773:
92:
1062:- and the spelling kind of gives it away. Whether that was a whale or a sea monster is a debate about Greek myth, not the bible - the debate isn't one by biblical scholars but by people studying Greek mythology. Its like mentioning fish and then going into a huge discourse about how fish and chips first came to be made together. It's off topic. --
397:
here. The proposer has edit wared, campaigned and trolled on this and simillar anti-Bible issues before he was banned, and since his return. (His signature till recently proclaimed 'help remove
Biblecruft' - hardly an assurance of his NPOV). Is his intent now to improve the quality of articles on the
469:
This is not a pro-Bible or anti-Bible argument. This is an argument about what is suitable for
Knowledge (XXG) vs what is suitable for Wikisource. Almost everyone agrees that almost all individual verses are not notable enough in isolation for a quality article. Most people (at least most commenting
419:
what it is--an encyclopedia. Have you ever heard of an encyclopedia that has the entire text of the Bible--or of any work, whether sacred or not? No because in a library, those sources are available in other volumes, just as the Bible is available in
Wikisource and in other WWW sites. By the way,
370:
I don't support Bible text inclusion for the sake of it. Generally it is unneccessary (and certainly if duplicated) - and I have no objection to its removal most of the time. But, on some occassions, where the translation of the text is a key issue in historical and theological debates, inclusion of
1081:
Traditionally on wikipedia links are put at the bottom, but in this case I believe that it would be useful to have a huge link very obvious link to the full text right at the top of the artical. This would make it easy to find, without having to include all the text, which is just rediculous --
905:
I find it somewhat ironic that people only complain that there is "vote canvassing" happening when consensus goes against them. Simon, if you'd like this to be a (agh, pardon the pun) holy war, why not go and recruit a bunch of people to the opposite side of the consensus, canvas as it were, and
753:
It seems to me that there is no significant dissent from the view that source belongs on
Wikisource, and that individual verses are of no encycloaedic merit, being in any case a mediaeval conceit and not part of the text. But we still have the text of the KJV in these articles and blue links to
301:
I agree with pretty much everyone above that
Wikisource is the appropriate place for translations, not Knowledge (XXG). This goes for the individual verse articles as well that are just stubs with different translations. Also, as aluded to earler, by putting only one or two translations in an
873:
In addition, it is not unreasonable to assume that people with opposing religious views to whatever would read the adverts on people's talk pages. After all, admins are frequently telling us that advertising debates to people, even if you do so to people that support your stance, is considered
791:
There is significant dissent on this issue - as has been shown by various attempts at deletion. There is no consensus to delete, and any move to merge will have to be decided on a case by case basis (as with any other merge). In general, if all the info can be preserved, I have no objection to
844:
The only reason these debates have had a surprising amount of agreement is that they were only advertised to the people who -Ril- already knew agreed with him, or were attracted by the recruitment message in his signature. Not one of the people who have worked on this series of articles have
1032:
Bible text have no place in
Knowledge (XXG). But I see nothing wrong with extensive, even comprehensive, quotation of text in articles on Bible chapters. I would suggest quoting one version in full (maybe the RSV, as a good compromise between poetry and scholarship?) and discussing any
710:
Agreed. I quite like good Bible articles (and you certainly can't avoid an AfD debate with a 'no consensus' conclusion, if you want them gone). But articles consisting only of Bible text (with no discussion) should be shot on sight. Redirect them, or just speedy them as 'empty'.
845:
commented on this page. This is understandable as this issue has been debated many times before, and it was decided the texts should stay. That -Ril- has this time managed to construct an artificial result is something to simply be ignored or reverted, not acted upon. -
142:
I don't see how someone looking for this information would realistically find it, I don't think people assume we would have an article on each verse, and so the utility of these articles seems very low to me. Also, this is what wikisource was created for. -
906:
we'll have a discussion with everyone involved? I also think it's not exactly cooperative of you to have only made one comment in this discussion -- that declaring the discussion invalid. Let's assume good faith here, and work together on a solution.
670:
Wasn't the whole point of these discussions a matter of whether or not we should just delete outright those articles that are stubs consisting of various translations of a given verse? That being the case, shouldn't they all just be AfD'd? --
537:
I object to the false dilemma of "fundamentalist" translations (not that he's using that word in any careful way) versus scholarly translations. There are scholarly translations favored by conservative
Christians, namely the NASB and the ESV.
