Talk:Noach

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 9 June 2012, see discussion.
Keep, 17 February 2008, see discussion.

Merge

This article appears to me to be a POVFork of Noah, Noah's Ark and Flood myth. To what extent does this article cover novel content which cannot be contained in those articles? And, to what extent should this article be merged with those? I'll have to review the article extensively before forming an opinion, but a cursory glance seems to indicate that the entire article should be merged and redirected. — Jess· Δ ♥ 04:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Jewish POV article that is part of the Weekly Torah portion and it meets WP:POVFORK guidelines. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which say "This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies." I'm not at all clear why you are saying this, but the place to debate the AfD is the AfD itself. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for the confusion. Please see my proposal below... Jasonasosa (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scope proposals

I have a proposal. From this Noach (parsha) page, I'd like to move the extensive Genesis flood narrative content to Genesis flood page and to propose the following WP:SCOPES:

Noach (parsha) scope: Keep page, only to discuss the parsha and how it functions in Judaism. Use its content to build on Genesis flood page.
Noah's ark scope: should only be focused on ark as a vessel. Discussion of flood should be moved to Genesis flood page.
Genesis flood scope: Reopen page (No longer being a redirect) by using Genesis flood narrative content from Noach (parsha) and Noah's ark. Article to discuss Genesis narrative only and its impact on religion and culture, including secular analysis of text and its structure (biblical criticism). (Only points to Noah's ark, but does not go into indepth discussion).
Flood myth scope: Article continues to maintain discussion of possible/impossible worldwide deluge as recorded in mythologies around the world. (No changes necessary).

Please consider, I will be happy to hack away. (Pulls out axe, turns on grinding wheel.) Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good start. However, I'd prefer this breakdown:

Parsha, discussing the parsha, how it functions in Judaism, and detailing the scope of each Parsha (currently 19k)
Noah's ark, concerning the ark (as a story and as a vessel). We can merge content from here as appropriate (currently 22k)
Flood myth, discussing flood myths from a global perspective. Summarizes each specific article (e.g. Noah's Ark, Mesopotamian flood myths, etc) with links back to each article using the {{main}} template. (currently 4k)

This is similar to your proposal, except that we'd use Parsha instead of this article to discuss the Parsha, and we'd be fitting the "Genesis flood" content into our existing articles, rather than making a new one. This separation makes a lot of sense to me, and I think the titles logically delimit each article's scope fairly well. I think our problem right now is that each of those articles is really small, and mostly low-quality. Per WP:Article size and general convention, it's usually a good idea in those cases to combine content, rather than splitting it even more. Noah's ark seems to be our best one of the bunch, and even it is only half the size of the smallest article listed at WP:SIZERULE which "doesn't justify division". Anyway, those are just my thoughts. Let me know how you feel about that. In any case, I think, before we start considering creating new articles, we should first try to fit the content we already have into our existing titles, and then see if splitting is necessary. If there's disagreements at that point, then maybe we could start an RfC to get the opinions of the larger community. Would that work, or is there a problem I'm overlooking? Thanks! — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your analysis of article sizes, I will agree to keep content on existing pages. I do not agree, however, on merging Noach (Parsha) content into Parsha. The scope of the Parsha page lists all of the Parshas available in Judaism. The page's layout does not compliment details for each Parsha and I don't want to disturb that page... because if we do it for one, then it has to be done for all of them... and I'm not taking on that task.

That said, at this point, it seems then that it would be more appropriate to merge Noach (Parsha) content into Noah's ark.

One thing I don't understand though is... why is Noah's ark page the main page for the Genesis flood narrative? The ark is an element or subpart of a main flood story. Could we consider moving Noah's ark to Genesis flood?

Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we agree on the merging. I wasn't proposing we move all this content to Parsha. Indeed, I think Noah's ark is a better target for most of it, and if there's anything worthy of merging, I think we should definitely do it. That being said, the Parsha article could contain a brief summary of some of the Parshas. This summary could be as small as a single sentence describing the overall topic and linking to the appropriate articles, and we could do that either for each Parsha, or for each "group" of Parshas. That might be useful to readers in summarizing the whole topic.

Regarding the naming of Noah's ark, I think this was probably done per WP:UCN. For article titles, we need to evaluate what the most common label is for the topic in the literature. I imagine that "Noah's ark" is pretty common. Maybe "Genesis flood myth" is more common. I don't know. I don't have any objection to moving the page, as you suggest, but I'd want to make sure we'd evaluated the literature and found the most common title among independent sources first. (If you want some context on this whole process, take a look at the archives for Genesis creation narrative, where we very extensively discussed just this issue) I won't have a chance to do that today, but now that you've started the move discussion on Noah's ark, perhaps another editor will be able to chime in with some sources! Thanks! — Jess· Δ ♥ 18:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good... I will make preparations to gut Noach (Parsha)'s content and merge it with Noah's ark. When we get down to slim trimmings, I guess we could find a way to make it fit on Parsha, and then the page can be deleted... unless, of course, the tide turns with consensus. Also, I know there were huge debates in the past with eliminating the many Flood pages that were out there. I'm not hell bent on reigniting old flames... however, it just makes logical sense to me, that Genesis flood should be the main page. I respect the guidelines of WP:UCN, so if that's what it is... then, that's what it is.Jasonasosa (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before gutting, axing, or otherwise deleting content, please let the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noach (parsha) play out first. Thanks for your patience. -- Dauster (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with User Dauster (talk · contribs) 100%. The final result was Keep, so leave well enough alone please. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page deletion

After making some adjustments to this Noach (parsha), I am 100% against the deletion of this page. I've attempted to make some improvements to the article to keep the Jewish interpretations that would otherwise overwhelm other Genesis flood narrative pages/articles. This page makes for a good resource in Jewish thought with their analyses, scripture by scripture. If this page is plucked... then start plucking its contemporary pages in the Parshas. When that's done, move on to the Islamic view articles... maybe start with deleting Islamic view of Noah. Thanks,Jasonasosa (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is now moot

There have now been two AfDs to Keep this article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/non-notable bible-division articles (22 February 2008) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noach (parsha) (17 July 2012). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis 6 is a Bible chapter, not a parashah

There is no justification for Genesis 6, which is also part of the Christian Bible, automatically linking to a rabbinical discussion of a parashah.

A majority of potential users of English Wikipedia are not practicing Jews. I will elaborate: a majority are not Jewish, and not all Jews are practicing Judaism and rabbinical studies, but all these people are potentially interested in the Bible for their own cultural and religious reasons. Therefore, when the topic is a particular Bible verse shared by Jews AND Christians and, frankly, the entire humanity, the Bible passage is of interest, not (just) the parasha & discussion in Judaism. Thank you for considering this.

The discussion can be concentrated on this page. Arminden (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noach (parsha) → Noach (parashah) – Rename, corresponding to parashah and Bereshit (parashah). Parsha is a redirect (created by me in 2010 to resolve red links). If this is agreed, then several other pages within Category:Weekly Torah readings could be moved likewise without further discussion. – Fayenatic London 10:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, BegbertBiggs. Dauster (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support both parsha and parashah are in common use, but it makes sense to have consistency and the article is at parashah. I'm going to advertise this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism; if the participants there have strong evidence that "parsha" is the correct English spelling you should probably heed them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the actual text of Category:Weekly Torah readings should probably be made consistent as well.Naraht (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.