Jump to content

Talk:Rachel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

My philosophical commentary is lengthy, so I'll just attach it here as a link http://www.flickr.com/photos/ngaur/485268218/ From a wiki-bureaucracy's point of view though the issue is that Rachel should more appropriately be handled as for example John. The person who "vandalised" this page in the past few hours was in my opinion well justified in doing so. It looks like someone has periodically removed the content of this talk page, which I find rather disappointing. Ngaur 9:48 am, 6 May 2006 (AEST)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.57.209.119 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandalisim editing

[edit]

The following lines I suspect of being fraud edits and not correct. Could someone more knowledgeble than I follow up and check these out please? In the section entitled "Motherhood": "He loved Rachel more than Leah and wanted to knock her up real bad, he did." I don't believe that this would be a translated quote from the Hebrew text. In the section entitled "Rivalry with Leah": "In order to ensure her marriage to Jacob, Rachel created a shenk using the pelvic bone of a cow and then used it to stab Leah in the stomach. Rachel used the body to create a glorious feast for Jacob on their wedding night." I have never been taught such a thing in bible studies. I think that this is rather blatant crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.66.144.98 (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is posting a historical depictions of rachel and is insinuating that she is a black woman without any historical evidence, its historical revisionism. they appear to be using depictions from the ethiopian church which are not historical depictions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.20.138.74 (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sentence that doesn't parse

[edit]

The second-to-last sentence in the section about Rachel's death doesn't make sense and has incorrect grammar. I can't even figure out what it's supposed to be saying so I can fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.229.242 (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nonsensical dates

[edit]

"Rachel was born in the year 1514 BCE and died in the year 1552 BCE at the very young age of 36" So, she was born 38 years after she died (at the age of 36)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.83.80 (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any source for the dates, so I removed the years and her age. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. The neutrality basis of the request is misplaced. NPOV interfaces with article titles but not in the way suggested below (e.g, when choosing descriptive titles [where the world has not made the judgment for us] we must choose a NPOV title). Whether this is the primary topic is based on both evidence, common sense and our own judgment; neutrality has little to do with the issue. The fact that this is about a religious figure is irrelevant. The same considerations would apply if this was about widgets. That thought process is to determine whether a large portion of those who navigate to "Rachel," standing alone, are seeking this topic rather than another to maximize the principle of least astonishment and least complication in reaching the topic they expect to land at. The evidence presented below is that only a small number of people who land at Rachel click through to the dab page and that a much larger number of internal incoming links for Rachel are to this topic. In fact, this article gets about 800 hits per day, while the dab page gets about 25 hits per day and the name page gets about 70 and there's no way all those visits to those two pages are going to be incoming from the hatnotes on this article. A conservatively low 8.5:1 ratio, but probably significantly higher, certainly meets the test for a primary topic. As for the idea that many people seeking a particular Rachel with a last name are going to think they are going to reach that topic by typing in just Rachel, it has no traction—we should not be arguing that a large percentage of our readers are utter morons, which is the only way that could be true. The content of the dab page itself shows that there are few topics that any person would think would be at Rachel standing alone, and none have anywhere near the primacy of this topic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel → Rachel (Old Testament) — The English Wikipedia is a global project which means that it will be utilized by users from diverse backgrounds. To make the article for "Rachel" the character from the Old Testament is a violation of WP:NPOV as it allows the WP to make a subjective decision about the nature of what a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is. To assume that this character is the primary topic means to assume that everyone using it will be working within the framework of the Old Testament or that this is the primary center of discussion for this name. In other words to perpetuate a particular point of view from a religious perspective.

