Jump to content

Talk:Saint Joseph/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Infancy Gospel of Thomas

Exactly what does this doc say about Joseph? The sentences quoted are mostly about Jesus at the PTA etc. and hardly relevant. History2007 (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Infancy Gospel of Thomas here; also This book is both scholarly and interesting, but doesn't seem to cover the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (does cover Infancy Gospel of James). I'm still working at filling in gaps, and of course anyone is welcome to work on this. And believe me, I'm not trying to make Christianity look silly - these stories are part of the developing history of religious belief, and important in their own right. PiCo (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually that document is not part of Christianity. And it is not clear who wrote it. So for some students who want to know how history looked may be interesting, but does not answer any questions for a new user who comes over and wants to know about St. Joseph. That was why I compared it to the Gospel of Ringo. History2007 (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The apocrypha represent the ways ordinary (but talented) early Christians tried to come to grips with evolving beliefs about their religion. The Infancy Gospel of James takes the virginity motif found already in the Gospels and develops the question of what that means for Joseph's relationship with Mary - the answer it gives is that Joseph was old (the idea that Joseph was old comes from James, not from the canonical gospels). It also introduces the idea that Jesus' brothers were from an earlier marriage of Joseph. What it does not do is say that Mary was perpetually virgin - quite possibly the author believed this, but he doesn't make it explicit. So the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, written a little later, takes James and develops this theme: it's in this apocryphal work that we find the earliest explicit statement of the Perpetual Virginity. And that, of course, has implications for Joseph - if Mary was perpetually virgin, then so, in a sense, was Joseph. So it's relevant. But I'll try to shorten it make it clearer why these works are important. PiCo (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
How is the statement "that, of course, has implications for Joseph" supported? How do you or any of the scholars who pontificate know that Joseph was a virgin and that he did not have a squeeze on the side? There is NO way to know any of this. These days with WH logs and all it was still debated if Bill Clinton was a virgin with respect to Monica, until there was a full investigation. Implications about Joseph are pure, pure speculation and any statement about it will be absolute nonsense. History2007 (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I take it you ask in jest. Historians don't pretend to know, merely to form an opinion. An informed opinion. Personally I doubt that Joesph ever existed - Jesus certainly had a father, but there's very little evidence that he was a man like Joseph. Paul says next to nothing about Jesus' background, probably because he didn't care - for him, Christ was going to come again, and very soon, and everything else was secondary. Mark also says very little - Jesus had brothers, that's all, and one of them was named Joseph. Matthew says his father was a carpenter, which is interesting - perhaps he really was (he must have been something), but still no name. Mark removes the brother named Joseph (in fact all the brothers) and tells us this was the father's name - suspicious, if you ask me. John gives no family beyond his mother and father, again named Joseph (and he hadn't been reading the other three). So you can see how the story develops, from a brother named Joseph but no father to a father named Joseph but no brother. Yes, of course everything is speculation. Even the idea that tomorrow will begin with a boiled egg is speculation (it might introduce me to a heart attack instead). It's a shortcoming of life and the world, and we just learn somehow to live with it. Personally I'm rather detached about it. PiCo (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Pico: First the good news, the fear of boiled eggs is over-exaggerated. The issue of dietary cholesterol vs serum cholestrol is ONLY slightly less hypothetical than the Gospel of Ringo, e.g. see [1]. I can give you a whole pile of advice there, but that is another issue. But I did not speak in jest really. I think many of these biblical analysis articles are written with a "factual tone" while in fact there are no facts. There are some "teachings" by Jews, Christians and Muslims, and that can be reported as their teachings. But getting into debates on the "facts" can not take place when there are no facts. That should be acknowledged and made clear therein. 14:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
That's a relief about the eggs. Speaking seriously, the apocryphal writings are fiction, of course. But while they tell us nothing about the real Joseph, they do tell us how Christian thinking was evolving. Same for the canonical gospels - the infancy stories and the genealogies are fiction, designed to explain through narrative various beliefs about Christ the Messiah, notably his miraculous birth to a virgin and his credentials as descendant of David, born in Bethlehem yet simultaneously from Nazareth. How can I be so sure they're fictional? I can't really, except that instances of mortal women giving birth to gods were surprisingly common at the time - Romulus and Remus, the emperor Augustus, and many more. You really couldn't claim that your god was a real god unless he had God for a father. And of course there are all those prophecies - every one of them taken out of context and highly questionable. Even the Nazareth element is a little suspicious - it may originally have been yet another prophecy, "he shall be called a Nazorean", which isn't at all the same thing as a Nazarene, but might have been constructed that way by the time Mark came to write his gospel, in Rome, long after the time of the events of Christ's life. So, to sum, what I'm doing, and what historians of the bible do, is tracing the history of texts and beliefs, not the history of Joseph. PiCo (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your statement that "apocryphal writings tell us nothing about the real Joseph, they do tell us how Christian thinking was evolving." And the material you are writing about the apocryphal documents is thus well suited for an article on Apocrypha and Christian thought, but not this article here. So let us put that material in the "Christian thought" article, not here. History2007 (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So what would you like to put in this article? (I think we need, at a minimum, to tell readers that it's James that first turns Joseph into an old man - that's not in the canonical gospels - and we need to cover his marital relations with Mary - but your views are requested) PiCo (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, those two items are needed. But the Jesus at the PTA items and how various things worked their way to the Quran are not. Does the Quran mention Joseph? History2007 (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I've re-written the section so that it focuses on theological problems surrounding Joseph/Mary/Jesus and how these were tackled over time, beginning with the Protoevangelium and finishing with modern positions in Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism (moved a para down from the "Modern appraisals" section to cover that last item). The "PTA" material, as you put it, is now gone, although I do think it's important from a cultural point of view - it was extremely popular right through the Middle Ages - but I can live without it. And I'm not sure about Joesph in the Koran - I gathered from my source that he is mentioned, but I haven't checked at first hand.PiCo (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Pico, actually the line of reasoning you provided is logical, but it does need to be clarified as apocryphal, and that it is not necessarily the "theological position" of a specific Church, but someone wrote 2,000 years ago. And the someone was not known, and may have been a Christian or not - there is no way to tell. History2007 (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The usual position is that "churches", in the modern sense, didn't exist until after Christianity became a State-recognised religion - before that every little community was a church, and anyone could be a theologian (and they frequently were). Certainly the people who wrote these gospels were Christians - they believed in Christ and the salvation of their souls through Him. Or to put this in modern terms, are Mormons Christians or not? They say they are, and given the lack of any central authority (e.g. the Vatican) able to say otherwise, we'll have to take their word for it. PiCo (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
We do not have to do anything - except eventually die I guess. The fact is that no one knows who wrote these documents and they are clearly apocryphal, so we just need to assume there was a writer (or writers) and not assume who it was. By the way, Wikipedia does NOT do justice to the way Nicolas Bourbaki, i.e. Cartan & Co., fooled the entire French establishment for a good while. But you might be interested in that article and read up elsewhere on their tricks. History2007 (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I've made a notation concerning the application of set theory to the history of set theory.
Excuse me? How did you guess that I wrote the history of set theory? Are you psychic? Is this a historical event? I saw that you made that note on the Bourbaki page, but please set it right. Anyway, the world is full of pranksters, but I have always specially liked the way Cartan and Dieudonne played the whole French Academy for that long. People went looking for Bourbaki in various registers and could never find the genius who kept sending the anonymous papers- it was really funny. So I think we never know who has played what joke within documents from 1,000 years ago, given that these guys fooled so many people in the 20th century, and eventually just blew their own cover after they had had their laugh. Had they not claimed credit, in the 29th century someone would have debated the geneology of Bourbaki. History2007 (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Table

