complaint is unjustified. DrKiernan (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohm, I'm not sure I understand your opposition to "seeker". "Lack of vocabulary" is the problem we've been trying to address all over this page. A seeker is someone who seeks. She sought a bible. I'd be grateful if you'd clarify what you oppose about it. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is actually to the use of the proper noun "Bible" as a disambiguator. the WP:DAB guideline actually recommends using a noun (rather then adjectives), which is good guidance. It also specifically states that disambiguators should be "the generic class that includes the topic" however, which makes proper nouns a bad choice since they are specific by definition. I didn't really communicate this effectively earlier, but I think that the point still came across based on the conversation below. I don't dispute the facts of the article or anything, the only thing that I'm hung up on here is word choice.
— V = I * R (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting closer, perhaps. Would you prefer (bible seeker)? I'd be happy to accept that, in that she sought a copy of The Bible (ie a bible), not The Bible itself. --Dweller (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really, anything is better then just plain "Bible". I don't really oppose using "bible seaker", but I don't support it either. The reasoning is explained at some length, below, and the conversation there turned to changing the name form of the title completely, which is the only solution that I can see which would resolve this over the long term.
— V = I * R (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. About the the only thing that is clear and has consensus is the fact that the current name is wrong. Clearly this article needs a rename to something. I'm not sure I'm happy with the proposals, but I'd support moving to any of those as an improvement. If after the move and a discussion on the talk page consensus develops for a different name, then it can be moved again. But for now this needs to be moved to some other title. Closing this discussion without a move would be a blunder! Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

LOL

[edit]

...at this crazyness. Where can I buy my copy of the Mary Jones Bible? :) MickMacNee (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if someone occasionally agreed with anyone else. At least these debates usually have factions to deal with. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to repeat myself, but as I said above, I did give this just the weeniest bit of thought before coming up with the present title - where the article has remained for some time with very few apparent ill effects. Deb (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The way the debate is going, it will remain in place by default anyway. I didn't object to it in the first place! - to be candid, I didn't (don't) really care very much, but I'd rather not have it replaced by something worse. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That there have been no "apparent ill effects." doesn't really say anything... the article title could be complete nonsense and that would have "very few apparent ill effects." I appreciate that quite a bit of thought and discussion has occurred on this subject already (it's obvious from all of the commentary, above), but I would think that it would be obvious that attempting to force a choice between two items which do not use adjectival words would be problematic. That nobody has stooped to the level of attempting to make bad faith edits (so far) is something that I see more as a vindication of the assume good faith behavioral guideline rather then some sort of endorsement of the current or proposed article title.
— V = I * R (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is trying to "force a choice" between anything - we are struggling to reach agreement on a decision, in any way possible. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The conversation in the Talk:Mary Jones (Bible)#Vote? section, along with the structure of the movereq, indicate otherwise.
— V = I * R (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's true that no-one previously has identified the importance of the disambiguator containing an adjective. Is that your point? If so, I'm not aware the guidance requires one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snarky commentary aside, I'd think that the idea that a disambiguator should be adjectival would be as obvious as the fact that Article titles should primarily use a noun form. Nouns are generally followed by adjectives, after all. Regardless, in the spirit of WP:AGF, I've looked through WP:DISAMBIG for some sort of guidance. Sure enough there is a whole section specifically covering this topic at WP:NCDAB. Using an adjective is covered by point 3, with the warning that the name may need rethinking. Along that vein of thought, I can see how the subject matter would suort a title similar to "Journey of Mary Jones". Is it the intention of this article to primarily be a biography, or is it supposed to be primarily about the events? That question may be the primary reason why there is no clear consensus for the article name.
— V = I * R (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is currently written as a biography, which would be subject to WP:QUALIFIER - thus, we should "try to limit to a single, recognisable and highly applicable word regarding the person at hand....[and, it] is generally preferred to use a noun that describes the person, rather than an activity, genre, or affiliation.." However, as the person was only notable for a single episode, which then inspired others to further action, it would be a simple matter to edit the article so that it referred to the story rather than the person, in terms such as "Mary Jones and her Bible" - another naming option which has been considered on this page and found wanting. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can believe that the intent of yourself and other editors was to present a biographical article, but at this point the only biographical elements of the article seem to be birth and death dates, and her age at the time of the event. Regardless, WP:QUALIFIER is essentially the same as WP:NCDAB, it's simply more specific to biographical articles. Therefore, where it fails (as is possible, as indicated by this debate) it makes perfect sense to also consider the more general guideline. Anyway, having again re-read the lead, I'm even less convinced that this is a biographical article. The lead describes a singular event, not a person (as long as you basically ignore the birth and death dates, at least).23:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree that this is inevitably going to be an article about a single event and its consequences. As far as I can glean, there is nothing else that is notable to be said about her. Before the walk she was just a country girl. Afterwards she got married, had kids, lived to what was then considered a ripe old age and eventually shuffled off her mortal coil. What is more, much of the detail about her legendary walk - and to be honest it wasn't such an unusual thing to walk 20 miles or so to get somewhere in those days, even at her age - are indeed 'legendary', i.e. it was embroidered and embellished as part of what is often called "the mythology of Welsh Nonconformism" and belongs as much to modern folklore as history; hence 'the tale of Mary Jones'/'Mary Jones and her Bible' etc. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I missed the blurb about what happened to her after the event, which is presented in the next to last paragraph (basically) of the "Journey" section. So, I misrepresented the situation slightly, above. I don't think that invalidates the position that this is only marginally a biographical article though. I'm not sure that it's notable what occurred to this girl named Mary after the fabled journey, anyway.
— V = I * R (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1

