This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christianliturgical 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles 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.
From a wiki-bureaucracy's point of view though the issue is that Rachel should more appropriately be handled as for example John. The person who "vandalised" this page in the past few hours was in my opinion well justified in doing so.
It looks like someone has periodically removed the content of this talk page, which I find rather disappointing.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was not moved. The neutrality basis of the request is misplaced. NPOV interfaces with article titles but not in the way suggested below (e.g, when choosing descriptive titles [where the world has not made the judgment for us] we must choose a NPOV title). Whether this is the primary topic is based on both evidence, common sense and our own judgment; neutrality has little to do with the issue. The fact that this is about a religious figure is irrelevant. The same considerations would apply if this was about widgets. That thought process is to determine whether a large portion of those who navigate to "Rachel," standing alone, are seeking this topic rather than another to maximize the principle of least astonishment and least complication in reaching the topic they expect to land at. The evidence presented below is that only a small number of people who land at Rachel click through to the dab page and that a much larger number of internal incoming links for Rachel are to this topic. In fact, this article gets about 800 hits per day, while the dab page gets about 25 hits per day and the name page gets about 70 and there's no way all those visits to those two pages are going to be incoming from the hatnotes on this article. A conservatively low 8.5:1 ratio, but probably significantly higher, certainly meets the test for a primary topic. As for the idea that many people seeking a particular Rachel with a last name are going to think they are going to reach that topic by typing in just Rachel, it has no traction—we should not be arguing that a large percentage of our readers are utter morons, which is the only way that could be true. The content of the dab page itself shows that there are few topics that any person would think would be at Rachel standing alone, and none have anywhere near the primacy of this topic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Rachel → Rachel (Old Testament) — The English Wikipedia is a global project which means that it will be utilized by users from diverse backgrounds. To make the article for "Rachel" the character from the Old Testament is a violation of WP:NPOV as it allows the WP to make a subjective decision about the nature of what a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is. To assume that this character is the primary topic means to assume that everyone using it will be working within the framework of the Old Testament or that this is the primary center of discussion for this name. In other words to perpetuate a particular point of view from a religious perspective.
The rules for "Primary Topic" state that the subject is: "– much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box." It is entirely arbitrary to assume that the search for "Rachel" would have been for the character. Indeed, "Primarytopic" also states, "There are no absolute rules for determining which topic is most likely to be sought by readers; decisions are made by discussion between editors." Rachel (disambiguation) is the best form of WP:NPOV for the article Rachel. Or Rachel (given name) would also suffice. Thank you, -Classicfilms (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
You said: "To make the article for 'Rachel' the character from the Old Testament is a violation of WP:NPOV as it allows the WP to maek a subjective decision about the nature of what a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is." This makes no sense. First and foremost, WP:NPOV has very little bearing on how we choose to disambiguate article titles; chosen disambiguators must be neutral (thus, no Rachel (dumb-looking haircut) or Rachel (fictional character from the Bible)), but the decision as to which article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is necessarily exempt from such concerns. Were that not the case, we could have no primary topics at all, and every title with more than one meaning would go to a disambiguation page. We have to make a subjective decision sometimes, for the good of our readers. PowersT 23:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the point here. You said: "decision as to which article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is necessarily exempt from such concerns." Nothing in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC makes such a distinction. In addition, you said, "We have to make a subjective decision sometimes, for the good of our readers." Wikipedia:Five pillars makes it clear that this isn't the case. Nothing in WP rules supports this distinction. WP:NPOV is thus best satisfied by making no distinction, by choosing either Rachel (given name) or Rachel (disambiguation) to be the first point of entry into the name. Either choice satisfied WP policies. As the article stands, my question would be, "why" is the article "Rachel" defined in the current way? -Classicfilms (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I altered the suggested disamb. for the proposed move and am frankly open to any other suggestions. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says: "There are no absolute rules for determining which topic is most likely to be sought by readers; decisions are made by discussion between editors" -- that shows that there is no perfectly objective way to determine the primary topic; some subjectivity must come into play. The second pillar of WP:5P refers to facts within article content, not to the naming of articles. What part of the second pillar do you feel could even remotely apply to whether or not the Biblical figure is the primary topic for the name "Rachel"? On the contrary, the recent similar move request at Talk:Abraham was defeated overwhelmingly, and I see no reason why this one is any different. PowersT 13:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