I've gone back to the older table because it gives more information than the new one - which is to say that the new one is incomplete. Most important, it doesn't have any information on the Gospel outlined of Jesus' family - this touches on Mark (no father mentioned) and John (father named Joseph), but it just isn't mentioned. It also fails to bring out the way the details on Joseph were added and expanded in succeeding Gospels, from nothing at all in Mark, through the addition of infancy narratives in the next two Synoptics, to the addition of the incident in the Temple in Luke - there's a chronological dimension that's totally missing. I'd like to keep this table, and add bible refs to the various boxes - in that way we can avoid the charge of OR. PiCo (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually you had said yourself ("Unfortunatelry to understan dthingsy the table is probably OR, since it doesn't come from a source in that form - but let's not mention that.") that the table was WP:OR and I agreed after I looked at it. You said yourself that you had no source for the table, if you look further up. And a table with Gospel harmony is needed anyway, so there is NO reason to delete the harmony table regardless of your WP:OR table. History2007 (talk)
True, I did. But I think the table you've used to replace it is a step backwards - it doesn't even mention the family of Jesus pericopes, for a major starter. Nor am I terrible impressed by the websites it's based on - they're devotional, not scholarly, and frequently tendentious. (The reference they make to "Joseph betrothed to Mary", for example, is deeply misleading, makes it sound as if they were engaged but not married - in fact there's another verse in which it's made clear that only divorce can undo their union).I've produced the following revision of the first table, which now links to bible-verses and is therefore based on primary sources, not OR. What do you think? PiCo (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Incident Mark (c.70 AD)
 Matthew (c. 80-85 AD)
 Luke (c.80-85 AD)
 John (c.90-110 AD)
Genealogy of Jesus - Joseph's father is Jacob of the House of David

(Matthew 1:1–17)

Joseph's father is Eli of the House of David

(Luke 3:23–38)

-
Infancy narrative - On the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem Joseph, guided in dreams by angels, goes down to Egypt to escape Herod, staying there until told to return to the land of Israel

(Matthew 2:1–20)

Joseph goes down from his home in Nazareth to Bethlehem for the Census; on the birth of Jesus he presents the baby at the Temple on the 8th day, then returns to Nazareth

(Luke 2:1–2:40)

-
Jesus in the Temple - - The 12 year old Jesus expounds the Law to the elders in the Temple, explaining to his earthly parents (both present but unnamed) that he is "in my father's house"

(Luke 2:41–52)

-
Desposyni Jesus is "the carpenter" and the "son of Mary"; he has four named brothers (one named Joseph or Joses); no father is mentioned

(Mark 6:1–3)

Jesus is "the carpenter's son" and the "son of Mary"; he has four named brothers (one named Joseph); his father is not named

(Matthew 13:54–57)

Jesus has mother and brothers (unnamed); no father is named or mentioned

(Luke 8:19–21)

Disbelieving Jews speak of knowing "Jesus, the son of Joseph"

(John 6:41–42)

First, the table on Gospel harmony is informative in its own right, similar tables exist in pages such as Parables etc. and it has zero commentary. Moreover, there are many scholarly books on harmony, but not online, so I will just added more books on that. So that table must stay in any case, because it does give information about the "time line" of the life of Joseph in the Gospels, e.g. that he had 3 dreams and the order of said dreams with respect to other events. That is why harmonies are so useful, they provide a sense of time for the events in general. So that table should be there anyway. Second item, the new table you have proposed only aims to discusses the "content discrepancies" between specific elements in the Gospels. It has 4 rows, the 3rd of which is totally unnecessary, since it is standalone and says nothing new at all. That information is already in the article. Now, for the rest. The first row is relevant, but that information is right at the top of the NT section in the article anyway - nothing new. The 2nd row attempts to do a Gospel harmony as a synopsis with words, rather than a parallel harmony. But the 2nd row is already covered in the parallel harmony table anyway, and only gives the information that the flight to Egypt is not covered in Luke, and only appears in Matthew. That is both covered in the parallel harmony, and can be simply mentioned in the text. The 4th row on Desposyni is all about Jesus and not Joseph, and the minor info it tries to provide about Joseph is already in the article. And given that you have used a synopsis approach, it is still OR, unlike a purely referenced-based parallel table. So there is no point in this table at all. History2007 (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

historical reliability

It's bad form to take second-string authors from sectarian publishing houses and portray their opinions as if they had the same weight as the opinions of three of the top scholars in the field: Sanders, Vermes, and Theissen. It's WP policy to give more weight to the sources that have more weight behind them. Leadwind (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed last para of lead on this subject - it was just a collection pro and con sources, no real content. PiCo (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Are we done?

