244:
interest in
Christian mythology. However, my interest in reading an article is irrelevent as to whether it should be kept or deleted. This is a varifiable, factually accurate entry that many people WILL read and take information from. It is most definately not for WikiBooks. Keep up the good work SimonP - fight for the right to write Knowledge (XXG) articles on any worthy cause - not just those which some deem appropriate! --
81:
22:
370:
are discussed separately, if there was an article on the whole chapter all of the contradictions could be brought up in one place. There is also the issue of whether it is possible to write a decent article on every verse. John 20:16 is of above average notability, and there may very well be verses that would be perennial sub-stubs.
71:
53:
203:
to find the single most uninteresting verse and try to do an article on it. I do think that this page shows that there is a possibility for such a detailed annotation project. Each verse has centuries of interpretation, debates over translation, and uses outside the Bible. In most cases enough material for a good article. -
273:, but having an article on each verse would make it impossible to police them all to ensure that POV pushing didn't explode in some article or other. It's just an invitation for trouble. Although we have a lot of good NPOV articles on controversial subjects, I don't think we can sustain that at this level.
429:
The controversy that would result if we tried to develop our own method of dividing the text is exactly why we should use the standardized, though still arbitrary, division by verses. I don't see the duplication of content as a problem. Of the dozen articles I have so far created the duplication is
369:
The advantages of larger group of text is that there will be less repetition as every verse does not need its context and setting explained. Issues with some verses also affect neighbouring ones, e.g. both John 20:16 and John 20:17 seem to contradict Mark 28:9. With the current set up these issues
357:
It looks pretty unlikely that this will win consensus for deletion, so some thought should go into the issue of whether these articles should be merged, with perhaps an article per chapter rather than an article per verse. Divisions by sub-chapter are also common, though there are many such systems
202:
This page was created as an experiment. I was wondering if it would be possible to have a decent article on every single Bible verse, so I picked one at random and wrote and article on it. Unfortunately the one picked seems to be of an above average notability. In retrospect a better test would be
188:
It's worth noting that over 50 votes were cast (I counted about 55, didn't see an official tally)), so a 9 vote majority, while a majority, is by no means a landslide. (Sure, I admit it, this is sour grapes from someone on the losing side of the vote. ;-) Now time will tell if this creates the sort
365:
was mentioned a user could click through to a detailed article on the verse. Length is also an issue, if as it seems a five hundred word article on each verse is possible then an article on a 30 verse chapter would be quite bulky. The third concern is that of copyright. The newer versions of the
243:
Albatross - what nonsense! To create entries on verses in an important literary work in an NPOV and objective manner is not " one's personal views". I certainly am not a
Christian and would even go so far as to count myself as strongly anti-Christian - this is not to say that I cannot read and take
382:
That sounds reasonable. This could potentially satisfy people on both sides of the inclusion debate: particularly notable verses, on which a great deal can be written, still get their own articles, but the great majority of the Bible is dealt with through articles on chapters or some such system.
474:
So essentially you're saying to adopt the usage and implicit POV most common among
English speakers. This isn't just about naming or American vs. British spelling; the choice between Masoretic vs. Septuagint has a large impact regarding whether Jesus fulfilled Messianic prophecies in the Psalms.
373:
A potential compromise that might work is to have separate articles on each verse of the
Pentateuch, Gospels, and Revelations. These are by far the most quoted and analyzed and there is a truly vast body of analysis and literature about them. The other books would be subdivided by chapter. Each
422:
interpretation; in many cases leading to massive article moves and renamings before being settled. I've been involved in plenty of controversial religious articles over the years, with mostly satisfactory outcomes to all involved, but I really think this is opening an entirely new can of worms.
409:
You said it. What kind of fool would think of writing an article about an ethno-religious conflict, a hot-button contemporary issue, a micronation or even an Ashlee
Simpson album? It's a good thing we prohibit content on controversial subjects, otherwise just imagine what a POV mess we'd be in.
448:
There is no ideal solution, but the Hebrew division of the Psalms would be the more common one among
English speakers. Picking the common usage is how most ambiguous names are dealt with on Knowledge (XXG). We should, however, make sure to mention both possible names in each article. (The
421:
You seem to miss the point entirely. It's not that the subjects are controversial, it's that by going verse by verse we'll be addressing many of the same subjects separately, in literally thousands of articles. Also, even identifying a block of verses as related to each other is an act of
430:
minimal. Issues like the authorship of John do not belong in the article on each verse just as debates over evolution do not belong in the article for each species. Verse articles should just make sure they link to a more general one that will detail these major issues. -
259:
I want to say that I strongly support the idea to create an article on every Bible verse. I'm not too knowledgeable about theology and such, but I think it is very important that we as a project recognize the encyclopedic nature of content such as this.