[edit]

I find myself on the point of removing this from my watchlist and leaving it to its fate. Then again, it's quite a diverting debate. Perhaps the only way forward is Mary Jones (whatever)? Or Mary Jones (Mary Jones), perhaps? Enaidmawr (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEW applies, I think. Entertaining and instructive though. I'm looking forward to being nominated here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a very good chance of being added to that esteemed list if we keep this up. Another suggestion for the hell of it: Mary Jones (yes, that one). Enaidmawr (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Too much risk of confusion with Mary Jones (no, the other one) I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could always go with Mary Jones (God! Not her again). Skinsmoke (talk) 05:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2

[edit]

OK. What about this? We rename the article "Mary Jones and her Bible", but specifically state that the article refers to the legend, not the person, even though it has a section telling her life story. Then we can redirect Mary Jones (Bible) to this new article, but use the article to put her journey in the context of Welsh history and explain its significance better, and how it came to be such an important legend. Any takers? Deb (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a good idea. I did find quite a good page about the legend and her life, but can't for the life of me remember where. Think it was Cardiff University : Bala and the Bible: Thomas Charles, Ann Griffiths and Mary Jones. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an excellent idea, Deb. :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. DrKiernan (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Srnec presented objections to this at Talk:Mary_Jones_(Bible)#Reasons_not_to_move_to_.22Mary_Jones_and_her_Bible.22. Are we comfortable that we've addressed them? The fact that there's a book of the same name seems no impediment to me. If it's notable, it can have an article with the same name and the suffix (book). And I'm otherwise happy with this, despite Srnec's other objections, even the ones not explicitly covered by the nuance of Deb's proposal. --Dweller (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from previous comments, I think Srnec prefers either "and her Bible" or "(B/bible seeker)" to "(Bible)", even if neither are perfect. So, it really comes down at this point to which of those two is preferred over the other. DrKiernan (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3

[edit]

