Talk:Rachel (given name)
 | This set index article does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Finnish
editWhat is the source for "Raecha" being a Finnish version of the name? I am almost 100% sure that it is not current Finnish language name. 2001:999:10:3F02:788B:CDEA:FF0E:13A3 (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Removed. Loew Galitz (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Popularity
editI am baffled with restoring of invalid ref "behingdthename".
The ref to ssa.gov does not support the judgemet statement "among the most well-used" . THe reverting editor wrote in edti summary " A search of the name on the Social security site shows the name has appeared in the top 250 names for decades." -- this is original research, not allowable in wikipedia. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I also removed two more footnotes that similarly do not directly say any judgement about name popularity. Any consulions from various statistics/census tables are wikipedian's original research. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- When the name is included among the top 1,000 most used names for a certain year in a government source, how is that not proof that it is well used? Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Very easy: I don't think that top 1000 means well used. And wikipedian's opinion does not count. You have to supply the reference that state4s a judgement of popularity: wikipedian's judgement is irrelevant, per WP:NOR. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Your recent revert makes next to no sense. The government sites for the UK and Ireland all cite Rachel as a name that has been among the top 250 or 500 names in recent years, exactly the position it has in the U.S. The France stats show it was in the top 100 names in 1980. I had changed the subhead to “Usage”, which you also reverted. As to reporting me, you are also engaged in reverting the cited material I have added, which I oppose. Let’s try working it out instead. I worded it to show the name is well used in these countries and cited government statistics. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Repeating: "The name has been in regular use", "among the most well-used", etc. are your judgments based on the tables you cited. Wikipedian's conclusions are original research not admissible in wikipedia. I do understand your intention. I think the best you can do with these sources is to cite what these sources actually say: something like: "During 1980-1990 the name was among 10,000 most popular in Zimbabwe". Loew Galitz (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- I’ve tried to avoid giving exact stats for these articles because the article will then have to be updated constantly with the changing statistics. It is accurate to say that the name has ranked among the top one thousand names in all of these countries in the last 20, 30, 40 years, etc. if you want, I can certainly cite every single government site directly but it will be far too wordy to say where it ranked in each country in every single year. I also intend to add some information about its increase in usage among Christian families after the Protestant Reformation. I have published books on my shelves that say as much and I will have to look up that material for the citations. They also list the name variants included in the article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- You dont have to give exact numbers. Wikipedians are allowed to summarize the sources, but not to make conslusions, in this case about the degree of popularity and usage. Of course, if there is a commonly accepted "scale of popularity" which says that names in range 1-00 are "most popular" 1-100 are "very popular" and "100-500" are "popular", then no problem. In fact, if the name "Rachel" was, say 42th, then calling it popular would not raise a "red flag". But if its rank is 250, then when you call it popular, an immediate question is "who says so"? Loew Galitz (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- I’ve tried to avoid giving exact stats for these articles because the article will then have to be updated constantly with the changing statistics. It is accurate to say that the name has ranked among the top one thousand names in all of these countries in the last 20, 30, 40 years, etc. if you want, I can certainly cite every single government site directly but it will be far too wordy to say where it ranked in each country in every single year. I also intend to add some information about its increase in usage among Christian families after the Protestant Reformation. I have published books on my shelves that say as much and I will have to look up that material for the citations. They also list the name variants included in the article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Repeating: "The name has been in regular use", "among the most well-used", etc. are your judgments based on the tables you cited. Wikipedian's conclusions are original research not admissible in wikipedia. I do understand your intention. I think the best you can do with these sources is to cite what these sources actually say: something like: "During 1980-1990 the name was among 10,000 most popular in Zimbabwe". Loew Galitz (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Your recent revert makes next to no sense. The government sites for the UK and Ireland all cite Rachel as a name that has been among the top 250 or 500 names in recent years, exactly the position it has in the U.S. The France stats show it was in the top 100 names in 1980. I had changed the subhead to “Usage”, which you also reverted. As to reporting me, you are also engaged in reverting the cited material I have added, which I oppose. Let’s try working it out instead. I worded it to show the name is well used in these countries and cited government statistics. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Very easy: I don't think that top 1000 means well used. And wikipedian's opinion does not count. You have to supply the reference that state4s a judgement of popularity: wikipedian's judgement is irrelevant, per WP:NOR. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Revert war
editPlease stop wholesale reverts. This is a disruption of wikipedia. Please revert only pieces you disagree with.Loew Galitz (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- You ate deleting cited material. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- YOr referennces are invalid I gave my explanations, and I didn't receive valid response. Discussion is not finished, please dont restore quetioned text and dont dselete my valid edits. Loew Galitz (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- See above. Why did you leave the Social Security site and delete the other government statistic sites? Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- BEcause I starte discussion aboutr this site. Loew Galitz (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- See above. Why did you leave the Social Security site and delete the other government statistic sites? Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- YOr referennces are invalid I gave my explanations, and I didn't receive valid response. Discussion is not finished, please dont restore quetioned text and dont dselete my valid edits. Loew Galitz (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- You ate deleting cited material. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Rahel, Jacob's wife
editThere was an act of vandalism done a while ago by @24.52.233.150 when he moved info about Rahel to the list of fictional characters. He thought it would be provocative and funny i guess. For some reason it came unnoticed.
When i decided to move it back, my edit was reversed by @Bookworm857158367.
So yeah, i demand moving her back to her deserved place in the article. Rommmmmka (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)