548:
I think part of the reasoning for the "fundamentalist" wording was because NAB and NIV, the two versions more commmonly used by
Catholics and mainline Protestants, respectively, are rarely used by those who stick bible text into wikipedia. -
938:
Whether with reference to
Knowledge (XXG) or Wikisource, "Should we use only the translations favourable to fundamentalists?" is obviously a straw man. Obviously not. It makes me wonder whether this proposal is being made in good faith. -
206:
If we don't remove the source and just leave the link, there will never be consensus about which translation is appropriate. Similarly, there will soon be edits adding the entire text of the Koran and the Talmud and other holy books ...
787:
On the source text question, there is no significant dissent, providing it does not become a blanket prohibition. If in some individual article a specific case can be made for inclusion of a short text, that should be debated at that
378:
But really, what is all the fuss about? WP is not paper, so it is no big thing either way. If unneccessary text weakens an article - remove it. If it enhances the article - insert it. If someone disagrees, then go to the talk page.
1110:
1067:
517:
them. They just shouldn't reporduce the full text as discussed above, except perhaps in the case of a very notable individual verse. Are we "voting" on whether such articles should exist and I didn't realize it? --
964:
movement. -SimonP has duplicating 200+ bible verses from this, one article each, and duplication of the text of 6 entire chapters, one article each - if you haven't guessed, it's the same text, i.e. the KJV is on
573:
because of its timeless beauty and acceptability among those who would respond to a point made by the bible. It is the scripture equivalent of what
Knowledge (XXG) is always striving for--consensus.
456:
Sounds good. I certainly don't want to delete articles on bible verses, chapters, or any other division; I just don't think that extensive quoting should be used as often as it seems to be. --
470:
on these discussions) agree that most individual chapters are not notable enough in isolation for a quality article. Most people agree that articles on the different authors of the bible (e.g.
644:
866:
I even advertised it care of the page that is linked in my signature, on votes I made for the arb-com elections, and on many of the comments that I made on several article talk pages, and at
294:
375:
be advantageous. It is no big deal. On some occassions, we may have a fairly long article on a fairly short text/chapter - in these places, it would seem strange not to include the text.
1004:- well regarded academically, both by Protestants and Catholics - and designed specifically to take into account recent discoveries of ancient manuscripts - SimonP quotes it about twice.
792:
merging (it can always be undone if the main article becomes too long). But if significant information is there, then an individual verse article may be justified. Trust me that it is
220:, and the number of translations that were publised before 1923 is not tiny. It would be a good resource if they were included, but they should be largely located on wikisource. --
1037:
variations in other versions. Thus, we could discuss who chose in Matthew 12:40 to translate κετοσ as "whale" and who as "sea monster" (and doubtless there are other variants). --
401:
As I say, let's be pragmatic, stay focused on the quality of the articles themselves, and remove text where it adds nothing to the article in question. And please stop POV wars. --
889:
438:
32:
888:
Trying to claim that I have somehow engineered the result sounds like the attitude of a poor loser. Simon, you should learn to accept that the community believes in
335:
420:
I am at least as pro-Bible as any other Wikipedian (I actually read it and believe it), but I also understand what Knowledge (XXG) is and what it isn't.
754:
individual verses. Nobody (and I do mean nobody) is likely to search Wiki for John 20:1; redirects are cheap I guess and it does allow for a Wikilink
924:
and hopefully they will have something to add to the present discussion/s before any "final" decisions are reached. Thank you for your understanding.
45:
Some people say 66% isn't a consensus. But it seems very definitely to point to what the community opinion is. It's 2:1 against keeping the text. --
17:
998:- well regarded academically, and the official Roman Catholic translation for America - hardly insignificant but SimonP has quoted it about twice.
407:
283:
Wikisource them, if they haven't been already. Individual highly notable articles may need articles, but not this blanket approach. --
160:
No brainer. If it was any other publication, the offending text would be purged on sight. A link to Wikisource is quite sufficient. --
217:
501:
504:. The articles we do have, should obviously link to wikisource - we have a template for this (but I can't remember its name atm).
