Category talk:Midian

Are the Categories of Midian, Edom, etc. Torah People?

Introduction

On February 27, 2006 I removed the Category:Torah people and Category:Torah places from the following categories:

• Category:Moab
• Category:Midian
• Category:Edom
• Category:Chaldeans
• Category:Aramaeans
• Category:Ammon

My reasoning was that while each of the articles would properly fall into those categories, the cateories themselves have areas of non-intersection such as Chemosh-nadab for Category:Moab and Jabal al-Lawz for Category:Midian. These were reverted shortly thereafter by Briangotts. Our discussion is transcribed below, and I am requesting further editor opinions one way or the other, as opposed to just getting into an edit war. The comments here would apply to all listed categories, unless specified by the editor.Thank you -- Avi 19:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Initial conversation between Avi and Briangotts

I have reverted your changes to various categories including Category:Moab, Category:Midian, Category:Edom, and others. The category "Torah people" includes both individual people and "peoples" in the sense of ethnic or national groups. Thus it is appropriate to include these various Biblical peoples' categories as subcats even if not every individual item within the subcat is mentioned explicitly in the Torah. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case, the article Midian or the article Edom should be tagged; but not the category. While "Midian" proper may be considered part of Torah people, the entire category should not. -- Avi 02:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please respond, otherwise I will assume you agree with my reasoning and then tag the articles with the categroies and untag the categories. I may poll other editors on this, if so, I will link this to the category talk page. Thank you. -- Avi 16:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Midian is a "Torah people", thus the category should be included. It's not necessary for 100% of the individual items within the category to be expressly mentioned in the Torah. By the same token, Category:Turkic peoples is included in Category:Eurasian nomads, because historically and generally speaking, Turkic people were nomadic and lived in Eurasia. Not every single Turkic nation is currently nomadic. That said, if you wish to poll other members and see what they think, I am not opposed to that course of action. But it should be carried out on as broad a basis as possible (for example, by posting to the Judaism Wikiproject and/or a Bible-studies-related Wikiproject, not just by polling a tiny select group.) Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that Midian is a "Torah people" and that is why the article should be tagged. I do not think that Jabal al-Lawz is a Torah people (it's actually a place). I agree with you that Moab is a "Torah people" and that is why the article should be tagged. I do not think that Chemosh-nadab qualifies as a Torah person. At the risk of being redundant; your argument is exactly 100% correct—for the Midianite or Edomite nation as described in their respective articles. It is not true that Midian is a proper subset, or even a subset, of Torah people. There exits Torah people who are not Midianites and their exists Midan-related articles (both people and places) that are not Torah-related.

However, I think that it would be a good idea to obtain some other comments on this issue. I will be transcribing this to the category talk page of Midian, with the note that this applies to Edom, etc. as well. I think we should continue the discussion there. -- Avi 19:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously we both understand each others' positions on this subject. We appear to have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of categories that is unresolvable. I have placed notices requesting input on the Bible and Judaism Wikiprojects. I'm willing to abide by whatever consensus is ultimately reached. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Vote

(1/6/1) as of 19:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Should the above categories (not articles) be considered subsets of Category:Torah people and Category:Torah places?

Support

1. Support. Moab, Midian, etc. are undisputably "Torah peoples". Placing their respective categories as subcategories of "Torah people" allows users to quickly access articles relating to those people. I don't think it's relevant that not every article in each category is necessarily expressly mentioned in the Torah. They are all at least tangentially relevant. An example: The Mesha Stele, which is within Category:Moab, is not mentioned in the Tanakh. However, it is a useful item in that it mentions various individuals and places that ARE in the Tanakh, and is invaluable in understanding the events outlined in I and II Kings. Likewise, Shasu, which appears in the Moab, Midian, and Edom categories, are not a people specifically mentioned in the Torah but many scholars believe there is a strong connection between the Shasu and many of the ancient people who appear in the Bible. Placing the entire subcategory allows a reader to quickly access this information. It also eliminates the need for many of the individuals listed in each subcategory who ARE mentioned in the Torah (e.g. Hadad ben Bedad or Balak) to be listed within the main "Torah people" category, removing much clutter. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose -- As I describe above. -- Avi 19:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Weak Oppose - I don't see why they should be subcatagories of Torah people and places, especially when there will be use with other catagories not related to Judaism. A good example is Chaldean Catholic Church. PhatJew 19:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose - As Avi clearly stated above, he and Briangotts are basically in agreement that Midian and Moab are Torah people while place names are not. I support listing all the articles about Torah people like Moab and Midian under Category:Torah people, and all the articles about places that are actually mentioned in the Torah (like Mount Sinai) under Category:Torah places. Everything else, like Mesha Stele, Shasu, and Jabal al-Lawz, while very worthwhile for research purposes, should be categorized under some other name like Category:Ancient Israel. It is just not accurate to categorize them under Torah People or Torah Places if they don't appear in the Torah! Yoninah 22:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose -- One should be able to consider articles as belonging to Category:Torah people and Category:Torah places. However, one should not consider a category e.g. like that of Edom as being a subset, nor of Category:Torah people and nor of Category:Torah places. Edom could include articles on the Malkhout Edom (which is nor a place nor people found in the Torah), the exile of Rome... hasofer 23:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I came to this discussion through the message on the Wikiproject Bible page. I agree with Avi and Yoninah. Also, there is already a Category:Ancient Near East, which the Midian, etc cats are sub-cats of, so research from a historical point of view could come through there and research from a Biblical/Torah point of view could come through the articles. --G Rutter 12:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose (if the voting is still ongoing). I also came to this discussion through the message on the Wikiproject Bible page. Articles about people and articles about places should be kept seperate, so should categories, and things like the Mesha Stele are neither people nor places nor torah. Clinkophonist 18:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. My opinion on this was solicited, but I really don't have one. - Jmabel | Talk 17:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Results

While it is an unfortunately small sample, I will be removing the Torah/Tanakh places tags from the above categories. Thank you all for commenting. -- Avi 21:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I obviously am coming in too late, but I always thaught the way it turned out is the way it should be. And well done for getting it sorted in this manner. Agathoclea 21:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)