The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was 1, 2, 3...Ummmm, (15 delete/17 keep) no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 02:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Appears to be somebody's school essay just pasted in as an article. -- MisterHand 17:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. As with many other Biblical entries, this article attempts to "interpret" the Torah based on the plain meaning of the words or on the documentary hypothesis, which is just that, a hypothesis. This so-called "theme" is not even discussed as such by the classic Jewish commentaries on the Bible. I also am baffled by the title, "A wife confused for a sister." Why "confused"? Yoninah 18:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. As of 19:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC) no sources for this theme were given. Web searches on this theme proved unfruitful. If sources and a close enough theme name will be provided, I may review my vote. gidonb 19:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duffy's answers seem to indicate that the two cases are better linked under the Abimelech entry. I do not think that this discussion should be as wide as to address the entire documentary hypothesis, but rather the article we vote about. gidonb 20:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excepting the problem I have mentioned just below that there are other quite different Abimelech's also discussed there, i.e. Abimelech is better as a disambiguation page. And the other problem that the Pharaoh version (Genesis 12) involves Pharaoh not Abimelech. --User talk:FDuffy 21:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my problem with the article and your answers so far in the comment sequence below. gidonb 22:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to me that [1] no proper article on the King of GatGerar exists and d "references" IMO don't include a single reliable source. Look at this: The Unauthorized Version[2] texts were deleted or moved. I may very well be mistaken. Perhaps others can look this up in the history of the article Abimelech and elsewhere. gidonb 20:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with discussing it under Abimelech is twofold. Firstly, there are other quite distinct biblical individuals named Abimelech. The second is that discussing it under Abimelech creates a problem with discussing the Genesis 12 version between Abraham and Pharaoh. B.t.w. what is Gat? Do you mean Gerar?
Is there a source that linked Sarah into the story. And yes, I did confuse between Gat and Gerar. Back to Sunday School :-) That leaves open the question of the texts that "disappeared". gidonb 21:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's called the Bible. Sarah is Abraham's wife. See Genesis 20-21 for the Abraham/Abimelech version of the story which explicitely mentions Sarah. --User talk:FDuffy 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for sources that tie all three cases together (not only the later two which you keep returning to) under one clear theme, other than the article you created or the separate inclusions in Genesis. Until I receive such sources I consider this a case of original research. gidonb 22:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading the Jewish encyclopedia article on Sarah - "...the incident with Pharaoh and a similar incident with Abimelech..." --User talk:FDuffy 23:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or how about the mediaeval Sefer HaYashar, chapter 20 (here is an online link to the chapter - [1])
Maybe more modern theological writings would satisfy you - bible.org
I looked at the links. You provided absolutely no accepted theme in the literature, I emphasize any literature, just loose associations. gidonb 00:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not original research. Google searches aren't exactly a scholarly approach to articles. The documentary hypothesis happens to not only be a hypothesis but one supported by over 90% of academics in biblical studies, and also the vatican.
As for the subject matter, see, for example, the relevant JewishEncyclopedia articles you want section 3 of Abimelech (google cache) (notice also how that shows that the theme IS discussed by classic Jewish commentaries - the midrash)Beersheba, you can also find it in Finkelstien "The Bible Unearthed" (this is a large book about archaeology by a major archaeological scholar), and in the works of Friedmann, Noth, etc. such as "Who wrote the Bible", "The Bible with sources revealed".
You may want to go through the article, and carefully cite all your references if you want people to reconsider their votes. -- MisterHand 20:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that isn't how votes are supposed to work. If you can see how the article is legitimate then you should vote to keep it, whether or not the references are discussed in the article or here. To do otherwise is petty minded. --User talk:FDuffy 21:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article could be copyright infragment. Author is claiming what he is doing is under fair use, which isn't the case. Also author beleives the Jewish Enclylopedia is out of copyright, thought only very old editions arn't... 220.233.48.200 20:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not one piece of the text is a copyright infringement. Large chunks of the Jewish encyclopedia have been used. But of the 1911 public domain edition. "copyright infringement" is really quite a red herring attempt to destroy the article.
Well then you need to add the "from Jewish Enclylopedia" template, and others. But you have also ripped a whole parts from other sources which you claimed to be fair use... You really need to cite your sources in this cases. 220.233.48.200 21:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but public domain is just that. You really need to stop trying red-herring arguments. --User talk:FDuffy 21:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless citations can be provided within the article ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Citations CAN be provided as above, so that's a vote to keep, right?
