Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psalm 83:18

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 delete It may make sense to discuss this issue at Jehovah or in an article about the JWs. Moot becuase it has been merged to the main article on Psalm 83. JoshuaZ 21:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psalm 83:18

Psalm 83:18 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The entire substantive content of the article is: Psalm 83:18 is a widely quoted verse of the Bible, often used to prove "Jehovah" as the personal name of God. That may be so, and it's even possible to reference the statement, but the proper place to discuss this is in places like Jehovah, not in giving a single verse of the Bible its own article. There simply isn't that much more to be said about it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Otto4711 19:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable enough as a verse unto itself. Notable verses might include John 3:16, for instance. Realkyhick 19:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per nom, even though he ought to know that it is possible to say much, much more, as with any scripture subject to commentary. Since there's no evidence of that commentary, however, I think it ought to be merged or deleted. Argyriou (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • There would be a lot more to say, yes. If only this was an encyclopedia of scripture commentary. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Individual verses of the Bible are never notable, but the concept that they refer to may be notable. (This is my personal opinion, but I think the application here is clear. The verse can be mentioned in an article on Yahweh, and that is all.) Note to admin: Please delete "Psalm 83:18" from the associated navbox template. Shalom Hello 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I would respectfully disagree with Shalom's first statement but I do concur with the notion that this is not sufficiently notable. -- S up? 22:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, because I smell WP:SOAP. Frankly, there are other verses of the bible that can prove that God's name is something else - "I am" comes to mind here, somewhere in the early part of Exodus. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (as the contributor) Personally, I do believe this verse is notable, as it is very clear, even in the KJV where it is usually translated "LORD". Abbott75 ☺ 23:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The problem I'm having here is etymology: Jehova(h) is a latter germanic mutation of YHVH, which itself is a mutation of something else - specifically, God's unpronounceable name. (Reference: The Joys Of Yinglish, Leo Rosten et al.) I do ask you forgive the above pull of WP:SOAP, but do understand I am not casting it at you, it is simply at they who would purport that getting God's name right is more important than God Himself. (Really, I don't think God cares all that much about what we call Him namewise - but that is just me.) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename - to a separate article on Psalm 83, possibly with a separate heading for #Verse 18. Limiting this article to a single verse is a little excessive, regardless of the importance of the verse. Also, the broader scope of the article would allow for more content, and make it less likely to be deleted or merged later. John Carter 23:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename according to Jon Carter's suggestion. Many individual verses of the Bible are notable, considering the amount of commentary that has been written.This probably is, though no effort has been made to deal with the secondary sources.In the meanwhile, the article on the psalm will do. DGG (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • To Abbott, Dotar Sojat, and DGG: The notability claimed for this verse is purely an artifact of translation, not "proof of God's name" in any sense. For reasons of their own the KJV translators chose to render YHVH "Jehovah" in that place; it's not a theologically significant rendering for historical Christianity. The LXX has "Kyrios" there; the Vulgate has "Dominus", and the Jews read it "Adonai" as they do everywhere they encounter haShem. If some groups think it is significant, it's their own peculiar POV and should be covered in the articles about them, not about the Psalm. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I am quite aware of that. there's quite a lot of discussion of just that point. The present article ignores it, as does the single reference used. DGG (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - First it is a bad article; the mere fact that it ignores all translations that contradict its premise indicates a soapbox. Second, it is highly POV; no commentary except that of JWs, which is okay if it were a subsection in a JW article. I am not aware of any other group that uses this scripture except JW's. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I haven't ignored translations that contradict it, I simply don't know of any. If anybody knows of some I would be more than happy for them to be added to the article. Abbott75 ☺ 06:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but I have to be blunt. This can only be a case of not looking for information you don't want to know, because this isn't difficult information to locate. First: Every translation in every language before the KJV uses the usual "LORD" or a cognate there, including the standard Greek, Vulgate, Slavonic, and Coptic translations, just to name those I'm able to check on my own. (I don't even guess at Georgian or Armenian.) For modern English translations, there's the NIV, NASB, ESV, CEV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, and the updated Douay-Rheims of 1899.
