Talk:Cain and Abel

Is KJV version better in this article?

See [1]. Opinions, editors? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, I meant to write "Thanks for writing a WP:ES" in my edit summary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:06, 15 Marches i 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a KJOM argument. There may be times when there's a good reason it use it, but those are exceptional and I wouldn't use it. Doug Weller talk 21:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I checked the source for the passage from Genesis, and it didn't agree with what was in the article, so I changed it for consistency. Does it seem okay? Also, what does KJOM mean?--FeralOink (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@FeralOink It's the belief that a particular English translation of the Bible has divine approval, or at least sound best: King James Only movement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Video game references (command and conquer)

https://cnc.fandom.com/wiki/Kane https://cnc.fandom.com/wiki/Cain command and conquer Tiberium storyline has references to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.80.53.91 (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello! The threshold for inclusion is that the appearance of (and biblicalness of) C and/or A in this game has been noted in a WP:Reliable source independent of its maker. This excludes usergenerated stuff like wikis (fandom), selfpublished stuff like blogs etc (see WP:USERG and WP:SPS). A decent book, magazine or newssite/paper could be good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

each of his own produce

This information is not precise enough for the lede. Able made a sacrifice of the firstborn of his sheep, which is a meat sacrifice, not produce Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary: "Harvested agricultural goods collectively, especially vegetables and fruit, but possibly including eggs, dairy products and meat; the saleable food products of farms." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are simply mistaken to use Wiktionary to justify the word "produce" here. The import and meaning of Abel's offering cannot be understood unless it's made more clear. Please read this:

Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man." Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. (Genesis 4:1-5)

Read more here: https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1831/cain--abel/ Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

And the body of the article makes that clear. The lead is meant to summarize, and "produce" helps. I don't mind removing "each of his own produce" though, the lead works without it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

If you are willing to remove "each of his own produce" , I ask that you do so. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Done, we'll see if it "sticks". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

"Hevel" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Hevel has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 18 § Hevel until a consensus is reached. J947 † ^edits 03:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Why did God prefer Abel’s sacrifice over Cain’s SeekingMindinMud (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Creating jealousy between two siblings by having a preference seems odd. Shouldn’t God like both sacrifices since they are his children (as we are all)? Does he not love them equally? I’m very curious to find out how God may have been the first motive for the first murder! Peace and love! 🙏🏾❤️ SeekingMindinMud (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:Undue content for the lede.

The recently inserted paragraph primarily consists of speculative interpretations from few scholars and thus not suitable for the lede. The content as it is in the Origins section is ample and satisfactory. StarkReport (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct! There has been repeated disruptive editing by User:IncandescentBliss yesterday (inserting content that is not appropriate for lead, see version diffs) which Gråbergs Gråa Sång had to revert, multiple times! I had to revert again just now. The paragraph about puns and possible etymology is not necessary to "identify the topic" nor to "establish context, explain why the topic is notable" and is NOT part of the most important points or controversies. It belongs in the Etymology section, if anywhere at all.--FeralOink (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

On this [2], I think it's fairly clear that the pun bit doesn't have to be in the WP-lead. On the rest, I can sort of understand the "real-world" aspect being mentioned, but my view is that since the article is about a piece of biblical whatever, that is not necessary to include in the lead either. Ping @Apaugasma if you wish to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I made changes accordingly. A major oversight is that the article doesn't even mention the important part about God putting a mark on Cain's forehead ("the mark of Cain")! And there's no Christian or Jewish interpretation sections, so any emphasis on puns and real-worldness seems WP:UNDUE at this point in the article's development. By the way, you are very patient and tolerant!--FeralOink (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Since there are also separate Cain and Abel articles, it may be debatable what content should go where. Haven't read them. I liked it when there was one article, but that ship has probably sailed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Responding to ping. The current lead is actually too short. I am by no means an expert but even I have heard of interpretations of the story as a symbolic representation of conflict between nomadic and settled lifestyles, and my vague impression is that this does belong somehow, somewhere in the lead. About the speculative etymology (the 'pun') I have no idea; it depends on how speculative it really is among scholars. Of course there are other things too that should be in the lead, like a summary of the legacy and symbolism section.