The rules for "Primary Topic" state that the subject is: "– much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box." It is entirely arbitrary to assume that the search for "Rachel" would have been for the character. Indeed, "Primarytopic" also states, "There are no absolute rules for determining which topic is most likely to be sought by readers; decisions are made by discussion between editors." Rachel (disambiguation) is the best form of WP:NPOV for the article Rachel. Or Rachel (given name) would also suffice. Thank you, -Classicfilms (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "To make the article for 'Rachel' the character from the Old Testament is a violation of WP:NPOV as it allows the WP to maek a subjective decision about the nature of what a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is." This makes no sense. First and foremost, WP:NPOV has very little bearing on how we choose to disambiguate article titles; chosen disambiguators must be neutral (thus, no Rachel (dumb-looking haircut) or Rachel (fictional character from the Bible)), but the decision as to which article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is necessarily exempt from such concerns. Were that not the case, we could have no primary topics at all, and every title with more than one meaning would go to a disambiguation page. We have to make a subjective decision sometimes, for the good of our readers. Powers T 23:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the point here. You said: "decision as to which article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is necessarily exempt from such concerns." Nothing in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC makes such a distinction. In addition, you said, "We have to make a subjective decision sometimes, for the good of our readers." Wikipedia:Five pillars makes it clear that this isn't the case. Nothing in WP rules supports this distinction. WP:NPOV is thus best satisfied by making no distinction, by choosing either Rachel (given name) or Rachel (disambiguation) to be the first point of entry into the name. Either choice satisfied WP policies. As the article stands, my question would be, "why" is the article "Rachel" defined in the current way? -Classicfilms (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I altered the suggested disamb. for the proposed move and am frankly open to any other suggestions. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says: "There are no absolute rules for determining which topic is most likely to be sought by readers; decisions are made by discussion between editors" -- that shows that there is no perfectly objective way to determine the primary topic; some subjectivity must come into play. The second pillar of WP:5P refers to facts within article content, not to the naming of articles. What part of the second pillar do you feel could even remotely apply to whether or not the Biblical figure is the primary topic for the name "Rachel"? On the contrary, the recent similar move request at Talk:Abraham was defeated overwhelmingly, and I see no reason why this one is any different. Powers T 13:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"There are no absolute rules for determining which topic is most likely to be sought by readers; decisions are made by discussion between editors." Precisely. There isn't really a solid reason that the point of entry for "Rachel" should be the figure from the Old Testament. As for the second pillar, there is an entire section dedicated to the fact that the naming of articles falls under NPOV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming
As for other articles, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists should be kept in mind. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "other stuff exists" fallacy should not be used as a cudgel to eliminate the importance of precedent. Prior discussions can certainly inform current ones, and that's no violation of the WP:OTHERSTUFF fallacy. As for the passage from WP:NPOV, that is referring to the words used in the article title. There is no dispute that this article's proper title is "Rachel"; the question is whether to disambiguate it from other articles titled "Rachel". WP:NPOV addresses the base name, not the presence or absence of a disambiguator. Powers T 17:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A comment about the target page name: there are a couple of patterns already in use, recommending target page name Rachel (Biblical figure) or Rachel (Bible). 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rachel (Bible) is a good suggestion as it is an existing redirect. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There may be no one other article with as many incoming links, but that does not make a default primary topic. I see no primary topic here. The given name is very popular and there are a huge number of articles about women named Rachel. The disambiguation page gets a lot of hits compared to the article at Rachel, despite there being extra hatnotes. I have removed the extra hatnotes to give a clearer view of how many readers want some other topic than Rachel of the Old Testament. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By those page view numbers, Rachel (disambiguation) is getting 3.5% as many views as Rachel; that is far more views than normal for a disambiguation page related to a clear primary topic. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 05:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no magic number defining what the percentage should be. Your numbers imply 96.5% of users find what they're looking for when they get the Biblical figure article. That's a very good primary topic. --JaGatalk 10:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those numbers show that 3.5% of readers on Rachel leave via the hatnote to the disambiguation page. Results of some prior page moves show that readers who leave via the hatnote are a small minority of readers who don't want to be there in the first place. See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Precedent?. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Popularity contests aside (and it would be *** if we were taking into account all people whose first name is Rachel, but are normally known by their full name), does the prevalence of the name Rachel not already prove that the Old Testament figure is the primary topic? Surely it didn't come out of the blue, did it? That has nothing to do with POV. Cavila (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the point made by 69.3.72.249 - just because someone accessed the article does not mean it was the article s/he was looking for. WP:NPOV is quite clear: "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral point of view. An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view." To equate the main article "Rachel" with anyone or anything but either the disamb. page or the article on the name itself is to offer a viewpoint. The goal of the Wikipedia is not a popularity contest - from WP:Five Pillars - "We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view." -Classicfilms (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on missing the point completely! First, you could have fooled me if I were so ignorant to believe that 'primary topic' equalled 'most important topic', but if that were your intention, then please read my comment again. Second, why would only "a small minority of readers who don't want to be there [the Rachel article]" argue in your favour? I think you just shot yourself in the foot. Cavila (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please observe Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I think my point is pretty clear. The WP strives for WP:NPOV. That is what either the disambiguation page or the name page offer. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I caused you any stress, but personal attack? Oh well. Cavila (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate it. I did take "if I were so ignorant to believe" etc. as one but am much more interested in debating the topic at hand than anything else. At this point we should probably just agree that we disagree and see where consensus takes us. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Primary topic

[edit]

The above requested move, not carried out, hangs on the question whether this biblical Rachel is the clear primary topic. The closing editor concludes that the page view data support this Rachel as the primary topic. For a more general discussion of interpreting the page view data, see this. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

[edit]

Currently the article states that Rachel was born on 11 Cheshvan 1553 BC. Is this right, and when did she die? Might it be better to date by decceinal or century?93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced it with "c. 1553 BC". I note that Jacob's birth is given "c. 2000 BC". StAnselm (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be better to remove all dates, unless there are sources for them?93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I definitely think that unsourced "facts" need to be removed, such as date of birth. Nothing in scripture supports any definite date. Bwryan2006 (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was she a real person?

