Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snow-white Miriam - Wikipedia
- 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 merge into Miriam. —Mets501 (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google search showed only 36 actual ghits, many seeming to refer to the article. Topic is controverial, article is unsourced. (Note: The event in the narrative of Miriam is sourced, but not use of the name "Snow-white Miriam" or statements about contemporary significance or views). Notability appears not to have been established after months of requests for sources. Given that the article involves a narrative in the life of Miriam, suggest merging any reliably sourced content with Miriam. --Shirahadasha 17:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article on Miriam could/should certainly refer to the (apparently just one) reference to her as being turned "white as snow." But the rest of this article just seems like Torah or Bible commentary to me, and as such probably violates WP:OR. Unless the commentary itself is based on a legitimate scholar, and even then, we don't have individual articles for everything Maimonides wrote about. (for example.) Also, the title itself seems to imply that the most important part of the story of Miriam is that she got struck with a disease. I think that's inherently POV and I agree, controversial. Dina 18:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article in its current form appears to interpret the narrative on Miriam in exclusively racial terms without accounting for any other possible interpretation. It is completely unsourced. Suggest deleting if sources not provided. zandweb 18:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete as an unsourced + WP:OR description and interpretation of the Miriam story. JoshuaZ 19:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC) changing to weak keep since it has some sourcing, barring that merge sourced content into Miriam, There still seems to be OR issues. JoshuaZ 23:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the salvageable information into Miriam (or Zipporah, if need be).--Cúchullain t/c 22:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article takes the position that Zipporah and the "Cushite woman" Miriam complained about were two different people. Merging into the Zipporah article would imply the opposite position, that they were the same person. Not clear that Wikipedia should take a position on the subject either way. --Shirahadasha 01:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've also never seen the claim that Miriam was talking about anyone else before. This seems all very ORish. JoshuaZ 02:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article takes the position that Zipporah and the "Cushite woman" Miriam complained about were two different people. Merging into the Zipporah article would imply the opposite position, that they were the same person. Not clear that Wikipedia should take a position on the subject either way. --Shirahadasha 01:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Miriam. --Eliyak T·C 03:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you see anything salvageable? JoshuaZ 03:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Keep --Codec 06:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was originally based on the interpretation by Richard Elliot Friedman in his books about the old testament. Specifically "Who wrote the Bible?". That can be cited as a source, but I'm not sure of any papers in this area, though I imagine there are some. The later text added and opionions I don't know about.Codec 07:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Friedman is a reputable source, and generally represents the mainstream in the academic community (indeed some of his books are officially required reading - or at the top of official book lists - for theology courses at several well respected universities). You can also find similar views in well respected commentaries (e.g. Peake's) and encyclopedia's (e.g Jewish). Shirahadasha seems to be on a campaign to delete all historical-critical information. It seems to me that Shirahadasha is more interested in pushing a literalist POV than in encyclopedic content - i.e. that this nomination is in bad faith. The title - Snow White Miriam - is the normal title under which literature discussing this section of the Torah (i.e. the one involving Miriam turning snow white as a result of her comment) is found. Google is hardly an appropriate arbiter of what is or isn't the case - if Shirahadasha would care to look in theology libraries in works where this section of the bible is discussed, you will find the title quite frequently. In addition, I should add that the topic is not viewed as controversial in academic circles; in much the same way as the theory of evolution is not controversial in academic circles (and describing it as such would be utterly inaccurate), but some people (e.g. Shirahadasha) may have an issue with it. --User talk:FDuffy 17:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Richard Elliot Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, at page 76, does indeed mention, under the heading "Snow-white Miriam," this narrative as reflecting "the depths of the antagonism between the priests who identified with Moses {either as their founder or ancestor) and those who identified with Aaron." It also notes that the story "is usually left out of the sunday-school curriculum." Much else said in the current Wikipedia article remains unsourced and should be deleted unless verification can be provided. Given these circumstances, would recommend merging the sourced material with Miriam, making "Snow-White Miriam" a subset of that article, and presenting Friedman's view (as such) in a subsection on Biblical criticism perspectives on the story. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A request for verifiable sources had been made and repeated on the article's talk page for some time. If content is presented without sources, other editors have to attempt to verify it as best they can. Wikipedia makes it the editor's responsibility to supply sources verifying their statements, and in checkable form, with names of books and journal citations. Editors who attempt to check on unsourced statements are providing a service. If the editor's own responsibility to supply sources were complied with, and content kept consistent with the sources supplied, there would be no need for theories about what other editors' motives for fact-checking might be. A review of Wikipedia's WP:No personal attacks policy might be in order. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A number of citations have now been added. The original addition of the fact tag seemed rather gratuitous, so I've removed some. There are a couple still left. Codec 15:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A request for verifiable sources had been made and repeated on the article's talk page for some time. If content is presented without sources, other editors have to attempt to verify it as best they can. Wikipedia makes it the editor's responsibility to supply sources verifying their statements, and in checkable form, with names of books and journal citations. Editors who attempt to check on unsourced statements are providing a service. If the editor's own responsibility to supply sources were complied with, and content kept consistent with the sources supplied, there would be no need for theories about what other editors' motives for fact-checking might be. A review of Wikipedia's WP:No personal attacks policy might be in order. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Richard Elliot Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, at page 76, does indeed mention, under the heading "Snow-white Miriam," this narrative as reflecting "the depths of the antagonism between the priests who identified with Moses {either as their founder or ancestor) and those who identified with Aaron." It also notes that the story "is usually left out of the sunday-school curriculum." Much else said in the current Wikipedia article remains unsourced and should be deleted unless verification can be provided. Given these circumstances, would recommend merging the sourced material with Miriam, making "Snow-White Miriam" a subset of that article, and presenting Friedman's view (as such) in a subsection on Biblical criticism perspectives on the story. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Failing that, merge. Jayjg (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It really needs to be sourced better but this is a biblical episode that has been commented on by a number of people is worth keeping. I'd dispute that there are only 36 entries, a slightly different search got 219,000 entries (admittedly a number of them bible verses - but many of them commentary). JASpencer 07:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To give an example using a known non-event, a search on brown+jersey+reagan", gets nearly 3 million Google hits, but "brown jersey reagan" gets no hits. The quotes make all the difference, and leaving them out makes the search irrelevant. No-one denies the biblical verse with "white as snow" exists, the question is whether a merge of this episode of Miriam's life into Miriam, and perhaps a redirect, would be adequate. --Shirahadasha 03:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- merge and redirect with miriam seems best here Yuckfoo 20:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.