Talk:Jesus walking on water

Requested move - common term

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Reopening with new suggested target. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Jesus& → Jesus walking on the sea – Common term. The present article name is not precise:
 * The proposed name meets the five naming criteria: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency.
 * The Bible does not say that Jesus walked on the water, but it does say that Peter "walked on the water" (Matthew 14:29). Different terminology is used to describe what Jesus was doing. In John 6:19 "they see Jesus walking on the sea ". John 6:18 says "the sea arose by reason of a great wind that blew", so the sea surface was not calm water – the ship was "tossed with waves" (Matt.14:24) – obviously there were high sea conditions and "boisterous" wind.
 * (Sidenote: When Peter climbed down out of the back of the ship to go to Jesus, there would have been relatively calm water in the wake of the ship which also protected him from the head-wind. Mark says Jesus would have passed by them, so by the time Peter climbed down, Jesus was no longer behind the ship, but toward one side, so Peter had to leave the protected area, and was unable to deal with the wind.)


 * In sum: all three gospel writers say Jesus was walking on the sea . Common terminology. (See comparison table in article.) —Telpardec TALK  12:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, though the present title is bad. The "Sea of Galilee", aka Lake Tiberias is a freshwater lake, and the implication that the incident took place on the ocean should be avoided. Exploring google confirms that "walk" is far more common in verb forms such as "walking" or "walks" than the noun form here. So we should move to something like: "Jesus walking on water", "Jesus walks on water", +- a "the". Google shows that "water" is more common than "sea". (later) Support Jesus walking on water. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, although I agree that your premise is grammatically correct to the written word, the common term in Christianity (in my experience at innumerable churches) is "water". Thus the more recognizable term, which is key for Wiki, would be water. Ckruschke (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * Oppose: per reasons mentioned above. Wikipedian77 (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support/propose Jesus walking on water. Red Slash 05:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ckruschke, current version is far more commonly used and understood.Boogerpatrol (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The exact current title is very rare & not very idiomatic. There seems potential consensus here to move to a more usual Jesus walking on water or similar. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you're getting that as we primarily have Oppose votes so far (well I guess you do have two !votes for "walking" assuming your vote changes). The "sea" proposal is not a good one one IMHO, and I'd still argue that the current title is best, as this is an individual, miraculous act per the gospel account, a distinctly singular walk, not multiple acts of walking.Boogerpatrol (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I say above "So we should move to something like: "Jesus walking on water", "Jesus walks on water", +- a "the"". Wikipedian77 says "per reasons mentioned above" which may include this. The present title does not meet WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We agree on "Jesus" and "water", my reading of COMMONNAME doesn't seem to address choice of verb conjugate vs. noun form (still think walk is a bit better in this case) so not sure how it fails that guideline...Boogerpatrol (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A name is often a whole phrase, as here. We shouldn't be making stuff up, like whoever created this title did. "Choice" should be avoided, except between equally common alternatives found in sources. No one has yet attempted a full analysis, though my quick scan of several variants gave the results I mention above. Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose the "sea" in question is a very small body of water, smaller than many rivers is breadth. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose the proposal as nonidiomatic and dependent on primary rather than secondary sources. Support Jesus walking on water as most natural — it best meets the the five naming criteria.  —  AjaxSmack   04:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Move to Jesus walking on water, which is by far the commonest description for this episode. Nobody in common parlance mentions the sea. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

 * 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 moved. WP:NOUN doesn't express a preference for plain nouns over noun phrases, and the proposal has attracted majority support anyway. --BDD (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Jesus& → Jesus walking on water – Reopening the above RM with a new suggested target per consensus during the discussion. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I am personally neutral and uninvolved in the debate for this move, having closed the previous one. I have notified all users who participated in the above debate of the new move request, to enable them to state their views on this. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support per my comments above. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per our earlier discussion above, think the current title is spot on, though it's preferable to the prior "sea" proposal... Boogerpatrol (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support per my comments above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support per my comments above. —  AjaxSmack   02:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support as per above. Red Slash 07:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose – "walk" is a noun; "Jesus walking" is a verb phrase made into a noun phrase. --Article editor (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * this is the crux of why I think the title should remain as is, in the noun form as the specifically notable & singular act...Boogerpatrol (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

Discovery
This is my first eentry to wikipedia so i dont know the format of entering information but i have something important to say shouldn't this article include the fact that there has been discovered a huge pile of rocks very almost reaching the surface of that particular sea, heres my reference: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/04/10/mysterious-stone-structure-discovered-beneath-sea-galilee/) I-copeland (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2013‎


 * I'm not sure this discovery has anything to do with the page unless you are implying this is what Jesus walked on. It would be an interesting coincidence, for those that believe the event is historical, for the rocks to be exactly where he walked. Of course, since the Bible doesn't specify an exact area that He met up with the boat, we of course couldn't connect the two. Also since the Bible says he started out from the shore and walked on the Sea out to the boat, the discovered structure couldn't explain Jesus walking on the water since the structure doesn't also extend from the shore. Ckruschke (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * It doesn't say how near the surface it is, & I think the Sea of Galilee is a lot smaller & shallower now than then. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Another good point. Ckruschke (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

water vs sea
Since this article is discussing a passage from the Bible it should reflect the wording of the Bible and not change what is says to suit current ways of thinking. In particular the the term "Jesus walks on water" is nowhere found in the English Bible's source language, Greek. Most English translations that I am aware of reflect the distinction between sea and water in translating the original. In all passages found in the Greek text where this event in discussed there is a distinction made between Peter walking on water and Jesus walking on the sea (θαλασσης). In the same passage it says the boat was in the midst of the sea (θαλασσης) not water. That the Greek term can be used for a relatively larger body of water is irrelevant since the text uses this terminology over and over in many contexts. The text records in the words of people living at that time that the body of water in which the boat was sailing was called a sea (θαλασσης). The term "Sea of Galilee" (θαλασσαν της γαλιλαιας) is commonly used in the Bible text elsewhere. Those trying to read θαλασσαν as water are making an anachronistic reading of the text to suit a certain viewpoint, that the writers were in correctly using the term sea as it is understood 2000 years later. Also other wikipedia articles refer to the Sea of Galilee, not the water of Galilee. . The article title and internal references should be changed to "Jesus walking on the sea" from "Jesus walking on water" to reflect what the subject matter and the text being discussed actually says. Kellnerp (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * See at least one previous discussion here. These clearly established consensus that "water" is the most common usage, and the one we should use. Note tthat we should generally follow secondary sources rather than primary ones. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)