Talk:Women in the Hebrew Bible

OR

A lot of WP:OR on this article. -shirulashem^(talk) 00:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Scope of the Article

I recently removed Judith from this article, but it was restored. While the term 'Old Testament' means different things to different people, 'Hebrew Bible' is very specific. It is simply inaccurate to include the book of Judith, which does not even exist in its original Hebrew, if indeed it was not written in Greek. It is argued that we should expand the article instead of restrict it. I do not see why we should sacrifice accuracy to be more inclusive. We must either rename the article to Women in the Old Testament or exclude the apocrypha/deuterocanonicals. The opening sentence is confusing, but does not in fact identify the Hebrew Bible with the Old Testament. It says that the Hebrew Bible is 'also called Old Testament in Christianity, which is true, but does not consider all forms of Christianity. There is already an article Women in the Bible, where characters like Judith can be discussed. The Hebrew Bible are those scriptures that are accepted by virtually all Christians and Jews. Although I personally would not support it, proposing a move to Women in the Old Testament is the only way Judith can be discussed in this article, otherwise her name must be removed. Lindert (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• How about this. First, play nice and speak less categorically. There are lots of ways in which Judith can be discussed even if the scope were limited to begin with. That I stuck her where I did is because the article is awful, which is plain to see (a random example: "Hebrew women attended worship services" is the opening of a section--the article isn't about Hebrew women, it's about women in the Hebrew Bible, and there is no ground for identifying the two). Even a narrowly defined article can have a female character who undoubtedly exerted great influence on Judaism (BTW, there is no serious doubt, AFAIK, that there was a Hebrew 'original'). In other words, rather than exclude, we could include the apocrypha with a separate section.

  The other reason I stuck her in is the opening sentence of the article. What you could do, instead of making Judith not fit the article, is make the article not fit Judith by sharpening up the lede (which is awful anyway). If you want to do that, that is fine with me, and I would support that--I would ask you, though, to help out and improve Women in the Bible.

  I appreciate your enthusiasm in keeping this article clean (as I'm sure you saw it), but you'll have to live with the fact that things aren't always that simple, and even referring to Christian scripture opens up a can of worms. (I'm not implying you're culpable for the opening sentence!) Rephrasing the lede and working on the article accordingly is a good thing to do, and I think that should be done before you throw Judith out. And if the article is redefined more narrowly, then help me find a place for Judith. I mean, she gets shafted anyway--Protestants and Jews leave her out, but they'll take Esther. No fair. Acceptable? Drmies (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I certainly agree that the article is awful as it is. There is plenty of room for improvement (and tons of work to be done). However, in my opinion, 'finding a place for Judith', praiseworthy though it may be, is not a good reason to add her to this article. And whether Judith 'exerted great influence on Judaism' is, I think, not very relevant. This article is not about Women in Judaism, but women in the Hebrew scriptures. You do have a point that the article as a whole is atm maybe not consistent enough to define its scope clearly. Sure, I'm willing to contribute to Women in the Bible as I find time, and add something about Judith. An 'apocrypha' section seems a bit out of place, the Hebrew Bible has no apocrypha/deuterocanonicals, the Old Testament has. About the language: I am not familiar with the scholarly literature, but Book of Judith presents a Hebrew or a Greek original as about equal possibilities. Anyway, I'm going to sleep now, I'll try to do some work on the article tomorrow. Any help is appreciated. -- Lindert (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge to Women in the Bible?

Discussion at Talk:Women_in_the_Bible#Women_in_the_Hebrew_Bible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I am just going to Be Bold and start doing this. There has been no activity here since 2011, and the original author was a student doing an assignment. Would you do the redirect? I will start copying and moving stuff not already in the other article. Good call here I think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: There is virtually nothing here that is usable. I moved part of one paragraph and started to move a second but deleted it because it was exclusively referenced to primary source material, used one self-published source, and seemed to be original research -- none of the claims made could be found in any secondary source I looked at.