Votes are supposed to be based on whether an article could ever possibly exist here that was in accordance with wikipedia policy. If you CAN see how it is possible, then you should vote to keep, whether or not the current state of the article matches up with that. --User talk:FDuffy 21:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why not just bring the article up to WP:CITE standard, then I could change my vote to keep... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't justification to delete. The fact that it CAN be brought up to standard is enough for it to exist. Please read the deletion policy. --User talk:FDuffy 21:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well if I'm not mistaken, a consensus vote alone is justification to delete, and explanations for votes are not always required... I see you have added some sources though I was hoping to see them referenced with footnote citations within the text; so I guess I'll switch to keep provided you allow the article to be reasonably edited. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He listed some titles in the reference secton, however has not shown where in those books he gets his info from. Furthermore the title is nn as can be seen from the 0 google hits. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Title is nn? That isn't a deletion criteria. Try considering the content?
"Authorship of the Johannine works" won't be found on Google either, excepting wikipedia mirrors, but that doesn't mean the subject, Authorship of the Johannine works is not notable, as it certainly is. --User talk:FDuffy 21:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin according to what I've read about articles for deletion, votes are advisory only - it is what is said by them that is to be used to decide on the outcome. As several editor's only have a problem with citations not being provided in the current article, their votes do not concern the existance of the article, just whether its current content should be adjusted. --User talk:FDuffy 21:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not so much whether or not it can be cited as whether or not it is original research. Original research can be copiously cited, but it's still original research. Jayjg (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, according to deletion policy the issue is whether it will ever be possible for the article to be cited non-original research, since everyone seems to agree that this is possible, the article should be kept. --User talk:FDuffy 21:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I see no indication that it would ever be anything but that; it appears to be a topic you have invented. Jayjg (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly does it appear I have invented it?
Are you denying that the three stories at Genesis 20-21, Genesis 26, and Genesis 12, exist?
Are you denying that they are distinct episodes in the Genesis narrative?
Are you denying that the Midrash responds to them as something that exists?
Are you denying that biblical criticism points to the triplication of the story as evidence for the documentary hypothesis?
Are you denying that the Midrash blames Abraham for the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, the death of Saul, etc. as punishment for his having made the beersheba treaty?
Are you denying that the etymology of Beersheba is discussed at Genesis 21 and 26, is there directly connected to the treaty and Abimelech, and that archaeology has something to say about the potential value of some of the etymologies?
If not, then why do you think I have made it up? --User talk:FDuffy 22:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is the original thesis tying all of these together that appears to be unique to you. Can you quote some encyclopedic source which does this, instead of your own ideas? Jayjg (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So your source is actually the New American Bible? Jayjg (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's A source, not THE source.
Try reading the Jewish encyclopedia article on Sarah - "...the incident with Pharaoh and a similar incident with Abimelech..." --User talk:FDuffy 23:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or how about the Sefer HaYashar chapter 20 (here is an online link to the chapter - [2])
Maybe more modern theological writings would satisfy you - bible.org
These are almost random links. Please provide links to literature which discusses this as a theme, as your essay does. Jayjg (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may need citations, but that's a separate issue, not a reason to delete an article. Same with dislike for the title (which admittedly isn't very encyclopedic). If people object to critical biblical scholarship (as at least one nay voter appears to), they shouldn't be bothering with an encyclopedia. I haven't seen any legitimate argument for deletion. kwami 21:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Title gets no google hits, nn and Original research, if there is anything good here it can be merged into existing articles. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is this non-notable? Major evidence for the documentary hypothesis, a treaty between the Israelites and Philistines, something classical jewish scholars (Midrash) believed was the reason for God's decision to cause/let the 1st and 2nd temple be destroyed. That's hardly nothing.
Google hits are not an indicator of fact. They are only an indicator of how many websites discuss the subject under exactly that wording. Not whether the subject is discussed.
I have given 4 sources, that isn't original research, that's 4 sources. --User talk:FDuffy 21:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You listed some titles in the reference secton, however you have not shown where in those books you get your info from. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being ridiculous. They say one of the creationist tactics is to ask for ever more detailed evidence. I have given you the references. If you get the books the locations are easy to find - try using the index and putting in obvious words, e.g. Abimelech and Beer-Sheba.
