Talk:Gideon

message: I just want to note that the mistaken phrase "Manasseh, son of Joseph with the Midianite Zipporah" first crept into the entry on Oct. 13, 2004.
Since so many other Gideon meanings were cluttering up the article, I put them in the main Gideon entry and removed the redirect. If the main entry had been Gideon (rather than Gideon (Judges)) I probably would have made a disambiguation page instead. I also removed all the people -- none of them have entries and only the former mayor could arguably have been notable, but even then most entries are concerned with full names, not just the first name. FunnyYetTasty 09:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gideon

message: Shouldn't there be some references here? If so, I'll throw up the citations tag. Useless Fodder 03:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there are no answers, I'm putting it up. Useless Fodder 17:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: :It has become questionable to some, as to whether Gideon's killing of the two Midianite kings was within God's will. It can be proven however, that the deaths were in fact supported by refuge before the high priest of the time has died, then he may be killed at any time without the killer being guilty of murderNumbers 35:27pp.
:The Midianite kings were clearly guilty for the deaths of Gideon's brothers at Mt. TaborJudges 8:18-19. Since the kings were not found in one of the cities of refuge, but rather fleeing Gideon's army; then it was Gideon's responsibility, by law, to avenge the deaths of his brothersNumbers 35:19.
I have removed the above section as original research. The laws pertaining to the cities of refuge applied only to Israelite citizens, and so the argument presented is not valid. If someone can find an external, independent source for the claim that the city of refuge laws applied to this case, feel free to restore the paragraph, but in the interests of npov please change "it can be proven" to "there are those who claim" with a citation for your source. Robin S 16:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On The Killing Of The Midianite Kings

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support: I don't see anything else on the disambiguation page that would come anywhere close to being the primary topic. –CWenger (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
I am not prepared to accept that this is the primary topic, especially not without some cursory attempt at providing evidence for the claim.  Powers T 23:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is not that there might be some other single entry that might be primary; in fact, I contend there is no primary topic.  The problem is that no one has provided any evidence that this topic is significantly more likely to be sought than all other uses combined.  Powers T 00:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. My contention is that they're all so relatively unlikely that there's no contest, even adding them all up. I was hoping that you might pick one as relatively likely, to make it easier to understand why you don't agree with this. Andrewa (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And I was hoping that you might provide some actual data indicating that the other uses are all relatively unlikely compared to this one!  My contention is that the large number of other uses demands at least a cursory level of evidence that the chosen topic is primary, and I think that's a perfectly reasonable default view in the absence of data.  Powers T 13:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it too difficult to plug "gideon" into Google yourself? 216.8.133.14 (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And spend hours poring through the results to determine which "Gideon" each result refers to?  No thanks!  I see no reason why I should have to do that when I'm not the one making this proposal!  Powers T 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's just it... it seems such a silly idea to do this legwork when the alternatives seem all so far removed from credibility as to make this actual data superfluous. If you'd select just one of them as one you think might pose a problem, that would give us some chance of giving you a reasonable answer. Andrewa (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But if I pick a single entry, it will be trivial to show that it is, alone, far less likely to be searched for than this article.  That's not the criterion set forth at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; in order to be the primary topic, an article needs to be "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined" to be the topic a reader is likely to be looking for.  I freely concede the first clause -- which is what you're asking me to disprove -- but the second point is a different story.  With twenty-plus items on the disambiguation page, the claim that this use is more likely than all the others combined is, simply, extraordinary.  Do you understand why selecting "just one of them" is not going to resolve anything here?  Powers T 01:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that it would prove nothing more, as you seem to have conceded my point anyway. Andrewa (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a close look at the list, you see that it is flawed anyway. Who on earth needs a disambiguation page to know that George Osborne was born Gideon Osborne? People who'd want to look up George Osborne would search at "Osborne", not "Gideon". Then, there is Gideons International. Fair enough, they are well known, especially thanks to the Beatles's song Rocky Raccoon. But... they are named after Gideon, the biblical figure, aren't they? So their name is a subordinate of the actual Gideon's name, not a substitute! (And when I say subordinate, it is in the litteral sense, since they purposely take him as a model to emulate). As for Gideon v. Antonio, it is a red link, and even if it became blue today, the simple fact that it is red as I write means that it is neither very notable nor much sought after. Etc. --Insert coins (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I conceded your point, yes, but only because you're ignoring the second clause, the one that says this usage has to be more likely than all of the others combined.  If this is the primary topic as you claim, then that second clause must also be satisfied, yet you provide no evidence for it.  Powers T 11:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit I've provided no data. This is subtly different to providing no evidence. I haven't even tried to gather data, because I'm not sure what data would be helpful. See below. Andrewa (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So on what basis do you recommend this move be carried out?  Your personal opinion?  Powers T 14:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

text: All other uses do not "trade in some way on that".  Unless you're suggesting that anyone with the surname Gideon is necessarily named after the biblical figure.  =)  Powers T 13:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am saying that the surname is derived from the Biblical Gideon in a way that the surname Porter is not derived from the beer porter. Thus, the beer cannot claim primary topic status because all other uses are derivative: they're not. There were porters and Porters before there was porter beer. None of the other Gideons would be a Gideon without this Gideon of Biblical fame. —Srnec (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A better example would be Porter (carrier), not Porter (beer), because that meaning is the origin of the surname.  But note that Porter (carrier) is not the primary topic, and neither should Gideon (biblical figure) automatically be so.  Powers T 03:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure the surname doesn't come from this? Srnec (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but either way the point stands.  We don't determine primary topic based on etymology.  Powers T 16:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet that's not quite what I'm saying we should do, is it? That really only deals with my point (b) above, not (a), (c) and (d), nor with them all taken together, as they are meant to be. I'd prefer you deal with the issues of recentism, educational value and "vital article" status that are mentioned at the guideline I cited. Srnec (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think recentism is at issue here; that admonition is meant to protect against a topic from popular culture being seen as primary due to modern media coverage.  (If anything, the opposite problem applies; it almost seems like you're saying Gideon should be the primary topic due to antiquity!)  Educational value is hard to judge; given, however, that this article has no sources, and addresses a mythological figure who is only a minor figure in the Bible and not one who is central to either the Christian or Jewish narrative, it doesn't seem like the educational value is very high.  "Vital article" status is irrelevant since none of the topics on the disambiguation page is a vital article AFAIK.  Powers T 13:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Seems like the connection between the Biblical Gideon and the Bible-distributing group should be mentioned in this article. Surely it's among the most notable things about him. Nareek (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gideons International 

message: As it stood, this article gave etymologies where Gideon and Jerubbaal based on likely mistaken identification from the notorious Strong's Concordance. I've added notes on later scholarship's disagreements with Strong, and I've stuck that in its own section so as not to clutter up the lead with arguments about etymology.Alephb (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Strong's Concordance