If we feel that everything that should be covered is covered, and that it's in the right order, we can move on to revising the Lead, which, frankly, is a bit long and rambling. PiCo (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the text is mostly there, and I have certainly learned many things based on the info you added. The ONLY question is: Is Joseph in the Quran? The table just needs touch up to be non-OR but that can be done any time. As for the lead, the bible refs are just too small and need better fonts, using "nb". Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Re the Koran, the answer seems to be "no", but I'm not 100% sure and since Islam holds that Jesus was not the son of God (Prophet of God, but not son thereof) they wouldn't have a problem with the idea that he was the natural son of Joseph. All in all I don't think it's important enough to lose sleep over. I'd like to shorten the lead and streamline it and make sure it reflects all parts of the article. PiCo (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, let us drop the Quran angle. I ony thought about it because you had added the mention to it. We can shorten the lead, and please let us use more readable fonts there. History2007 (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


YOuR MOMMa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.187.26 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2011

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 by Jayron32 (talk · contribs). As an FYI, you will generally get a faster response time to revert page-move vandalism at ANI, rather than listing an RM. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


Joseph (father of moses) → Saint Joseph – Requesting move to correct page move vandalism. Saint Joseph refers to the father of Jesus, not Moses. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

no spoken words

Is it noted herein that the Bible has not one spoken word of this Joseph? I have heard of this from elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It is. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is so. History2007 (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Birth date

The reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia for Joseph's birth date as c. 90 BC is a faulty reference. The Catholic Encyclopedia makes reference to apocryphal texts, which it refers to as "unreliable." The CE article implies that there is no reliable source for Joseph's date of birth, and seems to cite the apocryphal writings as more a salient detail rather than an authoritative one. I have tagged the DOB as "dubious." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.81.199 (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed

Relics?

There is some nice work here on oratories, churches, and whatnot. Any information on relics would also be much appreciated. There is not much in Butler on this. Rwflammang (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Genealogy

Under the section "Modern Appraisal", the article states "The variances between the genealogies given in Matthew and Luke are explained on the basis that Matthew's genealogy traces his legal descent, according to Jewish law, through St. Joseph; while Luke's genealogy traces his actual physical descent through Mary". As I am aware, Jewish law (halacha), traces descent through the mother, not through the father (I am not certain on this). I've added a "citation needed" to that claim. Is anyone aware of anything to substantiate it or ought it to be deleted? Ezgranet (talk) 07:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the rules for deciding Jewishness and those for inheritance (and neither may be exactly the same now as they were then). No doubt you will want to find a reference so you can add it and remove your own tag - try Ancestry of Jesus. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Title

A browse through Google Books indicates that the title, surprisingly perhaps, fails WP:COMMONNAME (it obviously fails WP:NPOV). Usage in WP:RS tends to the following:

JOSEPH (HUSBAND OF MARY) According to the opening chapters of the gospels of 'Matthew and 'Luke, 'Mary, the mother of 'Jesus, ... Matthew and Luke agree in their genealogies of Jesus that Joseph was a descendant of King David. The Oxford Guide To People And Places Of The Bible Bruce Manning Metzger, Michael David Coogan 2004 Page 162

This isn't a prelude to a WP:RM, I'm simply noting it in passing. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well it turned out to be a very long slow prelude... In ictu oculi (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus. Whether an alternative would be any more successful I can't say. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Saint Joseph → Joseph of Nazareth – per WP:CRITERIA 1,2,3 & 5, WP:DAB (see Saint Joseph (disambiguation)) and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Joseph (New Testament) should be a redirect. RM is prompted by close at Talk:Swami Vivekananda where WP:HONORIFIC takes priority over WP:COMMONNAME (though in this case "Saint Joseph" is not anywhere near common name in Google Books). Proposal is in accordance with WP:Five pillars No.2 WP:NPOV, and more in keeping with academic sources; we are not a devotional or religious website and shouldn't give devotional honorifics to historical (using that term in the most basic sense) figures where this usage is not found in neutral print sources. If we did we would have to move Muhammad to an honorific. Apart from anything else there is no mention of "Saint" related to Joseph of Nazareth in the New Testament, nor even any indication that he was a Christian or even alive at the birth of Christianity. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