"There are no absolute rules for determining which topic is most likely to be sought by readers; decisions are made by discussion between editors." Precisely. There isn't really a solid reason that the point of entry for "Rachel" should be the figure from the Old Testament. As for the second pillar, there is an entire section dedicated to the fact that the naming of articles falls under NPOV:
The "other stuff exists" fallacy should not be used as a cudgel to eliminate the importance of precedent. Prior discussions can certainly inform current ones, and that's no violation of the WP:OTHERSTUFF fallacy. As for the passage from WP:NPOV, that is referring to the words used in the article title. There is no dispute that this article's proper title is "Rachel"; the question is whether to disambiguate it from other articles titled "Rachel". WP:NPOV addresses the base name, not the presence or absence of a disambiguator. PowersT 17:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Support due to the large number of page views on the disambiguation page as compared to the article now at Rachel. That suggests this Rachel in fact is not the primary topic. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Rachel the Biblical figure has a huge cultural significance. Look at "What links here" to see how many other articles reference this article. No other article in the dab makes a claim to challenge this as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --JaGatalk 22:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
There may be no one other article with as many incoming links, but that does not make a default primary topic. I see no primary topic here. The given name is very popular and there are a huge number of articles about women named Rachel. The disambiguation page gets a lot of hits compared to the article at Rachel, despite there being extra hatnotes. I have removed the extra hatnotes to give a clearer view of how many readers want some other topic than Rachel of the Old Testament. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
There's no magic number defining what the percentage should be. Your numbers imply 96.5% of users find what they're looking for when they get the Biblical figure article. That's a very good primary topic. --JaGatalk 10:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Those numbers show that 3.5% of readers on Rachel leave via the hatnote to the disambiguation page. Results of some prior page moves show that readers who leave via the hatnote are a small minority of readers who don't want to be there in the first place. See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Precedent?. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Popularity contests aside (and it would be *** if we were taking into account all people whose first name is Rachel, but are normally known by their full name), does the prevalence of the name Rachel not already prove that the Old Testament figure is the primary topic? Surely it didn't come out of the blue, did it? That has nothing to do with POV. Cavila (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
See the point made by 220.127.116.11 - just because someone accessed the article does not mean it was the article s/he was looking for. WP:NPOV is quite clear: "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral point of view. An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view." To equate the main article "Rachel" with anyone or anything but either the disamb. page or the article on the name itself is to offer a viewpoint. The goal of the Wikipedia is not a popularity contest - from WP:Five Pillars - "We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view." -Classicfilms (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations on missing the point completely! First, you could have fooled me if I were so ignorant to believe that 'primary topic' equalled 'most important topic', but if that were your intention, then please read my comment again. Second, why would only "a small minority of readers who don't want to be there [the Rachel article]" argue in your favour? I think you just shot yourself in the foot. Cavila (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I caused you any stress, but personal attack? Oh well. Cavila (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. I did take "if I were so ignorant to believe" etc. as one but am much more interested in debating the topic at hand than anything else. At this point we should probably just agree that we disagree and see where consensus takes us. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The above requested move, not carried out, hangs on the question whether this biblical Rachel is the clear primary topic. The closing editor concludes that the page view data support this Rachel as the primary topic. For a more general discussion of interpreting the page view data, see this. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Currently the article states that Rachel was born on 11 Cheshvan 1553 BC. Is this right, and when did she die? Might it be better to date by decceinal or century?22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I replaced it with "c. 1553 BC". I note that Jacob's birth is given "c. 2000 BC". StAnselm (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Would it be better to remove all dates, unless there are sources for them?126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I definitely think that unsourced "facts" need to be removed, such as date of birth. Nothing in scripture supports any definite date. Bwryan2006 (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand that scholarly consensus is that Rachel never existed. Is this right? At the moment the article includes nothing questioning her existence, nor does it include references to biblical scholarship. In short, despite being the primary article for "Rachel", this article is based largely on scriptural sources. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I have added "Many Biblical scholars doubt that these stories reflect any actual persons or happenings - see The Bible and History." to the lede to clarify this matter.184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the statement. I note, among other things, that The Bible and history doesn't mention Rachel. Moreover, it doesn't suggest the consensus you mention, but attributes it to the Biblical minimalism school. StAnselm (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)