        • If anyone feels that other quotes should be added, add them! This is a wiki after all. Abbott75 ☺ 11:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
      • What you are ignoring is that this is making a theological mountain out of a translator's molehill. It simply doesn't prove what the article currently claims it does. Perhaps there are some people who believe it does. That may be a good reason for mentioning it in the article about them, but that's not really a good reason for this article to exist. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not saying the verse proves anything, the article states it is used as proof. Whether or not it is in fact proof is not what is being debated. Abbott75 ☺ 11:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Given this statement, it puts it more in perspective. Perhaps, then, an article about the name of God would be a more appropriate home for this? Thoughts? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - It has come to my attention that many of the editors asking for this article to be deleted are adherents to religions who do not believe that Jehovah is the name of God. Do you want this article deleted because it does not belong in an encyclopedia, or do you want it deleted purely because it conflicts with your personal views on the subject? Abbott75 ☺ 06:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • This isn't personal or religious. Why don't you assume good faith and accept that the delete votes are here for the reasons stated? The question could easily be turned around you know, but I'm sure none of us want to go there. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, I'm quite aware of how the same could be said of me. I was purely making a point of the fact that people saying "Delete" have faith against the topic of the article, whereas people saying "Keep" do have faith in the topic. Both sides of this debate have a vested interest. Abbott75 ☺ 11:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I disagree with the last statement above. I think a more accurate statement would be that one side has a vested interest to keep it for purely religious reasons. Based on the article's present lack of content, and total lack of references for the non-quote statements, however, there is I think a fairly good objective reason to have the content put in some other article or deleted outright. Those reasons would be addressed if more substantive content were added to the article, however. As the article is, though, I question whether this kind of article is really relevant to wikipedia at all, as it is almost entirely a collection of quotes, which could just as easily be placed in Wikisource. John Carter 16:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
      • No, I have no vested interest in this whatsoever, unless it's that I am interested in the quality of this encyclopedia, which I do not think this article improves. Of course I believe it to be foolish as a matter of both faith and reason to make theology out of a translational peculiarity, but if a notable group does then Wikipedia ought to say so. The question is whether that peculiarity is, in and of itself, suitable for an article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable enough as a verse unto itself. Notable verses might include John 3:16, for instance. -- SECisek 20:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN, unsourced, SOAP, and POV. Bearian 23:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The name Jehovah occurs some 6000 times in the Masoretic Text,[1] and it is completely arbitrary to single out this one occurrence as having specific significance.  --Lambiam 02:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - While commentary on scripture might be a good wikibook, and I think that the one source doesn't quite give the verse notability, I'd give the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps there could be a little bit more sourcing showing that this is a notable use of Jahova? Smmurphy(Talk) 04:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment After sleeping on it, I have come to the realisation that is does not bother me if this article is deleted. Although personally I feel it is notable, the consensus is that it is not. And after all, this is Wikipedia and consensus is important. From now on I shall try to focus on less controversial and subjective topics, such as the list of cattle breeds. Abbott75 ☺ 04:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Abbott, do note that its notability lies in a portion of an ongoing debate that is, in my opinion, on par with the classic vi versus emacs holy wars debates that have been raging on since time(T)=minus infinity. =^_^= The subject is certainly notable, no question, and I'm not going to deny my bias against Jehovah being the proper name of God - but when put in a more objective POV, it's my opinion that, had it not already been mentioned there, a merge to Jehovah would be a more suitable option. At any rate, your understanding is appreciated. God bless. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I have taken the initiative in retitling and adding some text to the article in question. I will also fix the incoming links to link specifically to the section which previously was the entire content of the article. I hope I didn't screw things up too bad. John Carter 16:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it's certainly an improvement. But considering that articles on individual psalms have been limited to those with widespread liturgical use, or which are particularly memorable, well-loved, set to music, or stand out in some other way. I don't see that this one is like that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
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.