What a ridiculous statement! Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, his notability is almost entirely due to his being the focus of an enormous cultus, and not due to any period of time he may have spent in Nazareth. He figures large in devotional literature but is only a minor figure in the Bible and no figure at all in history. Rwflammang (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this simply doesn't appear to be the case. Google Books shows almost no cultus for Joseph husband of Mary, and the vast majority of references in Google Books are to the individual as a character in the nativity account. Further if the comment about cultus was true Wikipedia strips "Saint" from saint names whenever possible: "Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable through its inclusion." MOS:SAINTS. That is the guideline and disagreeing with it does not change it. MOS:SAINTS affects 1,000s of saint articles which have "Saint" removed, why should Joseph of Nazareth be an exception? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this does not appear to be the case. Google Books is not a reliable reference, and counting google hits is no way to do research. Stripping "saint" from the title name gives us Joseph, which is already taken, so MOS:SAINTS supports Saint Joseph. Rwflammang (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Cf. also Saint David, Saint Anne, and Saint Christopher which include the title for the same reason. Rwflammang (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
No, the guideline supports "saint" only when the individual is only recognizable when it's included, i.e. Saint Patrick. That's obviously not the case here since most reliable sources, as well as most Bibles, do not include it. --JFH (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
+ Ditto per User:Jfhutson, also St. David St. Anne and St. Christopher are semi-legendary medieval figures, the individual mentioned in the New Testament is - within the framework of "historical" as it applies to NT documents at least - considered historical, the comparison is not comparing like with like. And please look at Google Books, you'll find that what I said is the case on the obvious search terms. And the term "Joseph of Nazareth" does occur in some more scholarly sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I repeat, “Google books is not a reliable reference” and for a very large number of reasons, a few of which are detailed in Wikipedia:Search_engine_test, but most of which can be summarily described as, “It is not a random sample.” This makes counting Google hits not even interesting, much less relevant here. Alban Butler describes the corpus of texts devoted to the cultus of Saint Joseph as “vast” and gives references in his popular handbook. The inability of Google books to index this vast corpus says more about Google books than it does about the cultus. Rwflammang (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
User Johnbod, sorry, but citing the names of buildings does not disprove that the term is restricted to the Catholic & Anglican traditions, it does the opposite. This bio article is about a man not a building. In any case MOS:SAINTS is not about counting the number of sources, please address the guidelines, please address how "Saint Joseph" follows MOS:SAINTS? If you don't agree with MOS:SAINTS then the place to disagree is to raise an RFC to change it. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Huh? How does it do the opposite? Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
To quote MOS:SAINTS: "Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable through its inclusion." His most common English name is undoubtedly "Saint Joseph" or just "Joseph", so how does titling the article "Saint Joseph" contradict the MOS? And he's not just known as "Saint Joseph" in the Catholic and Anglican traditions. Many non-Anglican Protestant churches also use the honorific and doubtless the many Orthodox churches do too. In fact, I would suspect that the vast majority of the world's Christians commonly know him as "Saint Joseph". And since the one and only reason he's notable is as the father of Christ (whether you're a Christian or otherwise), there is absolutely no reason to title the article anything else. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
How are you arguing that Joseph is "only recognisable through [saint's] inclusion"? He is apparently recognizable without the inclusion of "Saint" in virtually every Bible translation and commentary on the Bible written. Even if the vast majority of Christians know him as "Saint Joseph", HONORIFICS and SAINTS says that we do not use it except in specific circumstances. The vast majority of people know Tutankhamun as King Tut and Benjamin Spock as Dr. Spock, but we don't use honorifics. In this case, I don't think "Saint Joseph" is even the most COMMONNAME in reliable sources on the subject (not buildings). --JFH (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The argument is clear if you go to the article Joseph; clearly Joseph alone, while good enough for the Bible, is not good enough for Wikipedia. I note that Joseph of Nazareth is not in the Bible either. I also note that the buildings you disparage are named after the saint, and not vice versa. Rwflammang (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. Continuing the google searches, "Joseph of Nazareth church" only seems to return results, from a variety of denominations, for St Joseph of Nazareth church, and only 50 hits for those. Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC
Johnbod, you seem to have misunderstood the comment above re churches. "St Joseph's Church" is acceptable for a church article which is not governed by the MOS:SAINTS guideline.
And Anglicans do not refer to Joseph of Nazareth as "Saint Joseph" in printed sources. N. T. Wright habitually refers to Joseph as "Joseph, Mary's husband", Joseph (husband of Mary). In ictu oculi (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
???? on the first point.
You should read WP:COMMONNAME more carefully. The relevant usage in RS is by no means restricted to theological writing in the case of a widely-known figure such as Joseph; popular usage is also highly relevant. Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Johnbod I have moved your "????" from insertion in my paragraph above to beginning of your own following paragraph. I should not read WP:COMMONNAME more carefully because WP:COMMONNAME is irrelevant here. MOS:HONORIFIC and MOS:SAINTS take priority over WP:COMMONNAME. We do not have "Saint" in titles even when it is common name. MOS:HONORIFIC and MOS:SAINTS both specifically make this clear. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is the over-riding policy on all article naming issues, as has often been made clear. MOS:HONORIFIC does not mention saints at all, and I doubt they fall under its scope. Nor does the section mention WP:COMMONNAME at all. MOS:SAINTS is a sentence or two tucked away in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy), and it is questionable whether it applies to non-clerical saints at all. In any case neither over-ride WP:COMMONNAME, and many exceptions to both have stood the test of time. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
While I support the move, I very much disagree that WP:COMMONNAME is irrelevant, "Mother Theresa" being the classic example. The reason the move should go forward is that St. Joseph is not the universal commonname to everyone regardless of denomination or religion. (But if it was - if even non-Christians usually referred to him as such - then the article should stay.) SnowFire (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose.Oppose per Saint Joseph being the common name and the inability to use the article "Joseph" itself as the article. Joseph of Nazareth isn't even remotely a common name.Marauder40 (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Again it doesn't have to be, please see MOS:SAINTS which like MOS:HONORIFIC recognizes that Saint Joseph may be more common than Joseph of Nazareth, as Swami Vivekananda may be more common than Vivekananda. If someone disagrees with the guidelines then change the guideline. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, where does it say that these guidelines take precedence over WP:COMMONNAME? Secondly, they're guidelines, they're not set in stone and they don't supersede common sense. Thirdly, in any case "Saint Joseph" doesn't contradict the guidelines, as stated above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I've certainly heard him referred to as Joseph of Nazareth, so it is not an unknown construction, and I've basically never heard him referred to as "St. Joseph" outside of a Catholic (or, apparently, Anglican) context... which is not shocking in Protestantism, of course, where only the apostles regularly get the "Saint" suffix. And even if every Christian branch really did refer to him as a Saint, there's still the honorific issues noted for say Muhammad. SnowFire (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Note The current lead does not even mention "Joseph of Nazareth" (which it should), and seems to have been this way since around October 2009 with nobody bothering to change it. That doesn't suggest it is a very common variant, which it isn't. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
What the lead calls Joseph is Joseph

Joseph (Hebrew יוֹסֵף, Yosef; Greek: Ἰωσήφ, Iosíf) is a figure in the Gospels, the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus and the earthly father of Jesus. In Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Christian traditions, he is regarded as Saint Joseph.

