Talk:Mary Jones and her Bible

message: 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)
replies: text: Mmm, I'm afraid there is.  There's a disambiguation page. Deb 18:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Opening comment 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Mari Jones2006.jpg

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I think I'd argue the toss on that last one! Deb (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: que?Brian0324 (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean that she is only famous for her association with the book. Deb (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Primary usage?

message: :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)
replies: text: I added another option (just "Mary Jones") per my above statement, hope that's ok. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: ;Mary Jones (founder of Bible Society)
*Support --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: New suggestions

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: (Bible foo) variants

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Those would suggest to me that she was not a real person - which clearly she was. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Mary Jones (godbotherer), then?  Apologies for any offence caused by this fatuous suggestion  ;)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Having said that, I see that Mari appears on the Welsh wording on her memorial. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 14:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure we need to worry about it, as we have RS (her headstone). --Dweller (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Rename to (folk heroine) 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: (old) Requested move

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Survey

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  LOL 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hmm.  Too much risk of confusion with Mary Jones (no, the other one) I think.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We could always go with Mary Jones (God! Not her again). Skinsmoke (talk) 05:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sounds like an excellent idea, Deb. :-)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Fine. DrKiernan (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  2 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Her age 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How long? 

message: 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:
*
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Sunday at home - a family magazine for Sabbath reading