Talk:Names of John
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Names of John is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article falls within the scope of the Anthroponymy WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Anthroponymy, the study of people's names. This project is dedicated to creating uniform helpful encyclopedia quality articles on the surnames, family names and nicknames of people. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. |
[edit] Merge
Why multiple pages should not exist
There are many pages on the names of John. That's not bad structure if the pages have unique information that pertains to that name such as John the Presbyter. John the Evangelist and John of Patmos do not. All their information can be found on Authorship of the Johannine works. Having a duplicate page makes WP confusing, more work for editors, and each article will likely contain information the other does not, meaning users have to read both pages to get all the relevant information. It has already been decided by consensus that the Evangelist and Apostle shouldn't merge. The only advantage is for NPOV because The Evangelist, John of Patmos and the Apostle are not necessarily the same person. However, it is neither NPOV to have multiple articles because that implies multiple people.
Why they should merge here
The cure for bias is to explain all the POVs so that information is not ignored. Merging to Names of John is a step towards that cure for NPOV. Those relevant issues can be fleshed out here fully in a centralized location where the same information isn't spread across multiple articles. --Ephilei 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. As stated in the previous merge request, I would only support a merge if all the articles were merged into one, with a more NPOV title. This title and the first paragraph say that these other names are just that, names for one individual named 'John'. It is a tough situation because we cannot say for a fact that they were different people either. But because the mainstream scholarly position (held by scholars like Raymond E. Brown, John P. Meier, Bart D. Ehrman, E.P. Sanders) and because this was even disputed in antiquity, I don't think it is doing NPOV an injustice by keeping these figures separated. We are not giving undue weight to a minority view by implying they are different people, and we can clearly state in the lead of each section that some hold that individual X is just another title for John the apostle. -Andrew c 23:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- What, then, do you suggest? How can we change this article to be more NPOV? What is a better page to merge to? Let's compromise. Certainly Johannine identity(ies) is ideally NPOV, but a mouthful to read. You're right, separate identities isn't a minority position, but single authorship is neither a minority position. Regardless of NPOV, separate articles is a organizational nightmare which is, personally, my frustration. --Ephilei 03:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. If we merge into one page (which has some practical value), can the title be "Saint John"? After all, it's the Christian church that describes this semi-historical figure. By calling the page "Saint John," we're making it clear that this is a religious figure, not a historical one. Jonathan Tweet 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose FULL Merge, but Support Adding More Detailed Information To This Article from the Other Articles. Sorry for the complicated Support/Opposition! I don't believe the articles should be merged here in entirity, however, I do believe more detailed information from each article (or even, for example, just merging the first paragraph from each of the articles...if that makes sense) would be extrememly useful here. It would be the perfect place to explain both the views of why these Johns are all thought to be the same person, as well as why these Johns are thought to be different people. I do think a page like that needs to be created, and this would be the perfect place to do it. However, "Names of John" is a bit vague--perhaps, like the template, it should be "John" in the Bible (since this does seem to be the article equivalent to that template)? ~ Irish♣Pearl 23:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose FULL Merge as well. I think that this page should be renamed/moved to John in the Bible or John (New Testament). If I were looking for a central article on John, I wouldn't look for "Names of John," I would look for something like the former. I think parts of the other John articles should be incorporated into this one with links to their main pages. Also, the debate about John's identity should be thoroughly discussed in order to avoid POV. For all the work that needs to be done here, we might as well start a Wikipedia:Wikiproject John (Bible) Wrad 03:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