391:
I would vote for deletion - while a noble cause, and one worthy perhaps of writing a book on, it could become hopelessly POV and is not a topic for an encyclopedia (try
Wikibooks, I believe there is a book on the Bible already?)
211:
I'd say every Bible verse is at least notable. Probably someone of significance has commented on every verse, though it may be difficult to find something worthwhile to say about some of the less-remembered ones.
533:
226:
This page should not be deleted. A Commentary on every verse in the Bible should be part of
Knowledge (XXG)'s scope. Even if an article may be biased, that is what we have community collaboration for. --
268:
I oppose this chiefly because we would essentially be creating a Bible commentary, and any Bible commentary is inherently POV, either by what it says or what it does not say about a given verse. I know
449:
alternative system would be to see
Masoretic vs. Septuagint as equivalent to British English vs. American English and allow a mishmash of systems, but this would get very complicated very quickly.) -
441:
chapters; do you favor the chapter divisions found in the
Masoretic text or those in the Septuagint? Choosing either for the chapter title is bound to reflect your bias, whether intended or not.
482:
This is only the titles, the text of the articles should give equal weight to each version. It is an unfortunate necessity, but also standard practice, to have POV titles for these articles. -
366:
Bible are copyrighted, and those copyrights are enforced. Quoting a single verse at a time is certainly fair use, but adding longer chunks of the text may get us into trouble.
292:
I did pick one at random, but it somewhat unfortunately turned out to be one the more notable verses, certainly in the top 10%. This page is thus not a great proof of concept.
534:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-old?id=AnoYork&images=images%2Fmodeng&data=%2Flv1%2FArchive%2Fmideng-parsed&tag=public&part=41&division=div
329:
Now -- If you and others in the Judaic religious lineage proceed to carry out this project, I would say then we should be prepared for an article on every quatrain of the
285:
is being somewhat disingenuous above when he claims that he "picked one at random". He has, quite properly, dived in at the heart of Christianity - the Resurrection. --
581:
577:
563:
437:
Well, at least we agree about sticking to the verse divisions rather than some larger more subjective division like a "passage." How do you plan to number the
374:
verse will have also have a navbox at the bottom so that readers can easily read through the articles in the order in which they are presented in the Bible. -
648:
127:
174:
133:
549:
270:
219:
This page should be deleted. Commentaries and discussions of one's personal views on one part of a book are not encyclopedic in character.
653:
103:
539:
559:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
643:
323:
166:
33:
94:
58:
361:
The main advantages of giving each verse its own article is that it allows easy linking, it would be useful if every time
326:
to organize this, which may help prevent the messiness some predict and the massive stubbery or gaps that others predict.
624:
227:
580:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
334:
39:
615:
517:
550:
https://web.archive.org/web/20050313223439/http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/ResurrectionAccount.htm
513:
599:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
587:
102:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
516:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
393:
248:
181:
21:
553:
540:
https://web.archive.org/web/20050406045645/http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/yorkplays/York39.html
527:
220:
584:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
600:
607:
543:
341:
245:
178:
566:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
411:
384:
261:
606:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
573:
637:
286:
213:
86:
483:
476:
450:
442:
431:
423:
401:
375:
301:
282:
274:
204:
190:
572:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
509:
362:
316:
312:
297:
293:
76:
311:
I was about to suggest to you that the real test of this theory would be
330:
353:
Should the articles be on sections of text longer than a single verse?
438:
300:
are considerably less notable, but each generated good articles. -
629:
99:
554:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/ResurrectionAccount.htm
70:
52:
15:
337:.) The potential scope almost seems to be beyond WP, frankly.
520:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
173:
by a 9 vote majority. An archived discussion may be found
544:
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/yorkplays/York39.html
98:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
576:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
132:This article has not yet received a rating on the
562:This message was posted before February 2018.
8:
47:
508:I have just modified 2 external links on
315:. And then I immediately discovered that
324:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Bible Verses
49:
19:
358:and picking one would be difficult.
7:
92:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
400:Mark: yes, my sentiments exactly.
14:
649:Unknown-importance Bible articles
512:. Please take a moment to review
322:I would recommend you start e.g.
112:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Bible
79:
69:
51:
20:
1:
630:21:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
106:and see a list of open tasks.