332:
1113:
1096:
1086:
1070:
1045:
1012:
947:
928:
921:
910:
900:
849:
834:
804:
781:
734:
717:
705:
686:
665:
627:
598:
577:
569:
On occasions I, a Roman Catholic, have quoted single verses in Knowledge (XXG) articles concerning Christian theology using the
564:
542:
522:
508:
460:
445:
424:
359:
338:
321:
276:
265:
250:
241:
224:
211:
201:
182:
164:
153:
135:
124:
113:
100:
70:
53:
681:
559:
316:
39:
349:
distilled from the commentary/analysis if this is necessary for the article. But this should be topical and not canonical.
77:
Agree with Angr. Knowledge (XXG) is also not a concordance. I suggest that if no spearate wiki exists, one be created. -
345:
No primary sources. Line-by-line analysis is also not the job of an encyclopedia. Knowledge (XXG) should present the main
1001:
329:
885:
Furthermore, over half the commenters here are not people I invited, but people that came here by some other means.
302:
article we're effectively making a POV decision about which ones are more accurate/appropriate/whatever. Talking
980:
768:
477:
The issue about quoting the bible wholesale is an issue of standards and Knowledge (XXG)'s principles, primarily
87:
441:
which explains what should be in Knowledge (XXG) and what should be in Wikisource very succinctly and clearly.
258:
177:
897:
831:
731:
691:
That doesn't sound particularly helpful. Redirecting them somewhere appropriate would be less of a hassle.
800:
715:
405:
973:
969:
677:
639:
555:
312:
289:
777:
96:
995:
957:
695:
655:
617:
591:
570:
354:
191:
172:
150:
59:
The place for source texts is Wikisource. The Bible is already there, in several translations. --
796:
to provide signifivant amounts of verifiable NPOV information on just about any Bible verse. --
471:
867:
513:
There may be verses and chapters that are notable, and I would think there could be articles
478:
1042:
944:
797:
772:
712:
402:
121:
91:
486:
394:
306:
the chapters/books is fine in Knowledge (XXG), but having the text itself really isn't. --
50:
961:
634:
284:
1093:
672:
550:
505:
442:
421:
307:
262:
247:
64:
633:
Didn't Thryduulf say above that there are already several versions on Wikisource? --
907:
860:
692:
652:
614:
574:
350:
238:
221:
208:
188:
161:
144:
131:
This is clear. There are many places with full bible texts. Just link to them. --
987:
mission weeks. - SimonP has duplicated 50+ bible verses from this, one article each
892:, and that putting one translation in over another fundamentally violates NPOV. --
1038:
940:
846:
539:
519:
457:
273:
132:
109:
1106:
1092:
I think a prominent template pointing to the text on Wikisource would be good.
1083:
1063:
1009:
893:
827:
727:
595:
497:
46:
863:. I take it you don't pay attention to the list of centralised discussions?
925:
755:
60:
698:
658:
620:
194:
51:
Don't forget to vote in the Knowledge (XXG) Arbitration Committee elections
485:
of the Bible is to be POV. This is not suitable for Knowledge (XXG) - see
1024:
759:
78:
976:. - SimonP has duplicated 150+ bible verses from this, one article each
723:
120:
There's a reason we have Wikisource. We can link to it from there. --
594:
is barly english anymore. If you want the origional learn hebrew --
1052:
916:
Awaiting comments from Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Judaism editors
651:
In that case, anyone up for a lot of striking-text-from-articles?
474:) are or can be good articles. This is all about article quality.
257:
Wikisource already has several different versions of the Bible -
984:
492:
On the other hand, everybody agrees that the text of the Bible
272:
Wikisource is the correct place for this. Not Knowledge (XXG).
983:, created, and favoured, by conservative evangelicals, and
35:, which is, after all, one of the policies and guidelines.
972:, favourite, and protegee of the conservative evangelical
390:, not some POV agenda that is pro-Bible or anti-Bible.
890:
Knowledge (XXG):Don't include copies of primary sources
820:
about the source-text question (hence the name), so ...
439:
Knowledge (XXG):Don't include copies of primary sources
33:
Knowledge (XXG):Don't include copies of primary sources
502:Wikisource:Wikisource:Religious texts#Christianity
758:. Should we start unlinking and redirecting? -
187:I agree that source text belongs on Wikisource.
920:I have notified some editors associated with
8:
1008:Straw men require there to be only straw. --
991:As for scholarly translations, for example:
952:The translations SimonP has been using are:
65:
388:governing principle must be article quality
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Centralized discussion
1022:Wikisource would be a great place to do a
415:Knowledge (XXG) is not paper, but it also
38:Community consensus on the issue, as per,
613:So, anyone up for a lot of transwikiing?