The only reason for "of Nazareth" as a disambiguator is WP:DAB preference for WP:NATURAL rather than parenthetic Joseph (husband of Mary), Joseph (New Testament). And the main guidelines here remain WP:NPOV, WP:HONORIFIC, MOS:SAINTS. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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 3

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move to specified title. After a full listing period, it is very clear that the proposed title does not garner consensus, with legitimate reasons including the fact that the current name is not problematic anyway, through to the fact that "father of Jesus" may not be an accurate description. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Saint Joseph → Joseph (father of Jesus) – MOS:SAINTS sets a very high bar for including "Saint" in an article title. To a certain extent this contradicts COMMONNAME, but I suppose it's rooted in WP:NPOV. And as mentioned previously, not all Christian denominations would refer to Joseph as "Saint" anyway. Some of the opposition in the previous RM was more a rejection of the proposal than an endorsement of the current name, so I thought I'd float this one. To address the potentially obvious objection regarding the paternity of Jesus: well, I don't want to wade too deeply into this, but the article repeatedly refers to Joseph as Jesus's father, nor is this an uncommon appellation even in Christian usage. The result is a title which is recognizable, consistent with other members of Category:Family of Jesus, and neutral. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose as strongly POV. The article actually says "The canonical gospels... stated clearly that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus, and that Joseph was not his father..." It does not say that Joseph was Jesus' father, except at the succession box at the bottom. (I don't know why we have the succession box at all, and I don't know why it privileges Luke's genealogy over Matthew's. But Luke clearly says that "it was supposed" that Joseph was Jesus' father. I am going to boldly remove it.) StAnselm (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
So an adoptive father isn't a father? --BDD (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Not according to the gospel accounts, which keep on skirting this issue: Joseph is the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus; it was supposed that Jesus was the son of Joseph, etc. StAnselm (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
He meets our definition of a father as "a male parent who has raised a child, supplied the sperm through sexual intercourse or sperm donation which grew into a child, and/or donated a body cell which resulted in a clone." (For what it's worth, God doesn't, at least not by any doctrines I'm familiar with.) --BDD (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem is, none of the primary sources supports your opinion. Every primary source that mentions Joseph, even hostile ones, describes him as not being the Father of Jesus. So unless you can cite the results of a paternity test, you have no argument. Rwflammang (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - an improvement per WP:NPOV and MOS:SAINTS. (1st choice would follow Zechariah (New Testament figure), but RMs don't have to bring perfection, they just have to be an improvement on the current title.) In ictu oculi (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as basically inaccurate. While there are various ways of looking at that issue, taking a position on it in the title seems inappropriate. But something like "Joseph (New Testament figure)" would be neutral and non-controversial. By which I mean, not that everyone would agree with that title, but that such a title would not make a statement is likely to be questioned or challenged. Omnedon (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per MOS:SAINTS. Common use supports the term "Saint Joseph". As pointed out earlier, he has a devoted cultus in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox religions, while in the many Protestant denominations, he is rarely discussed. - Boneyard90 (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
"while in the many Protestant denominations, he is rarely discussed" - sorry but this is not true what percentage of these Google Books results for "Joseph was a carpenter" are Catholic? looks to me like 10-20% Catholic, 80-90% secular or Protestant In ictu oculi (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
User:BDD would you agree to a speedy close and resubmit as Joseph (husband of Mary)? This would pass WP:COMMONNAME better than the current title "Saint Joseph" which is almost never used in books about the New Testament. Entries in modern reference works typically follow "Joseph, Husband of Mary," Anchor Bible Dictionary, 3:974-975. "joseph husband of mary" gets 2,080 results since 1980. I don't see however any amount of listing getting past the problem that "Oppose" votes are generally not looking in Google Books to see how little Saint Joseph is used of the historical man. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Once again, WP:COMMONNAME considerations are by no means restricted to theological books. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per MOS:SAINTS. The bar is not so high. The style guide recommends Saint Patrick, who has only a little historical attestation, but an enormous cultus as an example. Saint Joseph has even less historical attestation than Saint Patrick, and an even bigger cultus. If Saint Patrick sets the bar, then Saint Joseph jumps far over it. Rwflammang (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
MOS:SAINTS says nothing about historical attestations or culti. There aren't really recognizable titles for Saint Patrick that don't use "saint"; I can only think of Patrick of Ireland, which is not a common form. This isn't a problem with Joseph, however. --BDD (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
There are no really recognizable titles for Joseph either, other than Saint Joseph the Worker, which has somewhat limited application, and also includes "saint". Rwflammang (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the current title is fine. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose for many reasons. I see no way in which the current title disagrees with any of the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Recognizable. Concise. Natural (ehh, natural enough). Consistent with other famous biblical figures who nevertheless need disambiguation (I know this is a sore point for some who supported the move of Saint Timothy et al, so I'm not going to found my oppose vote in the consistency criterion, but at least you can grant that consistency is not in favor of this move). It is also sufficiently precise as Saint Joseph would clearly redirect to this guy's article no matter where it was located. Bam, five out of five. The assertion that MOS:SAINTS somehow overrules our naming policy found in WP:NATURAL has not ever to my knowledge achieved consensus. I disagree with that assertion. I also disagree with the disambiguator chosen here, which is why I'll strongly oppose this. Joseph emphatically is not the father of Jesus. "Husband of Mary" would be a pretty good disambiguation aid, much better than the proposed one, but I would still oppose as per the reasons above. Red Slash 03:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose all Christian traditions have consistently avoided precisely this formulation. for obvious reasons. The present name is fine. WP:DEADHORSE applies. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Haven't we already effectively been through this? My opinion hasn't changed from the above. Natural disambiguation is fine here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but would still support RM2, "Joseph of Nazareth." For reasons described above, "father of Jesus" is asking for trouble. SnowFire (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the basis of WP:STICK. Elizium23 (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The natural meaning of "father" is natural father, and both Matthew and Luke make it clear that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus. We can't use a title like father without qualification. Joseph (stepfather of Jesus) would be accurate, but hardly commonplace. The most obvious alternative to support is Joseph (husband of Mary), since that is how he is first identified in the Bible. "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16)
    —Telpardec (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article stability

Apologies for the new section, but if discussing what next after this RM, be best not to be boxed in green when the RM above closes without going anywhere because of the "father" problem. Whether it's in a week or six months RM 4 to Joseph (husband of Mary) as the title used in ABD and other standard work encyclopedias and dictionaries (and strangely the Bible below). And then the discussion will be over. "Saint" for Category:New Testament people is not supported in Google Books, is not WP:COMMONNAME and per Matthew the Apostle once articles are moved to a neutral title they stay there, and no attempt is made to move back to a sectarian title belonging to only one branch of Christianity. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Not really a coherent comment there. Sounds more like a general gripe. - Boneyard90 (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't really consider the "sectarian title" complaint very relevant, per MOS:SAINTS. Complaining that usage of Saint Joseph is limited to a sect is like complaining that the usage of Hulk Hogan (rather than Terry Bollea) is limited to sports fans. Rwflammang (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, I've adjusted the first sentence to make it marginally more coherent. Unfortunately it's a specific gripe about "a sectarian title belonging to only one branch of Christianity." The meaning of "sectarian" is limited to one sect of religion, like:

Dilip Hiro A Comprehensive Dictionary of the Middle East 2013 "Thus Shias refer to Ali bin Abu Talib as Imam Ali, whereas Sunnis call him Caliph Ali."