[edit]

I understand that scholarly consensus is that Rachel never existed. Is this right? At the moment the article includes nothing questioning her existence, nor does it include references to biblical scholarship. In short, despite being the primary article for "Rachel", this article is based largely on scriptural sources. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added "Many Biblical scholars doubt that these stories reflect any actual persons or happenings - see The Bible and History." to the lede to clarify this matter.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the statement. I note, among other things, that The Bible and history doesn't mention Rachel. Moreover, it doesn't suggest the consensus you mention, but attributes it to the Biblical minimalism school. StAnselm (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism

[edit]

I note the brief "chapter" in the article about how Rachel is treated in Islam There should also be a "chapter" in the article about how she is viewed in Judaism as well. Rachel is a highly venerated figure in the Jewish religion. The article should discuss the devotion that she receives from Jewish people.--Splashen (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 April 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There are significant arguments in opposition to the move request that appear supported by policy, specifically WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– There doesn’t seem to be a primary topic between the biblical figure and the name. A search shows that the name seems to be more prominent. Interstellarity (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – MaterialWorks 11:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The issue with the name being more prominent the way you've determined it is that you're comparing every single use of Rachel, combined, to one figure. Rachel is a very common name that appears all over the internet, but just referring to random people named Rachel, and has no bearing on which topic the reader expects when they search for Rachel. When you search for a common name in an encyclopedia, you're probably looking for a proper noun, or at the very least, a noun, and we as a website are very weird for having articles like the. I hope this argument makes sense, I feel it doesn't. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All of the other uses of "Rachel" are followed by a qualifier, including Rachel (given name). Why not do the same here? -- Jaireeodell (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If you use the search bar to look up names such as Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah - just to name a few - the result of the search defaults to the Biblical figure. The same is the case for Rachel, and none of those pages specify that the reader is specifically reading the article pertaining to the Biblical character. There is no additional qualifier. However, their disambiguation pages do just that--the very first line on the page makes reference to the Biblical figure (again, as is the case for Rachel here). No need to do it again for the page's title. — That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interstellarity is proposing that if you were to type Rachel into the search bar, you would go straight to the DAB. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[Support(?)] - Oh, okay. For whatever reason, that wasn't clear from the description for me. I guess I'm scatterbrained today. In that case, a search for "Rachel" should default to the DAB page, with the Biblical figure being the first instance mentioned on that DAB page. Don't know how cleanly that fits into oppose/support, but that's my stance on it. Maybe @Interstellarity can clarify? Again, it's probably just me not being able to think straight. — That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 15:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@That Coptic Guy: Hi, the question is whether the biblical figure or the given name is the primary topic. I think they can both be contenders for the primary topic, so targeting it to the dab page would be useful. Interstellarity (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have an article about the name itself, but most people searching for someone called Rachel will include that person's surname. The article on the biblical figure gets six times as many pageviews as that one. Now, maybe I would be looking for 10x for a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC argument, but it is also worth considering that the given name, as a given name, is derived from the biblical figure. There are also a number of things on the disambiguation page known simply by the name "Rachel", but none of them come close to challenging the biblical figure. StAnselm (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the given name list even gets up to that many views is actually a lot given that we've hidden it two clicks away. When we actively steer user traffic away from a topic, we can't really act surprised that it doesn't get a lot of traffic. --Joy (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The hatnote is low in the top list of outgoing clicks - 328 out of 22.6k (~1.5%) isn't convincing by itself. It is however noticable that even a fictional character (Green) has larger readership (0.8k/day) than the biblical figure (0.7k/day), while the '68 drama is also comparable (0.3k/day). The overall body of people named Rachel, with prominent examples of Weisz (12k/day), McAdams (10k/day), Zegler (9k/day) and a pretty huge long tail, is indicative of the fact that the average English reader probably does not associate the term Rachel mainly with the biblical figure to the extent required by the WP:PTOPIC guideline.
I don't agree with Snowmanonahoe's assertion that readers are not expecting to see the whole body of topics named Rachel when they look for the term in an encyclopedia, I don't think there's any proof for that and it seems implausible that readers go to a general compendium of knowledge about a known generic term but then expect to be short-circuited to one specific topic.