261:- so we don't need to duplicate it here.
233:Not that I'm a follower or anything, but
1028:edition of the Bible. Articles that are
31:Personally, I think we should listen to
259:Wikisource:Religious texts#Christianity
7:
922:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Judaism
960:, favourite of the fundamentalist
42:, is that they should go as well.
24:
218:English translations of the Bible
40:Knowledge (XXG):Bible source text
1111:help remove electoral corruption
1068:help remove electoral corruption
771:
90:
481:. The Bible is POV, indeed the
1018:Knowledge (XXG) vs. Wikisource
859:It was advertised publicly at
1:
1114:00:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
1071:00:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
1013:00:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
1097:20:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
1087:18:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
1046:19:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
1002:New Revised Standard Version
948:19:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
929:09:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
911:01:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
901:23:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
850:21:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
835:20:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
805:17:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
782:09:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
735:21:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
718:18:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
706:17:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
687:04:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
666:18:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
645:18:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
628:18:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
599:18:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
578:19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
565:22:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
543:03:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
523:17:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
509:08:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
461:04:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
446:10:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
425:10:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
408:18:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
365:
360:11:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
339:13:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
322:17:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
295:17:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
277:14:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
266:13:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
251:13:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
242:01:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
225:01:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
212:00:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
202:00:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
183:22:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
165:21:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
154:20:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
136:18:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
125:18:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
114:18:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
101:18:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
71:18:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
54:17:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
1107:Victim of signature fascism
1064:Victim of signature fascism
1010:Victim of signature fascism
894:Victim of signature fascism
828:Victim of signature fascism
728:Victim of signature fascism
393:I'm having some difficulty
47:Victim of signature fascism
1129:
1051:No, it just translates as
816:discussion is meant to be
328:Knowledge (XXG) ≠ Bible. -
981:New International Version
366:Please let's be pragmatic
107:Belongs on WikiSource. —
381:Avoid instruction creep
216:Agreed. There are 450
898:help remove biblecruft
832:help remove biblecruft
732:help remove biblecruft
237:is in fact the place.
122:King of All the Franks
880:entirely appropriate
876:perfectly acceptable
533:Note on Translations
970:World English Bible
395:assuming good faith
996:New American Bible
958:King James Version
592:King James Version
571:King James Version
371:relevant sections
246:Yes, Wikisource.
802:
722:Could you speedy
685:
609:Volunteers please
590:Timeless beauty?
563:
472:Gospel of Matthew
357:
320:
1120:
801:
775:
763:
749:Where are we at?
703:
675:
663:
625:
553:
437:I've just found
355:
310:
199:
175:
149:
94:
82:
67:
27:Earlier comments
1128:
1127:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1079:
1020:
974:Rainbow mission
962:King James Only
936:
918:
770:
761:
751:
700:
660:
642:
622:
611:
535:
496:apropriate for
368:
292:
196:
173:
147:
89:
80:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1126:
1124:
1100:
1099:
1078:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1019:
1016:
1006:
1005:
999:
989:
988:
977:
966:
935:
932:
917:
914:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
824:
823:
822:
821:
808:
807:
789:
767:
750:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
648:
647:
638:
610:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
583:
582:
581:
580:
534:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
490:
475:
464:
463:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
430:
429:
428:
427:
367:
364:
363:
362:
342:
341:
325:
324:
298:
297:
288:
280:
279:
269:
268:
254:
253:
244:
230:
229:
228:
227:
204:
185:
168:
167:
157:
156:
139:
138:
128:
127:
117:
116:
104:
103:
86:
74:
73:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1125:
1116:
1115:
1112:
1108:
1103:
1102:Roughly like
1098:
1095:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1085:
1077:Obvious Links
1076:
1072:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1031:
1027:
1026:
1017:
1015:
1014:
1011:
1003:
1000:
997:
994:
993:
992:
986:
982:
978:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
955:
954:
953:
950:
949:
946:
942:
933:
931:
930:
927:
923:
915:
913:
912:
909:
903:
902:
899:
895:
891:
886:
883:
881:
877:
871:
869:
864:
862:
861:Template:Cent
851:
848:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
833:
829:
819:
815:
812:
811:
810:
809:
806:
803:
799:
795:
790:
786:
785:
784:
783:
780:
779:
774:
769:
765:
757:
748:
736:
733:
729:
725:
721:
720:
719:
716:
714:
709:
708:
707:
704:
697:
694:
690:
689:
688:
683:
679:
674:
669:
668:
667:
664:
657:
654:
650:
649:
646:
643:
641:
636:
632:
631:
630:
629:
626:
619:
616:
608:
600:
597:
593:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
579:
576:
572:
568:
567:
566:
561:
557:
552:
547:
546:
545:
544:
541:
532:
524:
521:
516:
512:
511:
510:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
488:
484:
480:
476:
473:
468:
467:
466:
465:
462:
459:
455:
454:
447:
444:
440:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
426:
423:
418:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
406:
404:
399:
396:
391:
389:
384:
382:
376:
374:
361:
358:
352:
348:
344:
343:
340:
337:
334:
331:
327:
326:
323:
318:
314:
309:
305:
300:
299:
296:
293:
291:
286:
282:
281:
278:
275:
271:
270:
267:
264:
260:
256:
255:
252:
249:
245:
243:
240:
236:
232:
231:
226:
223:
219:
215:
214:
213:
210:
205:
203:
200:
193:
190:
186:
184:
181:
180:
176:
174:Nightstallion
171:Wikisource. —
170:
169:
166:
163:
159:
158:
155:
152:
146:
141:
140:
137:
134:
130:
129:
126:
123:
119:
118:
115:
112:
111:
106:
105:
102:
99:
98:
93:
88:
84:
76:
75:
72:
68:
62:
58:
57:
56:
55:
52:
48:
43:
41:
36:
34:
26:
19:
1104:
1101:
1080:
1059:
1056:
1034:
1029:
1023:
1021:
1007:
990:
951:
937:
919:
904:
887:
884:
879:
875:
872:
865:
858:
825:
817:
813:
793:
776:
752:
637:
612:
536:
514:
493:
482:
416:
400:
392:
387:
385:
380:
377:
372:
369:
346:
303:
287:
234:
178:
108:
95:
44:
37:
30:
1035:significant
333:or Together
498:Wikisource
235:Wikisource
1094:Thryduulf
965:twice!!!!
934:Straw man
764:you know?
760:Just zis
756:John 20:1
673:Thesquire
551:Thesquire
506:Thryduulf
443:Thryduulf
422:Logophile
308:Thesquire
263:Thryduulf
248:Logophile
83:you know?
79:Just zis
1025:variorum
908:Avriette
794:possible
726:then? --
682:contribs
635:nae'blis
560:contribs
398:Bible?
330:Parallel
317:contribs
285:nae'blis
239:Avriette
222:Interiot
209:Alex.tan
162:kingboyk
145:cohesion
868:WP:AN/I
724:John 13
1039:Jmabel
941:Jmabel
878:, and
847:SimonP
788:point.
696:adiant
656:adiant
640:(talk)
618:adiant
540:A.J.A.
520:SCZenz
500:- see
487:WP:NOT
458:SCZenz
290:(talk)
274:Stifle
192:adiant
133:SCZenz
1084:T-rex
1060:cetus
1053:Cetus
702:|<
701:: -->
662:|<
661:: -->
624:|<
623:: -->
596:T-rex
515:about
483:point
347:ideas
304:about
198:|<
197:: -->
16:<
1043:Talk
1030:just
985:UCCF
979:The
968:The
956:The
945:Talk
926:IZAK
818:only
814:This
778:AfD?
762:Guy,
678:talk
575:Ruby
556:talk
479:NPOV
386:The
383:.
356:T@lk
313:talk
151:talk
110:Ruud
97:AfD?
81:Guy,
61:Angr
1105:?--
870:.
798:Doc
713:Doc
403:Doc
373:may
351:JFW
179:(?)
66:tɔk
1109:|
1066:|
1041:|
943:|
896:|
882:.
830:|
826:--
730:|
711:--
680:-
558:-
494:is
417:is
353:|
315:-
69:)
49:|
1057:a
1055:/
766:/
699:_
693:R
684:)
676:(
659:_
653:R
621:_
615:R
562:)
554:(
489:.
336:?
319:)
311:(
195:_
189:R
148:★
85:/
63:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