OK, so I think we're almost there: it's Mary Jones (bible seeker), which would focus on her as a biography piece or Mary Jones and her Bible, which would focus on the story. If everyone could give their preference, that'd be good. --Dweller (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be useful if people indicate whether either option is worse, in their view, than the current disambiguator. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Jones (bible seeker)
Mary Jones and her Bible
Analysis
Looking at the above, what I see is that "Mary Jones (bible seeker)" carries stronger feelings. Two !votes pick it first, two !votes (including my own, by the way) don't pick it at all, and one !vote is marginally supportive. On the other hand, while it's not everyone's first choice, everyone seem to agree that "Mary Jones and her Bible" is at least acceptable. Based on the fact that we're trying to settle and avoid conflict here, and barring any further meaningful objections, I think we can close and move to Mary Jones and her Bible. I'll give it a couple of hours and then perform the move myself, unless someone says "wait".
— V = I * R (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no personal objection, but I think with proposals listed at WP:RM it's generally best to wait for a disinterested admin or editor to come along, rather than someone who has been involved in the discussion. This one's already in the backlog, so someone should be along soon anyway. Station1 (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I actually am a disinterested party. I have my personal opinions, but I would have done the move to either choice regardless of my opinions. Anyway, anyone is free to begin another discussion if they really feel strongly about the new name, but It seem that everyone involved in this discussion has at least settled on the current name as being OK.
— V = I * R (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Her age

[edit]

It seems to be well attested that she was born on 16 December 1784, and that her famous walk took place in 1800. She herself said it was in her "16th year", which to me implies she was aged 15 at the time. The memorial says that she was aged 16, but it's unlikely that the walk took place in December 1800. Can anyone give any clarification on this? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You observations are both correct (a paradox or contradiction in English, but not in old-fashioned Welsh usage). My older (19th century) Welsh relatives always added one to my "English age". For example, right after my sixth birthday, they'd wink and say, "You're seven now in Welsh" (or "... in Wales"). I think it is a bit more than comparing cardinal and ordinal numbers (more than comparing "fifteen years old" and "sixteenth year"). It was as though the Welsh (both the language and the people) used the value of the higher ordinal number in the semantic structure of the lower cardinal number. "I am sixteen" was taken to mean "in my sixteenth year" when spoken in Welsh or by the Welsh. I have used the past tense here, because to me this interpretation is "old-fashioned" (and even was long ago). But in my youth I relished that bonus year. I may be overly complicating it for you, but the Welsh language inscription and the English language inscription say the same thing (walked when aged 16), but on an old memorial in Wales, that could (should?) be interpreted (in either language) as walked when in her sixteenth year. With thanks from ChrisJBenson (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC) — who'll be in his 58th year very soon.[reply]
New one on me. I think it would be Welsh speakers only. (I'm already in my 58th year.) Deb (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How long?

[edit]

Is there any record of how long it took Mary Jones to walk from Llanfihangel to Bala? Google Maps estimates almost 9 hours, but the roads are probably better nowadays. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google has 26 miles, 9 hours 16 minutes my the most direct practicable route, but this is over Cadair Idris (a substantial mountain). A more likely route is via Minffordd, which is 27.8 miles (9 hours 24 minutes). Notwithstanding this, I will change the article to 26 miles.Verbcatcher (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Sunday at home - a family magazine for Sabbath reading

[edit]

@ChilternGiant: I have investigated your recent contribution:

  • Probably the first published account of the story of Mary Jones, was first set out in print in Welsh in 1879 by Robert Oliver Rees in December 1878 in an article from 'Pages for the young' in the periodical 'The Sunday at home - a family magazine for Sabbath reading', a Religious Tract Society publication with engraved illustrations.

I have found the article you refer to:

  • "Pages for the young – A little seed and a great tree – Charles y Bala". The Sunday at home: a family magazine for Sabbath reading. No. 1284. London: The Religious Tract Society. 7 December 1878. pp. 782–784. OCLC 57510078.

The article is in English (as would be expected in a magazine with an English title), the edition of the magazine is dated December 7, 1878, so it was not written in 1879, and the article is not attributed to Robert Oliver Rees but is followed by the initials D.R. Why do you attribute this to Robert Oliver Rees? Verbcatcher (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent source - thank you! The article text should be expanded a little to include some of the details in the story. It states, incidentally, that Mary Jones died in 1866, not 1864, so that will need to be re-checked. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Jones_and_her_Bible&oldid=1247734469"