Talk:Orpah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Bible This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Orpah is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.

Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Dispute

The Oprah Winfrey article states that the midwife transposed the "r" and the "p" when writing the birth certificate. This article states that the name was mispronounced so much that the parents decided to change it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cluster (talkcontribs) 12:58 April 16, 2006.

06/02/06 Confirmation of the dispute. I just watched the Oprah Winfrey show and she said exactly as above. The midwife mispelled "Orpah."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.214.253.30 (talk • contribs) 17:01 June 2, 2006.

Does Oprah Winfrey have to be mentioned here? Doesn't it make more sense to leave it only in her own article? -- Avi 14:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to include it in both articles. It's not like we are starved for room or something. Orpah is related to Orpah, so both articles should be related to eachother. Simple as that -- GIR 20:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
She is mentioned. The "trivia" you quote is contradicted by Oprah's own interview. See the Oprah Winfrey article where I cited both. Let's leave the link, and keep the cpntroversy where it belongs. Just because there is extra space doesn't mean we should fill it with very tangetial items. There is a link to the proper section in "See also", that should be sufficient. -- Avi 01:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] attention

some one messed with the original article