It is my view that either a redirect should be put here and the rest reverted or the article should be deleted. I suggest deletion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

NO, don't merge--delete! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, I know you're still around. Is ok to just boldly change this article into a redirect, or is something more subtle needed? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I went and ahead and trimmed the bad stuff, fixed the citations that were semi-decent, tightened the prose, and did the merge and redirect. Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Hello Jytdog. How have you been? I see the reasoning behind the changes you made, though I have mixed feelings about a couple of them. I don't know that I feel strongly enough to dispute, but I will explain what bothers me. I deleted the Ten Commandments heading you added because it was an almost exact replication of a statement already in the first paragraph under Hebrew Bible views of gender. I dislike that you moved the art paragraph under Eve--though I understand it is art and I understand why you moved it there--it was also sociological history tracked through art, and the section on Eve was organized to contain those three views: sociology, anthropology and theology. Now it's split, even though it was all a discussion of Eve, and the lead sentence, that had summarized what was in the body of that section, now has nothing to do with what's there. The creation stories are discussed nowhere--except the lead sentence. That is not an improvement imo. One way or the other, that lead now needs to be fixed.

What exactly did you merge from the other article? I can't find more than one sentence.

I am distressed you acted without consensus even though we had posted that request. Wiki policy says give a delete request a week, and we didn't get that week to hear from people and gain consensus before you made the decision for us. That seems heavy handed, and is also not an improvement imo. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

It is obvious that this is what was left after all the unsourced, OR, or badly sourced content was cleared out. It is plain as day that in this diff and this diff those two remaining sentences were added to the other page. If you want to discuss changes at the other page, please discuss there.

There is no such thing as a "delete request". The views of both you are Gerta and Gråbergs Gråa Sång were very clear that there was little good here and it should be gotten rid of. That's a consensus that I agreed with and enacted. Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC) (why do I think of you as "Gerta" I wonder. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC))

I am in the process of discussing the other page at its talk page, but I am discussing this one here. Deletion policy: Deleting articles requires an administrator and generally follows a consensus-forming process. Most potentially controversial deletions require a three-step process and a waiting period of a week.

This is found at [[1]]

As far as I know, we did not hear back from Gerda or Drmies or the original author Krmmiller. Gråbergs, whose idea it was to merge these and who has been working with me on the other article, had not agreed to deletion yet. I was the sole voice. We didn't actually hear from you either--until after the fact--not exactly consensus.

However, I agree there was nothing in this one worth saving, that's why I suggested deletion, but I did expect to get agreement first. In effect, it sounds like you are acknowledging there was no real merge--(You saved two sentences?)--even though it was not officially deleted, this one is just gone. Is that right? And you made that decision on your own. Correct? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I have no problem with this solution, since it's pretty much what I asked for. Gerda and Drmies can weigh in if/when they want to, Krmmiller hasn't edited in more than a year, and there's something called WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT I discovered yesterday. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Almost nothing you wrote there is correct Jenhawk. I removed bad content, merged was left to the other page, and redirected, yes per WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT as Gråbergs Gråa Sån pointed out. That is entirely aligned with what was discussed here between the two of you.

This page is not "gone" in the sense of being deleted. It is a WP:REDIRECT as can be seen here. What a "redirect" does is exactly what it says, redirect you to the other page. If you end up at a page through a redirect, the page shows that, just under the title, which I have roughly replicated here.

Women in the Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Women in the Hebrew Bible) (<--------- See? )

If you click on the "Article" tab above, your browser will be redirected, and that is what you will see.

If you want to actually delete a page from WP there are three ways: speedy, prod and AfD, and each of those has a process. See WP:SPEEDY, WP:PROD, and WP:AFDHOWTO for each process (the first two involve anybody putting a tag on the article, each of which pretty much anybody can remove after it is placed, and which an admin can respond to and delete the page if in the admin's judgment it should be deleted; the third is a certain kind of discussion in a specific place and some specific tagging; that discussion is then closed and the page deleted by an admin or kept). None of those three processes were at play nor did I do any of them. Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Me sleeping on it worked like a dream. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• If y'all are happy, I'm happy. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, thanx for taking the time to explain. I do try to learn as much as possible from each experience here. I've been here a year now and worked on five whole pages! Ha ha! What I don't know still far outweighs what I do. I am genuinely grateful whenever anyone takes the time to teach. It looks like consensus has been reached here, and Wikipedia has been improved by your actions. Can't ask for more than that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggest deletion

This was a student project from some years back. Please note the last entries here are in 2011. No one has worked on this for years. This article is not neutral, it contains a marked religious point of view, it uses primary and self-published sources and blogs almost entirely as its references, and most of it is original research that cannot be located in proper sources. Because of all of that, much of it would simply have to be deleted to fix it and the whole thing would need to be rewritten. Since a rewrite that includes this topic has already been done, [[2]], doing another rewrite on what amounts to a duplicate is a big fat waste of time. In my opinion this article should be deleted. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)