Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 was no consensus. No prejudice towards a quicker than normal renomination. (Please wait at least one month.) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis 1:5

[edit]
Genesis 1:5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. My rationale has not changed, but there's no compelling reason to expunge the page history and this is a plausible search term. I'm ambivalent as to whether Genesis creation narrative or Book of Genesis is the more appropriate destination, however. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Book of Genesis, at least until a content fork is necessary. §everal⇒|Times 21:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The first few verses of Genesis have thousands of years of detailed Christian and Jewish commentary. There is plenty of material for an article here, as there was for Genesis 1:4. -- 202.124.72.43 (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My problem with these by-verse Bible articles is that the above statement, strictly speaking, isn't true. For example, while the Zohar engaged in a great deal of detailed analysis and interpretation of Torah passages, it is inaccurate to say that it did so by verse, because the Zohar predates Biblical versification. Rather, any source prior to ~1550 necessarily examined Biblical passages in a larger context (and most after that date have done so as well): either by book, by narrative section, or in some cases, by parshah. I do not dispute that there has been a great deal of historical attention paid to these words; I dispute that they are independently significant, any more than each act and scene of a notable play is, itself, worthy of an independent article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The interpretation from the Kabbalah can probably be expanded significantly, but would need more expertise than I have. -- 202.124.74.10 (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Genesis 1:4. The two verses together constitute a single "incident" in the creation story. The other verse now has a substantial aricle - unless substantially expanded. Note my vote on Genesis 1:4 is to Keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because Genesis 1:1-5 (i.e. the first five verses of the Book of Genesis) are one logical set that contains the details of the First Day of creation according to the Bible, that would make them a key axiom and foundation for everything else that follows in the Bible. That is why thus far multiple AfDs to do away with the first 2 verses' articles have failed, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:1 (2nd nomination) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:2 (2nd nomination) and why this article as well as the two others about Genesis 1:3 and Genesis 1:4 are to be kept as a complete coherent set since it makes no sense that there are articles for the first two verses of Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 describing the First Day of Creation (i.e. the most important event when everything begins according to Judeo-Christian civilization), and not for the three others that are part of one set. No one imagines that a famous paragraph consisting of five sentences (the Bible's opening paragraph) should only cite two sentences, as that would make no sense even in human terms. Thus these are both WP:N and there are plenty of WP:RS to back them up as they could obviously be developed even more. IZAK (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this argument actually underscores the reason why this material shouldn't be presented in this manner. No one is arguing that Wikipedia should not discuss the opening lines of Genesis. The references which discuss this material do not examine each line in isolation; they interpret these verses as part of a wider whole -- a "coherent set". Indeed, before 1550, there was no division of the material into verses at all! Your comparison is apt, however; we would not have separate articles for only a couple sentences out of a famous paragraph ... but that is because we would not partition that paragraph out into articles for each sentence whatsoever (for example, Four score and seven years ago is a redirect to Gettysburg Address). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Squemish: Either the first five verses are kept together as a unit, and improved, or they do not make sense separated from each other. The importance of the first two verses has been acknowledged and affirmed by multiple AfDs, but in terms of logic and coherence they can only make sense if all five verses are cited. But they should not be split up and palmed off into "themes" because that's not how the Bible is read and understood. As for your contention that "before 1550, there was no division of the material into verses at all!" you are wrong because in Judaism there are verses and smaller divisions and the first five verses are one unit, see Parashah#Spacing techniques, this goes back way before the 1500s, to the +-3000 year Masoretic Text. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are entirely correct that the parashot predate the versification of the Bible (indeed, even some of the Dead Sea Scrolls use a system of spacing), however the parashot differ from versification in a number of aspects, including, most importantly, the fact that they are not numbered (some have specific names, but this isn't one of them). Prior to Robert Estienne, there was no term of reference specifically to the segment of text now considered Genesis 1:5. With the history aside, I still haven't seen any evidence that there are sources which discuss this verse in isolation. Certainly there are sources which examine this verse, but only in some wider context. That is true of both of the cited references. Kissling spends page 101 discussing this verse, to be certain, but that is in the wider context of an examination of the first day, and then again in a wider context of the entire creation narrative (see the structural outline on p.53); it is even more true of the Zohar, which predates the modern system of versification entirely. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge: Genesis 1:3–5 although a good proposal from Fayenatic london (talk · contribs), conflicts with Genesis 1:1-3 (In the beginning). So now we are at a tug of war for verse 3. So, perhaps there is consideration to merge them all into Genesis 1:1-5 as IZAK (talk · contribs) put it "the first five verses of the Book of Genesis) are one logical set that contains the details of the First Day of creation according to the Bible". Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 21:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And that brings me to another point... The discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposal, Masem (talk · contribs) states, "It is the content of these articles that must not be made into devotional compendiums. And its clear that consensus is that some of these, like the parshas, are written inappropriately for Wikipedia because they are based on teaching the faith, not summarizing it. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
So I argue that the Genesis creation narrative serves to summarize, encyclopedicly, what ought to be addressed. For the amount of commentaries just on Gen. 1-5 alone, may teeter off into POV commentaries that might bog the article down into wp:undue, when all that is needed is a proper summary of terms and phrases from mainstream and appropriate minor groups which is already attempted at both the Genesis creation narrative article and Jewish commentaries at Bereishit (parsha). Why do we need to duplicate such material into undue weight? Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 08:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, there is approximately +28,190 bytes worth of Jewish commentary specifically for Genesis 1:1-5 at Bereishit (parsha).   — Jasonasosa 09:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your point. Genesis 1:1, Genesis 1:2, Genesis 1:4, and Genesis 1:5 are appropriate spin-off articles of Genesis creation narrative (the latter article would be too long if it absorbed those articles). These spin-off articles are encyclopaedic and do not breach WP:UNDUE. Bereishit (parsha) does seem to be an article with a specifically Jewish POV, but even if that's the case, it's not really a point for this AfD. -- 202.124.75.67 (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is... Genesis creation narrative and Bereishit (parsha) are good enough and do not need spin offs. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 13:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those both have much wider scope, and the content of these pages would unbalance them. IMHO Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 are preliminary to the six days, but verses 3-5 go together as a narrative of Day 1, hence my merge proposal. I don't understand the alleged conflict with Genesis 1:1-3 (which was deleted years ago). BTW I revised Genesis creation narrative#In the beginning, during the course of this discussion, moving (inter alia) verse 3 into Day 1, as that and other headings were previously in a muddled order; even then I didn't get it quite right (sorry), but hope that it is now clear. – – Fayenatic London 13:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles have wider scope, but insufficient depth, given the history and influence of these initial verses of Genesis. It seems there's an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument here. Fayenatic's suggestion of a merge is a viable possibility, although I still think this article can fly on its own. -- 202.124.72.215 (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw opinion: I withdraw my above opinions and 'vote' regarding the further creation and expansion of individual verse expanded article listings. I do not support further biblical verse article listings or expansions and feel the issues here with these articles are not solvable by AfD discussion and should arise organically through the primary contributing editors. So let it be done. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::Which again conflicts with Genesis 1:1-3 as a set for (In the beginning). So we are back to a tug-of-war for verse 3. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 17:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My suggestion, as other's here have mentioned as well, is to where this individual extended verse commentary ARTICLE listing leads. The articles and information should be limited and kept from "scope-creep", and listed as topics and subject titles and/or merged with such. Delete the listing, merge all information on the subject it addresses into one article. (Was addressing Fayenatics's comments.) No need for "tug-of wars". Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:::The merge proposed creates a tug of war between Gen.1:1-3 (even if stand alone articles) and Gen.1:3-5 (even if merged as one article). Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 18:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the creation of an article called "Genesis 1:3-5" because it sets bad precedent, suggesting that an article can deal with a string of verses that have a subjective beginning and end point (here, Genesis 1:3 and 1:5). Groupings of verses are valid subjects for Wikipedia articles, but the groupings themselves should have named precedent in the secondary literature (ex. Abraham and Lot's conflict, Blessing of Jacob, Confusion of tongues). Neelix (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nelix, Fayenatic london (talk · contribs) already proposed a renaming for Genesis 1:3–5 after said page is created. If you notice above, the User suggested First day of Creation, Creation of light (Bible) or Let there be light (Bible) as possible name changes.   — Jasonasosa 15:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is such a subject here: "First day of creation". See e.g. The New American Commentary Volume 1 - Genesis 1-11, page 145. I suggested this and alternative titles above. – Fayenatic London 14:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposing a merger; I am opposing the initial move to "Genesis 1:3-5". If we cannot decide on a more well-accepted title, then perhaps we are not selecting the appropriate string of verses. Neelix (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I propose moving the merged page straight First day of Creation. – Fayenatic London 17:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Merger of Genesis 1:3 has now also been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic London 14:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Merger of Genesis 1:3 has now also been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic London 14:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Genesis 1:3 and Genesis 1:4 should both be redirected to Let there be light and then Genesis 1:5 can be deleted.  — Jasonasosa 21:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the community consensus is to keep Genesis 1:4. StAnselm (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that seems strange to redirect Genesis 1:3 while having Genesis 1:4 to stand alone, when they are part of the same subject. meh   — Jasonasosa 21:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The current article Let there be light seems to be a kind of "Genesis 1:3 in popular culture." It's probably not a good merge target for Genesis 1:3. -- 202.124.73.175 (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That an article is not well-written yet doesn't mean that it isn't a good merger target. Neelix (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current article Let there be light should be left, separate from the discussion of the meaning of the Biblical verses. The split is also about right already. Even though it has a section on etymology, there's a reason for that being on that page: to explain the two different Latin translations which are used as mottos. – Fayenatic London 17:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting Genesis 1:4 is not an option, since consensus was to keep that article. -- 202.124.72.43 (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we got that already...   — Jasonasosa 00:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The decision to keep Genesis 1:4 after it was expanded is no bar against merging smaller articles into it, nor against renaming (moving & redirecting) accordingly. – Fayenatic London 17:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to make this all-or-nothing. All of these verses are sufficiently notable to stand on their own if they were only sufficiently worked-on; the fact that Genesis 1:4 is already sufficiently worked-on to stand on its own simply means that it is a sub-article of the overarching article, whatever that is determined to be. Neelix (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How would you demonstrate that each of these verses is sufficiently notable? There's plenty of Biblical commentary on just about any verse, but not every verse has wider cultural significance deserving an article in a general encyclopedia. I'm satisfied of notability in the cases of verse 1 & v2, but it seems to me that 3-5 make a better unit (first day of creation) to be discussed as a combined text rather than each having a page on their own. (See e.g. the layout of Gen 1:1–13 in the NIV.) For the record, I do not envisage that additional articles should be created for Day 2 etc; Day 1 has more notability, because it's the first, and because of the cultural resonances. – Fayenatic London 17:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I stand more strongly with Fayenatic london (talk · contribs)'s argument.   — Jasonasosa 18:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how you are defining "wider cultural significance"; that is not a term used in our notability guidelines. All of the notability guidelines I can see are clearly passed by each of these verses. Neelix (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There's more than enough reliable sources for Genesis 1:3 and Genesis 1:5 to take them up to the level of Genesis 1:4, which was kept. Genesis 1:3 is particularly notable because of the phrase let there be light, but both Genesis 1:4 and Genesis 1:5 satisfy WP:N as well. The fact that only some sources are currently in the articles is not a reason for deletion; AfD decisions are made on the basis of what the article could become. -- 202.124.75.38 (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genesis_1:5&oldid=1268442573"