How about a version of the bible itself, the New American Bible, whose footnotes clearly point out that they are the same story (it calls it the "wife-sister episode"), that the yahwist and elohist own the versions I state they do, and that Genesis 26:15, and 18 are later redactions. --User talk:FDuffy 22:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you wrote this article and you are saying that you used these books as a reference, it's not unreasonable for me to ask of you to show me where in those books does it say what you say it said. I would assume that you have these books if you are using them as a reference. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is unreasonable for you to pretend to be so incompetant as to be unable to use an index. --User talk:FDuffy 23:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are the author of the article, you have the obligation to show from where you have taken your sources. Since you have recently written this article I'm sure that if these are really your sources you would remember where you got them from. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I do. I also know how easy it is to look a word up in an index and go to the page it mentions. You are being unreasonable. --User talk:FDuffy 23:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right. The entire debate below Eliezer's vote is exceedingly silly. Thomas Ash 23:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I don't mean to be rude, but the comments of many of those voting for deletion are frankly ridiculous. Thomas Ash 23:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Not original research. To delete this would be unreasonable. However, it needs a new title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickDupree (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 January 2006
"A wife confused with a sister" might be less ambiguous, for starters... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"A wife confused for or with a sister" still puts the action on the viewer, i.e. Pharoah and Abimelech, not on the ones who deliberately claimed their wife was their sister, i.e. Abraham and Isaac. Classic Jewish scholarship therefore examines the reasons why Abraham and Isaac made this claim, not the "thematic" similarities between the Egyptians' and the Philistines' response. As I wrote on the Talk page, the main point of this article could easily be stated in a paragraph on the Sarah and Rebeccah pages. Yoninah 13:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The essential facts are incontrovertible, as the opening sentence states: "There are three tales of a wife confused for a sister within the Torah, all of which are strikingly similar." The phenomenon of these parallels must be very widely known, if they are familiar even to me. Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version (1992), discusses this phenomenon pp 407ff. Not very original "research" I'd say. What's offensive here, actually, is the documentary hypothesis itself, as the above discussion in favor of deletion so frankly demonstrates. --Wetman 00:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let's see what the writer(s) can do with it; it can always be deleted or redirected at a later date. KHM03 01:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand -- needs sources. -- Geo Swan 01:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this pure original research, and the title is a neologism from the pen of a Bible-trasher. How sad. IZAK 11:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thought it certainly needs work, the NOR claim doesn't fly, the article is well documented with it's sources though citations would be a good improvement which isn't a reason to delete either. --Wgfinley 06:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though it seems to me that FDuffy needs to release the article so that others can work on it. There's more published work on this topic that he/she seems to be aware of. If others of us get a chance to do some of that work then the article is worth keeping. BTW, a better title would be 'The Endangered Ancestress', which will lead you to Cheryl Exum's highly regarded paper on the topic. JGF Wilks 14:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin This is this user's 3rd edit. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a provocative assertion. Are you trying to say jgf wilks uses sockpuppets? Because I checked the history, and I only see one edit by them... Geo Swan 22:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets "A related issue occurs when non-Wikipedians create new accounts specifically to influence a particular vote or discussion. This is especially common in deletion discussions. These newly created accounts (or anonymous edits) may be friends of a Wikipedian, or may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion.
Note to closing admin The user in question started editing before the article even existed, and Eliezer has elsewhere advocated allowing users who obviously exist prior to such votes, even if new, to cast votes. --User talk:FDuffy 02:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
These accounts are not actually sockpuppets, but they are difficult to distinguish from real sockpuppets and are treated similarly. Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Wikipedia community." --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be said that the user created their account before the article even existed, so Meatpuppet doesn't really apply here. --User talk:FDuffy 02:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
HOWEVER, having said that, according to these diffs, Eliezer, IZAK, Jayjg, Jfdwolff, MPerel, Tshilo12, and Dovi were all brought here by Meatpuppet like-tactics, and they voted delete, so if there is any vote-rigging and underhand behaviour going on, maybe we should consider these as well. --User talk:FDuffy 02:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
This is very common and not prohibited by any Wikipedia policy. Some AFDs are conducted with very heavy recruitment from all sides of the debate, and this makes AFD more of reflection of community opinion than if only a few people with no knowledge of the subject matter vote delete Biblecruft. JFW | T@lk 10:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, gauging community opinion involves going out and asking people to comment when you have absolutely no idea which side they will vote on. Going around finding people whose names and/or previous editing behaviour makes it fairly obvious they will support your own side is called Gerrymandering.
this is biblecruft as is this, this, and this (etc.), all of it blatent and totally unencyclopedic. The article up for deletion here is not, it covers the material in approximately 3 chapters of Genesis rather than flooding wikipedia with the same information in multiple articles such as Gerar, History of Beersheba (now a redirect), Sarah, Abraham, Isaac, Rebekah, and Abimelech (as was). Such reduction of Bible spam, and coverage of a notable and encyclopedic topic, is something that people vote to Keep.