I don't think it would harm the readers if we showed them a list, and kept this prominent mononymous use at or near the top, and then came back to the stats a few months later to verify if the navigation patterns are fine. --Joy (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It is however noticable that even a fictional character (Green) has larger readership (0.8k/day) than the biblical figure (0.7k/day)" Captain obvious. The fictional character was one of the most prominent figures in a hit sitcom with enduring popularity, and inspired the Rachel, "widely considered to be one of the most famous hairstyles in history, having been constantly emulated by millions of women worldwide and remaining popular for over 20 years since its debut. " Also the character has led to an increased popularity for the name Rachel as mentioned in the character's main article: "Several baby name books and websites commonly associate the name "Rachel" with the character." By comparison, the mythological character from Genesis is a relatively minor figure, with barely any impact on Christian iconography. Dimadick (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, I didn't want this argument to come close to focusing on a relatively recent matter. The list of Rachels from the 20th century that predate Friends yet garner significant reader interest is simply huge. Just one early example is a featured article on Rachel Carson (also 0.8k/day and over 100 entries into the ordered mass views list). --Joy (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These others are relatively minor figures in the Bible and not as dominant in general culture. Rachel is much higher in prominence, on par with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca, which are the primary topics for those single names. The exception on your list is Joseph (Genesis) - but this is because there are some other very prominent cultural figures widely known and referred to by the single name "Joseph", notably Saint Joseph (husband of the Mary, mother of Jesus). But there is no other "Rachel" or "St. Rachel" in cultural memory other than this one. Walrasiad (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're basing this claim of dominance in general culture on. Abraham likely, what with the concept of Abrahamic religions etc, probably Isaac because of the overwhelmingly well-known story of the binding of Isaac, but for all the others it seems to me their main notability for the average reader is bound to the general narrative of which they are part, rather than them as individuals. IOW I think we're taking the primary topic guideline too far in most of these cases. --Joy (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Relisting to get a clearer consensus. – MaterialWorks 11:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Bible has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 11:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Judaism has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 11:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@EggRoll97: because this was a highly contentious RM with an exact tie headcount, I ask you provide a rationale for your close. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowmanonahoe: I've added rationale to the top. EggRoll97 (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the rationale is really strong but the closer is still correctly assessing that there is no consensus at this point. We should continue the discussion and try to verify some of these assertions of long-term significance, but also examine if the context should be changed. --Joy (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could just drop the issue per WP:STICK. The closer certainly did not assess that there was no consensus at this point; "not moved" means there is a consensus: see WP:THREEOUTCOMES. StAnselm (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Joy that I find their rationale weak. I didn't continue questioning them though, because I didn't see the point of nitpicking a not moved to no consensus unless someone else had an issue with the close. Someone kind of did so, so @EggRoll97: Why do believe that the supporters' arguments are not supported by policy, or what other reason do you have that the supporters' arguments are weaker than the opposers? Snowmanonahoe (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that escalated quickly. I think we should try to spend our energy engaging in consensus-building discussions, not this. I hope my previous comment in the discussion didn't provoke you into this, in retrospect it was a bit negative. --Joy (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Snowmanonahoe: @Joy: I'm mostly drawing from the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC arguments raised, and support of that argument through specific points raised by User:Walrasiad about the prevalence of the biblical figure and User:StAnselm. Essentially, from what I could tell, the arguments in opposition were supported more heavily by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC than any particular argument in support. I'm not sure if I've worded that right, so please let me know if that still sounds confusing. EggRoll97 (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I also thought those two editors made the most coherent arguments, which is also why I responded to them at the time. Fundamentally, the issue here might be that it's hard to assess the claims of long-term significance without clearer evidence. Most of this article seems like a retelling of the story supported by primary and tertiary sources. It would have been better if it was more obviously supported by references to secondary sources which provide an in-depth analysis of the long-term significance. --Joy (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

followup to move discussion

[edit]

https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Rachel in October '23 indicates the generic hatnote got 212 clicks and the given name one got 162, total 374.

