Talk:Assumption of Mary

message: The book says the following: "he can find no authorized tradition about how the Virgin’s life ended" (page 11) and you say that it is closer to sources the following: "wrote of his search for reliable traditions concerning the fate of Mary and his inability to discover any."
Do you think you can make the article and modify it to your liking by altering the sources without anyone noticing? --Rafaelosornio (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Rafaelosornio, you changed the source of the statement from page 18 to page 11, and then complain you can't find it mentioned there? Your edits are disruptive and apparently dishonest, please stop or I will report you. Achar Sva (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends if it is hardcover version or not, or if it is an epub version. Finally, I can find it on the hardcover page 11. You always accommodate what the sources say to your liking, placing something that the sources themselves do not say. Stop altering or tampering with the sources or I will report you.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Rafael, I think I've mentioned to you that your grasp of English is poor. Take what you've written just now: "Finally, I can find it on the hardcover..." That's incorrect - I can guess that you mean something like "after looking I have found it in the hardcover (edition)," but what you wrote is bad English. Or this: "You always accommodate what the sources say to your liking, placing something that the sources themselves do not say." Again I can guess what you mean, but it's bad English. My point is, I often have to correct your edits so that can be used in English Wiki. You don't realise this and seem to think that I'm somehow altering the article. Please be a little more humble about your abilities in English. Achar Sva (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the first time, that you have criticized Rafaelosornio's English when you don't like what he says. Stop with the ad personam attacks. His English is just fine; it's your editing that is the persistent problem. Manannan67 (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closer to sources? 

message: In the Wikipedia article "Assumption of Mary", there appears to me a undoubtedly involuntary misstatement of Catholic doctrine. It says: "Traditions relating to the Assumption: The Catholic Church has two different traditions concerning the assumption/dormition of Mary: in the first, she rose from the dead after a brief period and then ascended into heaven; in the second, she was 'assumed' bodily into heaven before she died." Now it is certainly not true that any tradition exists that Mary ASCENDED into Heaven. Only Jesus has done that. And the second tradition (of her Assumption) does not exclusively refer to having occurred BEFORE she died, as the same article makes clear later on. Please investigate and correct if appropriate. Considero (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, she did not ascend but was assumed. Thank you.Rafaelosornio (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oversight in Assumption of Mary 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The Assumption of the Virgin Mary occurred on the Gregorian astronomic 15 August 44 CE (its Julian 17 AD). Its probable time is 9:00 IST (7:00 GMT). She was 60 years old.
200.155.120.37 (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know what you pretend to know? WP:CITE your WP:SOURCES. tgeorgescu (talk)  07:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Assumption of Our Lady

message: * The pope did not advance any specific text as proof of the doctrine, but one senior advisor, Father Jugie, expressed the view that Revelation 12:1–2 was the chief scriptural witness to the assumption.
but later in the same section we have:
 
* Among the many other passages noted by Pope Pius were the following …
I'm assuming the latter mention of Pius XII was meant to refer to Father Jugie? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As I read the source, it refers to Pope Pius.--Medusahead (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Scriptural sources issue