For comparison a non-sectarian name is one shared by both sects Protestant and Catholic, and in fact secular writers and primary source:

Matthew 1:16 "Joseph the husband of Mary"

Boneyard90 , Rwflammang , can you provide a secular or Protestant commentary which refers to Joseph the husband of Mary as "Saint Joseph". In ictu oculi (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to ping.
In ictu oculi (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
From above "There are enough hits for "Saint Joseph Evangelical", "Saint Joseph Lutheran", Saint Joseph Methodist, "St Joseph's Presbyterian church" etc to disprove any claim that the term is restricted to the Catholic & Anglican traditions." As for "secular", words fail me; "Saint" is clearly the most common usage, though of course he only comes up in a religious context. Why will no-one use the neutral and correct term "denomination" instead of the POV and incorrect "sect" - is this another one of your hobby-horses, Iio? Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Johnbod, one of the main reasons why these RMs are reoccuring is because of you repeatedly filling them with plain Google hits on church building names. I asked Boneyard90 , Rwflammang to "provide a secular or Protestant commentary which refers to Joseph the husband of Mary as "Saint Joseph"." that means a book, preferable something later than 1900. You ought to be able to distinguish their User names from your User name, and book from building. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
No, they keep recurring because you keep launching them, and the community keeps rejecting, inter alia, your belief that the only relevant RSs for cases where disambiguation is needed are New Testament commentaries by theologians (and mainly for other theologians). This simply misunderstands how the policies work. I was responding to reinforce Rwflammang's point above, which you have ignored as usual. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The RMs at Talk:Matthew the Apostle, Talk:Andrew the Apostle were placed by User:Michipedian. The previous RM on St Peter was placed by User:Johnpacklambert. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

(Out-dent.) I have to agree with Johnbod, that his examples are legitimate. It seems to me that "Saint Joseph's Evangelical Church" ought to be parsed as the "Evangelical Church of Saint Joseph" and not as the "Saint Evangelical Church of (just) Joseph".

While the charge of "sectarian" might seem grave due to the fact that the number of of sects where usage of "Saint Joseph" is most common can be counted on the fingers of one hand (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Jacobite, Nestorian), and thus is only a small minority of all the sects, this charge is blunted by the realization that those five represent the majority of all the world's Christians, and so WP:COMMONNAME still applies.

Your mention of Matthew the Apostle as a paradigm for this case is somewhat problematic because the only distinguishing titles for Joseph that I can think of are even more sectarian than "Saint" or are not really very common. I already mentioned Saint Joseph "the Worker", there is also, "Most Chase Spouse of the Virgin" as he is called in the Roman liturgy, "Terror of Demons", etc.

The Bible calls him "Son of David" and "Of the House of David" and "From Galilee", but these phrases do not seem to be commonly used as titles in English.

Rwflammang (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
So, no.
Matthew the Apostle is a paradigm for article stability, it shows that once moved to a WP:NPOV title articles stay there.
As regards whether Matthew 1:16 "Joseph the husband of Mary" is sectarian, sources show that it is also acceptable to English-speaking Catholics:

"We don't know much about Joseph, the husband of Mary. Scripture tells us he was an honorable man. He struggled with how to deal with Mary's pregnancy;" Stoltz, E., Tomkovicz V. Ascend: The Catholic Faith for a New Generation 2009 p.149.

But the subject here is article stability. Just because those opposed to "Saint" for New Testament characters cannot agree on alternatives does not make a title which contradicts one of the WP:Five Pillars a stable title. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that a title which contradicts WP:Five Pillars or a title which contradicts WP:NPOV should be allowed to stand, but the present title contradicts neither policy. Rwflammang (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Feast-days

The article says: “In 1870, Pope Pius IX declared Joseph patron of the universal Church and instituted another feast, with an octave, to be held in his honour on Wednesday in the second week after Easter. This was abolished by Pope Pius XII […] in 1955 […]”. The feast referred to was despite its rank, rivalling that of the traditional feast of the 19th of March, not provided with a Mass Proper of its own, but simply used that of the votive Mass of St. Joseph, already in alternative use on Wednesdays along with those of Sts. Peter and Paul and of All Holy Apostles.Pamino (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Images

Thanks to my fellow Wikipedians for including some beautiful artwork with this article. I'm not a Christian, but I'm a father. The "lead image" by Remi has as much parent and child tenderness as any picture of the Madonna and Child. Thanks for giving fatherhood a nod!!! PurpleChez (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction

Can this be clarified in the introductory section. '.....make no reference to Jesus' father; nor does the Gospel of Mark.[6] Geza Vermes notes that the Gospel of Mark identifies Joseph as Jesus' father.' 86.159.192.116 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

That is in fact what Vermes indicates on p.20 of Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels. However, he also contradicts himself on the same page saying, " Apart from infancy stories, ... the name of the father of Jesus appears only in Luke and a variant reading in Matthew." I take it he meant to say "the Gospel of Matthew identifies..." In any case I will remove "Geza Vermes notes ..." as it is confusing with the page cited as reference. Anyone that wishes to restore it is welcome to. Mannanan51 (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Mark identifies Jesus as "the son of the carpenter" (more accurately, the people of Bethlehem do this). As Jospeh is the carpenter ("tekton" in the Greek), there's no contradiction. The idea that God was Jesus' father developed later, as the idea that Jesus was the "son of God" changed from its original Jewish meaning to a Greco-Roman interpretation.103.23.134.199 (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Patron Saint of Fighting Communism?