Since then I also noted Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 55#effects of WP:NAMELIST on navigation outcomes for anthroponymy entries. --Joy (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the clickstream archive: 

clickstream-enwiki-2023-08.tsv:Rachel   Rachel_(disambiguation) link    340
clickstream-enwiki-2023-08.tsv:Rachel   Rachel_Zegler   other   17
clickstream-enwiki-2023-08.tsv:Rachel   Rachel_(given_name)     other   10

clickstream-enwiki-2023-09.tsv:Rachel   Rachel_(disambiguation) link    269
clickstream-enwiki-2023-09.tsv:Rachel   Rachel_McAdams  other   11
clickstream-enwiki-2023-09.tsv:Rachel   Rachel_(given_name)     other   10

clickstream-enwiki-2023-10.tsv:Rachel   Rachel_(disambiguation) link    212
clickstream-enwiki-2023-10.tsv:Rachel   Rachel_(given_name)     link    162

clickstream-enwiki-2023-11.tsv:Rachel   Rachel_(given_name)     link    303
clickstream-enwiki-2023-11.tsv:Rachel   Rachel_(disambiguation) link    96
clickstream-enwiki-2023-11.tsv:Rachel   Rachel_Zegler   other   18

clickstream-enwiki-2023-12.tsv:Rachel   Rachel_(given_name)     link    315
clickstream-enwiki-2023-12.tsv:Rachel   Rachel_(disambiguation) link    101

clickstream-enwiki-2024-01.tsv:Rachel   Rachel_(given_name)     link    293
clickstream-enwiki-2024-01.tsv:Rachel   Rachel_(disambiguation) link    82
clickstream-enwiki-2024-01.tsv:Rachel   Rachel_McAdams  other   21

On October 15, I added the given name link to the hatnote, and we can see that the numbers are hovering around the same level before and after - they inched up a bit, but that could also be because of the inherent prominence of the hatnote. The conclusion is that most of the people clicking the hatnote links are in fact interested in the given name link.

https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Rachel_%28given_name%29 in turn tells us there's 5.2k incoming views there in January '24. Since it's a title formatted with parentheses and somewhat long, it's unlikely that most of those readers arrived there by typing it in, rather the search engines figured out the reader intent and brought them there. We can also see that in the other-search statistic which is identifiable for ~73% of those views. From that point on, we could identify only a small portion of further clicks, though we do see 674, scattering over 23 destinations. The top destination is the biblical figure, but with just 151 clickstreams. If we estimate that that comes mainly from the ~73% of the organic search traffic, the ratio is 151 : 3796 or ~4%. That's not a lot for a term linked prominently in the lead sentence, in the infobox picture caption, and at the top of the list of people.

Since then, we also had a RM at Talk:Charlotte, and several others, where we observed a similar pattern. Over there, it was a case of a primary redirect, so it was more measurable (we could distinguish the traffic for just "term" lookups from the various organic traffic in the presumed primary topic meaning of the term). Before the discussion, we could measure 20-25% of people coming in through the simple "term" lookup going for the hatnote, while 75-80% readers ostensibly stayed at the presumed primary topic. After the discussion and the move to a disambiguation list, we measured only ~20% of the people actually clicking to get to the previously presumed primary topic.

I think it would be a good idea to temporarily vacate WP:MALPLACED here and move this topic to a disambiguated title, and also disambiguate the incoming links to it, and then observe these statistics in the same way for a few months. --Joy (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on resting place

[edit]

What should come after "Bethlehem" in the "resting place" field of the infobox?

  1. Israel
  2. Palestine (wikilinked to State of Palestine)
  3. Palestine (no wikilink)
  4. Nothing

StAnselm (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the page for Bethlehem refers to it as a Palestinian city in the lead as well as the infobox, I think Palestine as a wikilink would be the most appropriate. LynxesDesmond 🐈 22:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a Palestinian enclave. Was it part of a Jewish kingdom at the time of her burial? Although that would not be the same as modern Israel. Senorangel (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Was it part of a Jewish kingdom at the time of her burial?" No. Most estimates place Rachel and most other figures of the Book of Genesis in the 2nd millennium BC. The first Jewish kingdom was probably the united monarchy of the Kingdom of Israel, which is typically dated to the 11th and the 10th century BC. Dimadick (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What RS do we have covering her resting place? MaximusEditor (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably just "Bethlehem" alone is fine in my opinion. Definitely shouldn't link to the modern day state of Palestine or to the modern day state of Israel. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Could also say "present day Palestine". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @IOHANNVSVERVS above. The primary goal is to unambiguously indicate a geographic location, and that is addressed by using a link to the Bethlehem article. Fundamentally, attempting to further assign this location to any present-day authority is out of scope for this article. Therefore, if this assignment is not trivial or is a controversial matter I'd avoid attempting it entirely. eyal (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel&oldid=1208034919"