Talk:Exorcism of the Syrophoenician woman's daughter

Merger?

The following discussion 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.

---

Oppose, because ...

• There is precedent: other unidentified people from the New Testament have articles (for example Naked fugitive or Impenitent thief)
• The Exorcism of the Syrophoenician woman's daughter refers to an event, in which the Syrophoenician woman is a character who is credited with several lines of dialogue
• The woman is culturally and religiously notable because of her interaction with Jesus, and her race and gender.

Knobbly (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. this is a notable figure. Oppose merge. StAnselm (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

While either the event or the person could be "notable" as an article-- nothing is known of the person-- aside from what we learn from this event. There is no nothing we can say in the one article that would not also be fitting for the other article-- and vice versa.

Should we create both the Widow of Nain and also have Raising of the son of the widow of Nain? Should we create both the Jairus and also have Raising of Jairus' daughter? Why is the Syrophoenician woman more notable than Jairus and the widow. The New Testament has many people known for just one event and normally we create either a page on the event or the person, but not both? Why do both here? tahc ^chat 06:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Probably we should, yes. But this woman is clearly notable, as shown by this sort of coverage. StAnselm (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Support merge.

I asked a couple things... so what do you mean by "Probably we should, yes"? (Also-- what do you mean by "as shown by this sort of coverage". The link is just a chapter in a book.)

I am not saying the woman isn't notable... but they don't both need an article. Would you agree to a reverse merge (from the event to the woman)?

Orville Wright is also very notable, but we don't need an artilce for both Wilbur Wright and Orville Wright because the articles would be too similar to each other. tahc ^chat 15:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Merge#Reasons_for_merger:

“ #2. Overlap: There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap.... there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. For example, "flammable" and "non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on flammability. ”

tahc ^chat 16:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Probably we should have separate article for Jairus and the Raising of Jairus' daughter, etc. Just like we have with Celidonius and the Healing the man blind from birth. I don't think "flammable" / "non-flammable" is a good analogy. The chapter in the book I referred to is showing highly detailed analysis of the character, not just the story. StAnselm (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree "flammable" / "non-flammable" is not the best example... (hence the Wilbur Wright / Orville Wright example) but the idea totally applies here.

While you may have a RS "showing highly detailed analysis of the character, not just the story" in your POV, it can still all be part of the Exorcism of the Syrophoenician woman's daughter page or vice versa. Hence, there would more work to maintain both articles, with no added benifit. tahc ^chat 21:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The "flammable" / "non-flammable" analogy does not apply here because it's describing two states of the same thing. Besides Wikipedia:Splitting allows for more than one article about a similar topic if it meets the notability requirements (WP:CONSPLIT). Additionally, "benefit" is based on the POV of the editor or reader, as a Christian I may not recognise the value in articles about obscure Mormon characters, but if they are notable they should have separate articles. Furthermore the fact the article is a stub, simply means more work needs to be done, not a lack of notability. Knobbly (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Knobbly: I don't follow the 2nd half of your comment. I don't see any Mormon characters in the articles here that we are looking at. Please explain further. Also, some stub articles never become longer than a stub, but even if the current article doubled or tripled in length I don't see how that would change any of the issues here. tahc ^chat 00:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no "flammable / non-flammable" analogy. It is merely an example, of which there are many other examples.

Splitting allows for more than one article about a similar topic-- but notability is NOT the issue here. The issues are...

(1) do we have any way to split the topic in two separate articles in such a way that there is minimal Overlap and...

(2) do we have any reasonable benefit in doing so to out weight the drawbacks.

In this case fails on both counts. There is no information on one so-called "topic" that does not also closely relate to the other "topic". Likewise, even if we did have a way to split the topic in two (without killing it in the process) there would be no advantage. I you disagree with me, then feel free to tell me how a split could do both these two thing in your POV and I would be glad to listen, but I don't that it has happened yet.

Normally a topic is split is made (or should be made) for length. The life of Joseph Smith is currently split into five article (Early life, 1831–1834, 1834–1837, 1838–1839, and 1839–1844), but this fits the rule at hand because the pages have non-overlapping topics, even thought they are related topics.

Sometimes a split is made for reasons mostly unrelated to length, like the mythical Santa Claus having a separate page from historical Saint Nicholas. Some information could well be included on both these pages, but they would (and are) mostly filled with different information, because anyone wanting to know any more about the other gift-giver can just read the other article.

Thor and Thor (Marvel Comics) is another example of a good split with little overlap. If people published stories outside the Synoptic Gospels about the Syrophoenician woman, then we might have a reason to split it out... but even then I think we would only need the equivalent of Legion in popular culture and Exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac. tahc ^chat 00:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

My observation about Mormon articles was meant to illustrate that 'I'm keen to see individual articles about individual religious figures regardless of my persona POV', disregard it if makes no sense. :-) More importantly' having seperate articles on each person in the Bible makes sense; both because that independent category already exists amoung scholars - see link above (and on Wikipedia - see the New Testament persons template) and because it will benefit readers to explore more deeply a person involved in a particular event. If I were reading about a particular event in the Marvel Comic universe and encountered a minor character that interested me, I'd want to know more. Particularly if it turned out that there were notable aspects to that particular minor character. Knobbly (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This discussion appears to have ground to a halt. I support a merger because the woman's notability as a subject for a Wikipedia article is entirely due to the episode recounted in the article about the healing of her daughter - BobKilcoyne (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Support merge based on WP:1E, merging to the event (as is the default). Klbrain (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

: Done Klbrain (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge reversed so that an 'uninvolved' editor can review (as StAnselm has requested). Klbrain (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor review: I support a Merge. There is nothing that is appropriate in one article and not the other. Both are very short. People categories can be used too. Klbrain, please proceed. Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Klbrain (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Kilbrain is WP:INVOLVED, having !voted above, and so shouldn't be the one to close the discussion. Actually, I don't think the shortness is an obstacle - this article should be expanded. As mentioned above, there is in-depth coverage of this woman in dedicated sources. StAnselm (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@StAnselm: you asked for an uninvolved editor, Johnbod responded and the discussion was closed; I left another week for objections then implemented the merge. I think that that was reasonable. My clear view is that there is a clear policy-led argument for the merge (WP:1E), to which there have been no objections, and this has been review by an uninvolved editor (at your very reasonable request) who also concluded the merge should proceed. Klbrain (talk) 06:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

For whatever reason, Johnbod elected not to close the discussion, but merely added his !vote. There is no obvious consensus here, and the discussion should be formally closed. StAnselm (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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.

Why isn't the Mark text also included

The two stories are somewhat different. This is significant. 65.92.152.196 (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)