319:, and isn't a complete stub.
197:
165:This page as nomianted for
670:
654:WikiProject Bible articles
593:(last update: 5 June 2024)
505:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
134:project's importance scale
115:Template:WikiProject Bible
434:22:57, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
378:17:59, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
348:22:38, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
207:02:45, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
184:20:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
131:
64:
46:
486:18:48, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
479:18:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
453:14:35, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
445:04:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
426:18:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
396:18:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
335:Category:Religious texts
304:15:16, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
289:07:40, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
264:15:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
223:05:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
216:02:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
198:Initiator's introduction
193:05:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
501:External links modified
414:22:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
404:22:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
387:18:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
277:22:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
251:09:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
230:07:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
644:B-Class Bible articles
189:of mess I predicted.
28:This article is rated
228:One Salient Oversight
32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
574:regular verification
564:After February 2018
618:InternetArchiveBot
569:InternetArchiveBot
167:Votes for deletion
34:content assessment
594:
346:
317:it already exists
271:Wiki is not paper
169:and was voted to
148:
147:
144:
143:
140:
139:
95:WikiProject Bible
661:
628:
619:
592:
591:
570:
531:
345:
162:
161:
157:
120:
119:
116:
113:
110:
89:
84:
83:
82:
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
669:
668:
664:
663:
662:
660:
659:
658:
634:
633:
622:
617:
585:
578:have permission
568:
525:
518:this simple FaQ
503:
355:
200:
163:
159:
155:
153:
152:
117:
114:
111:
108:
107:
85:
80:
78:
29:
12:
11:
5:
667:
665:
657:
656:
651:
646:
636:
635:
612:
611:
604:
557:
556:
548:Added archive
546:
538:Added archive
536:
502:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
416:
415:
406:
405:
389:
388:
354:
351:
350:
349:
342:Keith D. Tyler
338:
327:
320:
308:
307:
306:
305:
279:
278:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
199:
196:
195:
194:
151:
149:
146:
145:
142:
141:
138:
137:
130:
124:
123:
121:
118:Bible articles
104:the discussion
91:
90:
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
666:
655:
652:
650:
647:
645:
642:
641:
639:
632:
631:
626:
621:
620:
609:
605:
602:
598:
597:
596:
589:
583:
579:
575:
571:
565:
560:
555:
551:
547:
545:
541:
537:
535:
529:
523:
522:
521:
519:
515:
511:
506:
500:
485:
481:
480:
478:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
452:
447:
446:
444:
440:
436:
435:
433:
428:
427:
425:
420:
419:
418:
417:
413:
408:
407:
403:
399:
398:
397:
395:
386:
381:
380:
379:
377:
371:
367:
364:
359:
352:
347:
343:
339:
336:
332:
328:
325:
321:
318:
314:
310:
309:
303:
299:
295:
291:
290:
288:
284:
281:
280:
276:
272:
267:
266:
265:
263:
250:
247:
242:
241:
240:
239:
238:
237:
229:
225:
224:
222:
221:Albatross2147
218:
217:
215:
210:
209:
208:
206:
192:
187:
186:
185:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
158:
150:
135:
129:
126:
125:
122:
105:
101:
97:
96:
88:
77:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
616:
613:
588:source check
567:
561:
558:
507:
504:
390:
372:
368:
360:
356:
344:
333:, etc. (See
258:
201:
170:
164:
93:
87:Bible portal
40:WikiProjects
638:Categories
625:Report bug
510:John 20:16
394:Mark Lewis
363:John 20:16
313:John 11:35
298:John 20:18
294:John 20:14
608:this tool
601:this tool
528:dead link
412:Everyking
385:Everyking
262:Everyking
614:Cheers.—
287:RHaworth
532:tag to
514:my edit
214:Twinxor
30:B-class
524:Added
484:SimonP
477:Wesley
451:SimonP
443:Wesley
439:Psalms
432:SimonP
424:Wesley
402:Wesley
376:SimonP
331:Qur'an
302:SimonP
283:SimonP
275:Wesley
205:SimonP
191:Wesley
154:": -->
36:scale.
249:Quill
246:Oldak
182:Quill
179:Oldak
109:Bible
100:Bible
59:Bible
296:and
177:. --
175:here
171:keep
156:edit
582:RfC
552:to
542:to
128:???
640::
595:.
590:}}
586:{{
530:}}
526:{{
392:--
340:-
627:)
623:(
610:.
603:.
160:]
136:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