In general though, the fact that necessary and due sections are missing from an article body should not stop editors from adding something short to the lead. An overwhelming majority of readers only ever look at the lead, and there's nothing wrong with focusing on getting that section reasonably complete first. Establishing what is due or not becomes so much easier when at least one editor has looked at a wide range of sources and has written articles sections article sections of according length. When no one has done that, however, I think it's not a good idea to be too picky.

As an aside, I strongly agree that ideally, Cain and Abel should not exist and we should just have one article Cain and Abel. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I have to disagree on the lead-first thinking. Lead follows body, and should summarize content there, not just repeat it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

It appears that IncandescentBliss has added the same stuff to the lead section of the standalone Cain article[3] I'm inclined to remove it, but curious as to what others think. StarkReport (talk) 03:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I have the same opinion on the pun-thing, and there is for example no mention in the body of that article of "especially the Sumerian myth of the Courtship of Inanna and Dumuzid." Or the pun-thing. I'm not saying the text is wrong, but it fails WP:LEAD as the article is currently written. And even if these things are added to the body, they shouldn't necessarily go in the WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Apaugasma, yes, you're right: "the fact that necessary and due sections are missing from an article body should not stop editors from adding something short to the lead." I struck that out above. Tell me, why do you think the article lead is now too short please? If you would prefer to resolve the merging issue first, that's okay. Also, I'm unsure what you're saying here: "...one editor has looked at a wide range of sources and has written articles sections of according length. When no one has done that, however, I think it's not a good idea to be too picky." Articles plural? I can't tell if you're suggesting a competence concern, or if a few typos are confusing me. Same for not understanding about not being too picky?--FeralOink (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey FeralOink, it was a typo (now struck). What I mean is that when someone has looked at a wide range of sources when writing an article, the importance given by these sources to various aspects of the subject is normally reflected in the very length of the subsections devoted to these aspects, because one can only wp-write as much as the sources are saying. In this ideal situation, it's very easy to see what is wp:due to include in the lead and what is not. What I'm saying is that in my opinion, when we are not in that ideal situation (and we aren't with regard to this article), it's better to err on the side of including too much in the lead than to err on the side of including too little.

That the lead should only summarize the article body is in itself a good editorial principle, but in my view it only applies in ideal situations where the article body has been fleshed out enough for a summary of the article to also be a reasonable complete summary of the subject. While not ideal, there's also nothing necessarily wrong, again in my view, with adding something to the lead that gets little or no attention in the article, as long as there is a reasonable indication that it is wp:due for inclusion, and the lead is not already too long. But these are just my general opinions; I'm not writing this article, and it's those who write the article who should be the ones to decide what to do with it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Noting that IncandescentBliss is sock-blocked. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that!--FeralOink (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Should Cain and Abel be merged into this article?

There used to be one Cain and Abel article, separate articles were made at some point. Is it WP-better to treat this as one topic? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if there is someone with an interest to do this. There is almost nothing to be said about Cain that does not directly involve Abel, and vice versa; having three articles therefore is superfluous and inefficient. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Especially about Abel there is not much to say beyond what is included in Cain and Abel. That article is only about 700 words. About Cain there might be more to say, but not so much that a separate article is needed (it has 2300 words, and the main article has 1700 words, with a lot of duplication between the two). Cain also has some structural issues: the central section "Genesis narrative" is nothing but a hatnote link to the Cain and Abel. I take that as an indication that it is difficult to write article about Cain without making it a fork of Cain and Abel. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why we have a separate on Abel, who has little significance outside his interaction with his brother. With Cain, we have his status as a city founder, the Curse of Cain, several descendants of Cain depicted in the Book of Genesis, the murder of Cain orchestrated by his descendant Tubal-cain, and several centuries of cultural depictions. I think there is plenty of material for a separate article. Dimadick (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Dimadick. I think we need Cain and Abel, Cain is justifiable, but Abel should perhaps be merged here, although unlike Cain, he has a considerable religious afterlife, so could be kept. I wonder how carefully the first 2 above have actually looked at all 3 articles - their content lower down is considerably different. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes Largely per above. It's doubtful there is enough to justify standalone articles on each of them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)