Talk:Behnam, Sarah, and the Forty Martyrs

Requested move 24 June 2020

 * 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: No consensus  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Behnam, Sarah, and the Forty Martyrs → History of Behnam and Sarah – This article discusses more about the text rather than the martyrs themselves. The History of Behnam and Sarah also seems to be the known primary source for their lives. Also, any veneration content can still be dedicated here. Jerm (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose; I personally thought the article was more focused on the martyrs themselves when I wrote it as only the first half of the hagiography section is about the text itself. I was completely unaware of the History of Behnam and Sarah article, which seems largely concerned with the narrative of the hagiography, in contrast to the commentary or details provided in the hagiography section in this article. The History of Behnam and Sarah also isn't the only source on the saints' lives as other manuscripts are mentioned in the article. If there was more content on the text itself, I would be inclined to agree, but as of right now I don't think that's the case. Mugsalot (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Biography section of the article is based soley on History of Behnam and Sarah, and the Hagiography section is the study of the text, authorship, date of composition etc. Jerm (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the biography section is ultimately based on that text, but the focus of that section is obviously the saints' biography. The relics section is focused on the saints. Relatively speaking, as I said, the content focused on the text itself is smaller than the content focused on the saints themselves, so there is no need for a move as of now. If you could find more content that discusses the text itself, I would agree with you, but right now, as at the History of Behnam and Sarah article, it's largely focused on the saints' lives. Mugsalot (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So you acknowledge the fact that the saints biography is based solely on the text, and briefly mentioning relics and a veneration in not sufficient for biography article if the biography of the saints is based on the text making the text the primary source. Jerm (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's clear we're not going to agree. You seem to be under the impression this article is focused on a single text which is barely mentioned or discussed, whilst I know this article is focused on the saints' lives. The hagiography section alone discusses the text, and thus it's not sufficient to move an article to the name of that text on that basis. These pages don't get much attention so if you would like more editors to comment on this move I would suggest advertising it somewhere. Mugsalot (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The biography section clearly starts with “According to their hagiography” and does not deviate from discussing about the text which is the WP:PRIMARYSOURCE for the lives of the saints & clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of this article, not the saints themselves. Jerm (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, no single source provided in the article states the History of Behnam and Sarah is the primary source, it is merely established that it is the oldest. The simple statement, 'according to their hagiography' in no way suggests that single text is the focus of this article, it's basic parlance for an article about saints, and its a wording I chose instead of legend because of the negative connotations. If you're pointing to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, there's only 15 results for "History of Behnam and Sarah" on Google, whilst there's 1,160,000 results for "Mar Behnam", which suggests the saints themselves are of greater significance. I would like to reiterate, please find more content on the text to support this move. Mugsalot (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course the sources in the article are not going to present anything when none of them even have links to satisfy WP:V. The only sources that have links are neamericandiocese.org which is a religious Orthodox website that practically reiterates the narrative of History of Behnam and Sarah but without secondary sources to support it, and syriaca.org which doesn't discuss anything about the martyrs other then the history their names, not their lives. And in response to your Google search, "Mar Behnam" gets 554,000 results but are mainly about Mar Behnam Monastery which ISIS destroyed. And even though "History of Behnam and Sarah" gets a 162,000 results, the results are precisely about the text and the academic sources that discuss it. Jerm (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Most if not all of the sources are available on Google Books, so feel free to peruse them at your leisure. Neither of those websites mention the text at all, how can that suggest to you the text is the main focus? I don't see how you got that many results for "History of Behnam and Sarah" as it only gets 15 when I search. Even the single source you provided at History of Behnam and Sarah does not state it is the only source on their lives. You might care to look at Behnam under attestations, where it clarifies that the History of Behnam and Sarah is only one of six texts on the saints' lives. It is quite simple, you have added nothing to the article, nor is there anything already there, that suggests that single text is the article's focus. Mugsalot (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not going to establish your argument. That is your responsibility, and you have failed to present any other historical sources that discuss the lives of Behnam and Sarah outside of History of Behnam and Sarah. Jerm (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not my argument to make, you're the one asserting it's the primary source. I have already read the sources, if History of Behnam and Sarah was the only source, which it isn't, as I've just demonstrated with Behnam and the mention of other manuscripts in the article, then I would have written that in the article. I have already added to the article the mention in the Martyrology of Rabban Sliba. I would suggest you actually put some effort into the article other than trying to slap the name of your article onto this one. Mugsalot (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In the link, Behnam does not introduce any other texts nor does he mention any by name. Those links under "Attestations" are other manuscripts of the same text such as "Behnam and his Companions" via The Garb of Being: Embodiment and the Pursuit of Holiness in Late Ancient Christianity. And being briefly mentioned in a martryology book does not define their biography. Jerm (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is focused on the saints' lives and you have made no effort to add any content to change that. There's no reason for the article to be moved. Mugsalot (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is focused on the text History of Behnam and Sarah per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The lives of the saints are based on the text via WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. You have failed again to demonstrate that their lives also rely on other primary sources. The only thing you've done is note that they are briefly mentioned in martyrologies and other minor text that don't present anything new about them. Jerm (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No. The saints themselves are of greater significance than that single text, which has little to no presence in the article. This article details all aspects of the saints, and should not be limited to that single text briefly mentioned. There's no consensus for a move. Mugsalot (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)