This page says that Pope Pius IX said that Joseph was the patron saint of fighting communism and then links citation 57. This citation doesnt mention communism at all and Pope Pius died before communism was a global concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.41.97 (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. The citation was added in April 2013 by Mannanan5, in response to a {{citation needed}} request. I assume he saw "happy death" there in both the article and citation and figured he was done. However, he should have removed the things not supported by the citation such as the communism assertion. Anyway, I have removed it now, so thanks for your interest. Elizium23 (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Timing of the Flight to Egypt

Copied from my talk page Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Hallo Johnbod, I have to inform you that I undid this edit of yours in Saint Joseph. I must admit that I can't understand why you removed my correction of early this morning. And I don't know what prompts you to make the statement "Joseph stays in Bethlehem for an unspecified period (perhaps two years) until after the visit of the Three Magi". I hope you realize that this is about the gospel of Matthew (the only one who tells the story of the magi). And Matthew wrote: "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem." So the visit by the magi is right after the birth of Jesus, as the flight to Egypt is right after this visit. Regards, Paul K. (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Try Biblical_Magi#Biblical_account. To attempt WP:OR on such matters is unwise, and no clear information as to the interval can be got from Matthew. You were yourself incorrect to claim that the Flight came "immediately" after the birth of Jesus - no such categorical statement can be found in Matthew. So I will revert you again. I will copy this to the Joseph talk page. Please continue it there if you must. Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Stepfather??

It is very unusual to describe Joseph as the stepfather of Jesus in the lead sentence. Here are some other definitions:

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions and The Columbia Encyclopedia define him as only the husband of the Virgin Mary. OED states that he is "the husband of Mary the mother of Jesus Christ". --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree. We might spell out in the lower section why the precise term for his role was (is?) a sensitive subject for the church. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Carpenters

This article is already in Category:Carpenters through the child category Category:Saint Joseph (husband of Mary). It is utterly pointless to place the article itself in the same category when the Saint Joseph category covers all related articles. Elizium23 (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Pointless or not, this is very common, & allowed by policy - see WP:EPON. I'm usually in favour as many people don't look at the categories in cases like this. Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

"Saint" Joseph?????

"Saint Joseph" is hardly the man's WP:COMMONNAME. This page should be re-named to Joseph (husband of Mary).Cebr1979 (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The man’s WP:COMMONNAME is clearly Joseph. The problem is, there is already a wikipedia article named Joseph. So what is his second most common name? Well it sure isn’t Joseph (husband of Mary), or any of the other names proposed above. His second most common name is Saint Joseph. Rwflammang (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed - see the top of the page for previous discussions. This is a very dead horse. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Rwflammang and Johnbod — I have opened a new Requested move. Please discuss. Thanks! CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 22:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Markan Primacy?

Under Gospel Harmony section:

"Joseph is mentioned only in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Since both these draw their narrative of Jesus' life from Mark, which offers no information on Jesus' parentage, they must both have taken their versions of the Joseph from some other source."

"Since both of these draw their narrative of Jesus' life from Mark..." Markan primacy is a theory among one subset of scholars, and is not held by all, nor early Christian tradition for nearly 1,800 years. It should not be asserted as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.19.243 (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Consensus isn't unanimity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

San Giuseppe

San Giuseppe was recently repointed from "Saint Joseph" to San Giuseppe (disambiguation) this month. Before, that it was pointed to this article. -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The usage and primary topic for San Giuseppe is under discussion, see talk:San Giuseppe (disambiguation) -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 23 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. The proposer of the move doesn't have an automatic right to withdraw once others have contributed, but in this case it is fairly clear there's enough opposition with valid reasoning that there is no consensus to move. —  — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