--User talk:FDuffy 13:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: It appears that FDuffy has also done a bit of Gerrymandering by alerting his buddies on their Talk pages to join this discussion (I found out by checking "What Links Here" on the article page, A wife confused for a sister). I agree with JFW—the more editors involved, the more of a real consensus we will gain. Yoninah 22:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources listed cannot be traced to the actual title, which itself is invented. I will change my vote if FDuffy (talk·contribs) will take the trouble to trace this theory to the Bible critic who first described it and will provide proof that other Bible critics broadly agree with this otherwise completely unnotable, highly speculative and bizarre assertion. JFW | T@lk 17:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with heavy modifications I currently feel that the article is framed in a very POV manner. I nonetheless think it should exist, under this name or another. The common thread of the three stories is undeniable, and thus I am sure has responses in many fields; currently only the documentary hypothesis is present without any heading indicating that this interpretation is the one to be unfolded presently. I am sure you could find some sociological/anthropological understanding of the phenomenon of wives and sisters, or at least some understanding given by Rabbinic or Christian scholars. I don't believe the article as it is is original research but it is currently POV and also needs to cite sources for individual facts if it wants to retain integrity. In sum, I recommend:
Find better name, if possible
Cite DH understandings more closely
NPOVise / find other views jnothmantalk 22:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both JFW and jnothman express some of my mixed views on this. Whether the title and article contents as they currently stand can be transformed to not fall on the side of original research, I don't know at this point. I'm willing to change my vote if it can be shown clearly that a credible source or sources exist who represent these views. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, must be considered original research until author deigns to provide sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read above where the sources are given repeatedly. --User talk:FDuffy 02:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, I don't see it as original research though it is typical late 19th century, early 20th century anti-Bible pseudo-scholarship rehashed. It should be deleted because like most arguments from such sources it employs fallacious reasoning and deceptive half-truths, what I call "dumb ass" and "smart ass" Bible criticism. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Israel Finkelstein (2002). The Bible Unearthed. Free Press. ISBN 0684869136.
Robin Lane Fox (1992). The Unauthorized Version. Knopf. pp 409f
Richard Elliott Friedman (1987). Who Wrote The Bible?. Harper and Row, NY, USA. ISBN 0060630353.
Richard Elliott Friedman (2003). The Bible with sources revealed. HarperSanFransisco. ISBN 0060530693.
As far as I'm aware 1987-2003 didn't suddenly become late 19th century, early 20th century. --User talk:FDuffy 02:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Those are major and well respected modern day scholars, one is even the professor of ancient history at Oxford. Claiming they are just people who produce "rehashed" arguments is like claiming Fundamentalist Christians and Jews are just rehashing centuries old outdated arguments for their faith. --User talk:FDuffy 14:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Which they are. All the arguments about whose biblical interpretations are correct were already argued and summarized far more succinctly by the Rabbis of the Talmud (see the Aggadah of Rabbi bar bar Chana) and by Maimonides in his debates with the Church than they are today on Wikipedia. Yoninah 16:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep but clean it up a little, as per jnothman, kwami, thomas ash, etc. The fact that it has generated so much controversy here just goes to show its notability. wikipediatrix 01:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This example is classic documentary hypothesis stuff, as anyone in the field of Bible knows. One may agree with the analysis or not (the field of biblical poetics, for instance, shows that classic source criticism fails to account for many important aspects of Genesis, including in this example), but I fail to see why anyone calls it original research. It is standard stuff, and has been since the 19th century. I think some of the objectors would prefer not to see the basic articles on biblical topics cluttered or even overwhelmed with source-criticism, and on this I happen to agree with them. I don't think that would be appropriate at all. But the way to achieve that is not by deleting source-critical articles and removing real information from Wikipedia, but rather by expanding on source-critical aspects in articles devoted to them (like this one). The weaknesses of source-criticism and alternative approaches can be discussed in such articles as well. More broadly, if others would like to discuss this issue beyond its relevance to this article, I would be happy to so.Dovi 07:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS The title of the article may or may not be the greatest, but that can be decided by the active contributers to the article on the talk page. There is no reason to do it with one of these horrible AFD votes.Dovi 12:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. FDuffy is right. The article may not be in a great state but a change of title and a little source citing could well turn it into something good. Soo 14:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the problem. The author refuses to source his claims, and would rather argue with us than to do so. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very obviously not original research to anyone who has studied the Bible; just needs cleanup and better citations --Gherald 21:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the entry immediatly above. Improve and cite. It's good; make it better.--HereToHelp (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very POV indeed. Those cite, is this a joke? What about WP:RC - this is certainly unencyclopaedic and those "sources" seem very unreliable. Izehar 23:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Original or not, it is still research, not an encyclopedic paper. Wikipedia may be easily packed (if wikipedia is "not paper" why then Jimmy Wales asks for all this money?) with such theries in all historical magazines full of "solid" references and crossreferences. I any case about 60% ("well" part, etimologies, etc.) of its content is either irrelevant here or must be addressed esewhere. Mukadderat 03:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. this was heavily edited to add references since its nomination on AfD. --Marvin147 03:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nice start and referenced. Also some of the personal attacks against the editor seem a bit out of line. -- JJay 04:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs a better title and sources but it is not completely original research. -- jaredwf 08:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. It is certainly verified, but it is also original research and unlikely to be neutral. Stifle 01:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.