This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Saints This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SaintsWikipedia:WikiProject SaintsTemplate:WikiProject SaintsSaints articles Biography This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Anthroponymy Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why multiple pages should not exist

There are many pages on the names of John. That's not bad structure if the pages have unique information that pertains to that name such as John the Presbyter. John the Evangelist and John of Patmos do not. All their information can be found on Authorship of the Johannine works. Having a duplicate page makes WP confusing, more work for editors, and each article will likely contain information the other does not, meaning users have to read both pages to get all the relevant information. It has already been decided by consensus that the Evangelist and Apostle shouldn't merge. The only advantage is for NPOV because The Evangelist, John of Patmos and the Apostle are not necessarily the same person. However, it is neither NPOV to have multiple articles because that implies multiple people.

Why they should merge here

The cure for bias is to explain all the POVs so that information is not ignored. Merging to Names of John is a step towards that cure for NPOV. Those relevant issues can be fleshed out here fully in a centralized location where the same information isn't spread across multiple articles. --Ephilei 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. As stated in the previous merge request, I would only support a merge if all the articles were merged into one, with a more NPOV title. This title and the first paragraph say that these other names are just that, names for one individual named 'John'. It is a tough situation because we cannot say for a fact that they were different people either. But because the mainstream scholarly position (held by scholars like Raymond E. Brown, John P. Meier, Bart D. Ehrman, E.P. Sanders) and because this was even disputed in antiquity, I don't think it is doing NPOV an injustice by keeping these figures separated. We are not giving undue weight to a minority view by implying they are different people, and we can clearly state in the lead of each section that some hold that individual X is just another title for John the apostle. -Andrew c 23:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, then, do you suggest? How can we change this article to be more NPOV? What is a better page to merge to? Let's compromise. Certainly Johannine identity(ies) is ideally NPOV, but a mouthful to read. You're right, separate identities isn't a minority position, but single authorship is neither a minority position. Regardless of NPOV, separate articles is a organizational nightmare which is, personally, my frustration. --Ephilei 03:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. If we merge into one page (which has some practical value), can the title be "Saint John"? After all, it's the Christian church that describes this semi-historical figure. By calling the page "Saint John," we're making it clear that this is a religious figure, not a historical one. Jonathan Tweet 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose FULL Merge, but Support Adding More Detailed Information To This Article from the Other Articles. Sorry for the complicated Support/Opposition! I don't believe the articles should be merged here in entirity, however, I do believe more detailed information from each article (or even, for example, just merging the first paragraph from each of the articles...if that makes sense) would be extrememly useful here. It would be the perfect place to explain both the views of why these Johns are all thought to be the same person, as well as why these Johns are thought to be different people. I do think a page like that needs to be created, and this would be the perfect place to do it. However, "Names of John" is a bit vague--perhaps, like the template, it should be "John" in the Bible (since this does seem to be the article equivalent to that template)? ~ Irish♣Pearl 23:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose FULL Merge as well. I think that this page should be renamed/moved to John in the Bible or John (New Testament). If I were looking for a central article on John, I wouldn't look for "Names of John," I would look for something like the former. I think parts of the other John articles should be incorporated into this one with links to their main pages. Also, the debate about John's identity should be thoroughly discussed in order to avoid POV. For all the work that needs to be done here, we might as well start a Wikipedia:Wikiproject John (Bible) Wrad 03:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... of this article?

Does is merely list the names of one person called John? Then why not include the names in that John's article?

Does is list more than one John? Than why not include them in John (disambiguation)?

It seems it tries to do both, as some items included here are clearly one and the same John, some might be or might not be. Let's go through the list:

• יוחנן" Hebrew for _____ is Merciful" is merely the etymology of the name, valid for all Johns that ever lived. Should be at John (name) and it actually is included there. No need to include it here as it actually is not a "name given to John" but the meaning of John
• The Hebrew letters, "Yoḥanan Transliteration from Hebrew into Tiberian Hebrew", "Ιωάννης, that is, Iohannes Translation from Hebrew to Koine Greek" is merely different ways of writing it. Belongs to John (name)
• "John the Apostle John as one of Jesus' twelve close friends, first disciples, and a leader in the early Church" is clearly, undeniably the same as "John, son of Zebedee Name used in Mark to show his relation to his brother James (Mark 3:17)" and "Boanerges, Greek for Sons of Thunder Together with his brother James, probably a reference to their zeal (Mark 3:17)"

• "Saint John" fits for any of the Johns mentioned here, no matter whether they are one or many Johns.
• "John the Evangelist" is clearly the same as "John the Theologian".* "The disciple whom Jesus loved" is the term used by the Evangelist himself, so he's the same too.
  • Somewhat more remote is "The Eagle" but it does refer to the Evangelist too (and to "others" only in so far as they are identified with the Evangelist)
• "John the Divine"* is the same as "John of Patmos" and "John the Revelator" (in itself a problematic expression) and "John the Seer" are clearly the same.
• "Eagle of Patmos" is a combination of the last two. Personally I never heard of it. I don't think that term is notable.
• "John the Presbyter" is an obscure figure (alternately identified with the Evangelist or the Seer of Patmos, but not both) in need of explanation but has its own article.

The text also includes many strange or even incorrect wordings.

• This begins with the title "Names of John", which sounds as if there was only one John and not dozens of people of that name.
• "Christians have given John the Apostle many names" does not fit with some of the names here as all the different spellings and the patronym and Boanerges are not names given to him by Christians.
• "Some historians consider the books attributed to John to have been written by more than one person, none of them John the Apostle" - that is actually a different topic and, depending how one understands the sentence, true or not true, as some historians or others (and actually, most of those involved are theologians) attribute the books to more than one person including the Apostle.
• "one of Jesus' twelve close friends" is a very clusmy expression.

There is no "probably" in Boanerges as the name is clearly explained in Mark 3:17

• "The disciple whom Jesus loved" is not unambiguously the "only reference to [John] in his Gospel", which also has "the other disciple".

The "a righteous person" after Saint sounds very clumsy

• "An obscure reference by Eusebius to the writer of 2 John and 3 John" is actually not true. Eusebius is the first to see a distinct Presbyter in a passage he cites and attributes to him the Apocalypse. The authorship of the 2nd and 3rd letter is incidental to this.

So my suggestion: include any salvageable information in all those other articles and scrap this one entirely. Any thoughts? Str1977 ^(talk) 15:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• PS. I actually copied one mistake from the article. "John the Theologian" and "John the Divine" (the latter simply an old English translation of the former) is simply an Eastern Orthodox term to refer to John the Apostle and Evangelist and Seer. Now, I am not sure with whom it was associated first but it now refers to the "whole John". There is no point in distinguishing "Theologian" and "Divine". Str1977 ^(talk) 15:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this article, it appears to be simply a list, but then has some unsouced commentary attached to the list. I don't see the point of this article really. Do scholars really make a big deal about the "Names of John"? This needs to be represented in notable, reliable sources. The authorship question has its own article. John does a good job of linking to all the articles related to this topic, and I'm not sure we need a separate (unsourced) list of various titles attributed to John. I'm not even sure if any content is worth merging somewhere, or where this article should be redirected, if that is what others want. Any ideas? -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not even sure if any content is worth merging somewhere"

Oh, me neither. I think that all the information in here (at least if accurate) is already included elsewhere. I was speaking just in case.

Redirect is tricky. The content would suggest redirecting to "John the Apostle" but the very strange title suggests to me "John (name)". I don't think anyone would look for "Names of John" anyway so this could very well be deleted entirely. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]