Saint Joseph → Joseph (husband of Mary) – Let me first begin - There has not been a requested move for over two years, so I believe it is appropriate to open another requested move topic. Saint Joseph is not WP:NPOV — Joseph is most commonly accounted as Joseph, husband of Mary. You rarely very hear Saint Joseph outside of Catholicism. Joseph (father of Jesus) would not work because it is not NPOV, as Christians regard that Mary was conceived by the Holy Spirit. This is why I am proposing to move the page to Joseph (husband of Mary). This article needs to be consistent and match other related article titles, such as Mary (mother of Jesus) and not Virgin Mary or Saint Mary. Shouldn't this article name have that format as well? I also request move per MOS:SAINTS, which says Saints go by their most common English name, minus the word "Saint", if such a title is available and the saint is the primary topic for that name. It is quite self-explanatory – The Bible also regards Joseph as Joseph, husband of Mary. Request move per NPOV and MOS:SAINTS. CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 22:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  • You have a point, Tgeorgescu. However — Luke 2:1-7 confirms the idea that Joseph and Mary, though betrothed, were considered as husband and wife by Jewish customs even though the actual marriage ceremony had not been fully effectuated. So, Joseph and Mary were actually legally married before the birth of Jesus though their marriage was not consummated physically until after His birth. This is speaking from the Bible. If you wanted a non-Biblical source, I would need to do some more research. CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 00:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with you. However, some Eastern Orthodox believers still judge the orthodoxy of Bible translations by whether these call them married or betrothed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, or Joseph, husband of Mary per WP:NATURAL. Timmyshin (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MOS:SAINTS: For example, we use Joan of Arc (recognizable, natural, concise, and unambiguous) but Saint Monica. (Disambiguation is necessary because Monica is a disambiguation page; editors have preferred "Saint Monica" over other possible titles, such as Monica of Hippo.) Another name cannot be agreed on as past discussions have demonstrated, and there is a set index article at Joseph. On a side note: "Joseph (father of Jesus)" (though we probably wouldn't go the hardcore empirical evidence route in this case anyway) wouldn't work because, as there is controversy around it, we couldn't assume Joseph was the biological father of Jesus.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Godsy — Thank you for your response – Saint Joseph is NOT NPOV, as I said in the opening statement. He is only referred to that inside Catholicism, and not the Christian Protestant churches. Joseph (husband of Mary) is NPOV because that is what the Bible says as well as many scholars. The only statement I agree with you on is that Joseph (father of Jesus) is NOT NPOV. Let's define Saint – A saint is a person who is recognized as having an exceptional degree of holiness, or likeness to God – Protestants do not believe that Mary or Joseph have an exceptional degree of holiness or likeness to God, just because the raised Jesus of Nazareth in which Christians believe to be the Messiah. The biggest point I made was having a NPOV, and that's why I am proposing the move. Besides, this proposed change would match other articles, i.e., Mary (mother of Jesus), another reason to support the move. Let's have articles similar be concise and same in formatting. If you support having Saint in the title, than you should support the title of Mary's article being Saint Mary. I don't want to be rude or too personal, and I just wanted to point those things out, not to force you to support the vote, just to make those things more clear. Cheers, my friend. CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 02:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with you, Godsy - my claim was False equivalence. Like we both agree, Mary (wife of Joseph) would not work, because she is more known as being the mother of Jesus. Godsy, I don't want to sound rude or mean at all, I am here to contribute nicely, but how is Saint Joseph NPOV? Saint is a Catholicism doctrine, in which Protestant churches do not use. The definition of Saint: A saint is a person who is recognized as having an exceptional degree of holiness, or likeness to God - Protestants do not believe that Mary or Joseph are holy in any way like God. That is why I don't agree with you about the current title being NPOV. Also, I am somewhat confused. Again, I don't want to sound sassy or rude, but why do you not support Joseph (husband of Mary)? Biblical evidence says that Joseph was the husband of Mary, as well as many scholars. Would you support Joseph (betrothed to Mary) instead? Cheers, my friend. CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 15:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Godsy — I just learned that relationships as a Disambiguation is strongly discouraged, from what Johnbod has said about NPOV. If that is true, than this move request may not be appropriate. I hate to get off topic, but it seems that I have been a inappropriate user. There seems to be no good title, and Joseph of Nazareth is not good because it is very uncommon that you hear Joseph referred to that way. I think Saint Joseph might actually be the best title for the page. How should I preceded? Withdraw or just let the discussion go on? I am foolish, none the less, for not doing my research. Thank you for clarifying. We are hear to be civil and make Wikipedia better, so I still have learning to do. Cheers! CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 00:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@CookieMonster755: WP:WITHDRAWN gives advice on withdrawals.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Godsy: If the nominator appears to have genuinely changed their mind due to other views expressed, the discussion should not be considered withdrawn. Instead, consider whether to use any of the early closures below — I want to withdraw, but it seems that maybe other people want to contribute to the discussion. What would you do in this kind of case?
  • Johnbod - I have no problem if this request fails, not at all. I am trying to start a discussion — yes, Joseph is ever refereed to as the husband of Mary. Did you read my proposal and why I am requesting the move. You sound very sarcastic and sassy when you use italics in such a tone, but that's my opinion. I am here to discuss policy and viable options. I did give reasons on why Saints is not a viable option. It fails NPOV. Did you read my response to Godsy? Please be more considerate and explain in detail why you are opposing. Please read my comment to Godsy and the definition of Saint. I hope we can discuss soon, my friend. Cheers! Please: remain calm, nice and considerate of others, while the editing gets hot. CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 04:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Inappropriate comment by CookieMonster755 removed due to Wikipedia:No personal attacks
How on earth do you conclude that? Your gbooks search gets a mere 32K hits, tiny in this context, and pretty good evidence that this is very far from the WP:COMMONNAME. "Saint Joseph" gets 1.4 million gbook hits], though there is certainly a lot of chaff and place/institution names among these. Other "Saint Joseph"s are all relatively obscure, apart from Joseph of Arimathea, who even Cathiolics always call by that name. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, per Matthew 1:16: "Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ." H. Humbert (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support remove religious advocation "Saint" — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per MOS:SAINTS. The allegation that it violates WP:NPOV is baseless. It is simply not true that this is a Catholic-only usage. The usage is widespread through-out Christianity, including the Orthodox, the Nestorians, the Jacobites, and the Protestant state-established churches of Europe. Indeed the claim that this is Catholic only could only have originated from someone whose experience is limited to American denominations. Rwflammang (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Note that she's almost never known as Saint Mary, by Catholics or anyone else! She has many names. Joseph doesn't. He's usually either known as Saint Joseph or just as half of Mary and Joseph. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MOS:SAINTS as others have elaborated. These requests are getting tiresome and I would hope the closing admin considers a moratorium against similar discussions on this and other pages. Calidum ¤ 23:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think MOS:SAINTS looks as though it has had a little local consensus on it so it conflicts with general Wikipedia rules about clarity and bias. Fortunately the project's editors haven't followed it in regard to other New Testament figures, so consistency would support using WP:COMMONNAME for the man here also. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm very happy to rely on WP:COMMONNAME, which supports opposing here. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support move to Joseph, husband of Mary as a natural disambiguator. MOS:SAINTS cannot override NPOV, but even assuming arguendo that it is not a case of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, it states, "As the word "Saint" can lead to controversy (depending on who considers whom to be a saint) and possible non-neutrality, other forms of natural disambiguation are typically preferred, all other things being equal." (emphasis added) Regards, James (talk/contribs) 18:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
That quote remixed: "As the word "Saint" can lead to controversy (depending on who considers whom to be a saint) and possible non-neutrality, other forms of natural disambiguation are typically preferred, all other things being equal." (emphasis added) But they aren't equal here. I don't believe that anyone has yet pointed out that "relationship to" disambiguators are very strongly deprecated for NPOV reasons - see the box at the top of the talk page at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown and similar cases. Most such pages have been moved away from these titles. This proposal would take us out of the frying-pan into the fire. Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current disambiguator is clearly the best and least long-winded one, whether you're religious or a Catholic (I'm neither) or not. Is he known by that name? Yes, he is. Are most people going to know who we're referring to? Yes, they are. Is he only referred to as St Joseph in Catholicism? No, he isn't. Anglicanism and Orthodoxy use that name too, as do, in reality, many nonconformist churches. And since he's only notable for being a New Testament figure, any argument that it's a Christian POV would be irrelevant. Of course it is. How could it be anything else? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Withdraw Request by requested user — Please withdraw this requested move. The users who opposed the move have made some good points, one of them being that relationships in Disambiguations are highly not recommended per policy. Thank you, i hope it is possible to close. CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 21:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Usually there is a section on Islamic traditions?

There are reasons why I'm curious if he is mentioned by name (or at all) in the Koran.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Name

Have read through the RM's. How about 'Joseph (Holy Family)', which I don't think has been proposed. Just tossing this in the mix to see if it floats or mingles. Randy Kryn 15:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saint_Joseph/Archive_3&oldid=1137170115"