Talk:Authorized King James Version

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Former featured article Authorized King James Version is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 4, 2005.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Authorized King James Version article.
Article policies

This article uses British English dialect and spelling.
According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Note: The official spelling of the formal name is correct with the -ize ending, which had been discussed in the past.


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
Archive to Feb 2008. Archive March to April 2008.


Contents

[edit] Breadth concern

I'm not he GA reviewer, but when I saw this nominated I got pretty excited. I don't think that the Literary significance section adequately covers things, though. This book has had more influence on English literature than any other work besides Shakespeare, and even that is debatable. Wrad (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is pinning the 'literary influences' to reputable sources: much, too much, is speculation. Obviously, like Shakespeare, the AV has had a huge influence. I think a spin out article is probably the best thing and keep this article focused on the bible itself if possible. Cheers!Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't disagree more. There are plenty of reputable, academic sources that would back me up. It is not speculation at all. If the article ignores the enormous influence this book has had on English literature, then I don't think it meets the breadth criteria for GA. Wrad (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's just one source of many listing the linguistic and literary influence of the KJV. Wrad (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, maybe we are at cross purposes. The article does have a literary influences section. The ref that you supplied says the same thing. My point is about individual writers. In the aggregrate, yes: the specific, hard to pin down. Was Milton influenced by the AV or by the Geneva Bible? Which did he own? Which did he read? These sort of arguments get quite contentious. But, yes, the AV was influential and the article does say that. I'm not so sure it needs to be expanded for GA. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
In any case, since this is something I'm interested in, I might add stuff on my own. (The source says a lot more than the section does, by the way.) Scholars study which bibles influenced who very intensely, so it ain't speculation at all. There are definitive answers to your questions. Wrad (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Milton used the Geneva Bible. (So did Shakespeare, most scholars think). Wrad (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please do! I'm not owning this article. Perhaps I was a bit defensive 'cause I deleted maybe a thousand unsourced words on the literary influence of the AV which was full of platitudes! I also deleted about two or three hundred words on the copyright status: completely unsourced. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't surprise me that people would add unsourced junk there... sigh. Wrad (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Daniell has a couple of chapters on cultural influence in the 18th and 19th centuries respectively - focussing on Pope, Handel, Blake and Holman Hunt. And another chapter on 18th century Psalms and Hymns. Would you want these summarised and cited? TomHennell (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes! if you don't mind. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ref tags

Is it alright if I put ref tags around things? Wrad (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Long have I put off helping here. If I can help during the GA nom in any way let me know. I have many sources that could be of help. -- Secisek (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! We shall see what sort of problems we encounter. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

KJV

[edit] GA Review

[edit] initial comments

I imagine that several editors have worked on this article, so the “you” I refer to is a collective term. Before I say anything else let me say that I fully appreciate the careful work and scholarship behind this article, and my criticisms should not be seen as given in any hostile spirit. On the contrary, I would very much like to see the article eventually regain its FA status.

My main observations on this article are:-

  • Its length. At more than 10,000 words it is far above the maximum recommended length for a Wikipedia article. The impression I got was of considerable over-elaboration of detail. I found the prose quite turgid at times, which made concentration difficult. I can’t help thinking that several of the sections could be reduced, without any loss of coherence.
  • It is not very reader-friendly. An encyclopedia article is for a general rather than a specialist reader, so the use of words like “diglot” rather than bilingual, and “exegesis” for explanation, seems like unnecessary elitism. Unexplained phrases such as “medieval Rabbinical exegesis” will bewilder most general readers. I found the general tone more in line with an address to scholars than a general article.

In addition to these two major reservations I found various detailed points:-

  • You generally refer, throughout the article, to the “Authorized Version”. Occasionally you say “King James Version” or “King James version”, on one occasion “King James”, and late in the article you start using “AV”. It’s usually clear what you’re talking about, but perhaps some consistency would be better. I’d make much more use of the abbreviation throughout the article, if I were you.
  • You are a bit undisciplined in the use of commas – usually having too many. You need a punctuation expert to excise some of the surplus ones.
  • You appear to have ignored completely Wikipedia style guides on the used of dashes and hyphens. I haven’t fully checked other style issues but there may be other violations. Absolute adherence to MoS is not mandatory for GA status, but this will obviously be an issue should you want to take the article further.
  • The sentence in the lead beginning: “King James did not personally…” sounds a bit facetious, even a bit patronising. Out of place, I feel, in this article.
  • The last sentence of the lead could be prefaced by: "Apart from its scriptural function…" or words to that effect.
  • In the first sentence in the Background section, “and as such was made..” would be better: “and as such would be made…”
  • “Mary I herself..” sounds clumsy. Mary I, or Mary herself, OK
  • Elizabeth I became queen in 1558 not 1559
  • The Rainolds quote beginning “First, Galatians…” needs closing.
  • The statement: James believed – with good reason – etc needs a citation
  • The subsection you have called “Committees” ceases to be about committees after the first text paragraph, and is more concerned with early print history.
  • “12° New Testament” needs explaining.
  • Criticism, revision and defence section, approx. 1300-1400 words, is mainly about post AV versions and is surely a ripe candidate for some editorial scissoring.

There are perhaps other points of a fairly trivial nature that I may raise later, but for the present I would like to hear your comments on what I’ve said so far. Brianboulton (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent:. I agree with your review so far. I think six thousand words could be cut with out prejudice; perhaps by focusing on the topic and not drifting into tangential territory. Obviously, there are many possible spinout articles. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Length: Text = 10, 730 words. Lead = 280 words. Size = 82,076 bytes. Without a doubt Wikipedia:Article size suggests that the article needs to be reduced in size: an upper word limit is about 6 000 words. To quote; "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words..." I think we should aim between 3, 000 and 5, 000 words. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Large portions of this deal with bibles before or after the KJV. I will begin cutting material not directly covering the subject. This article is close to GA. -- Secisek (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Secisek. You've done yeoman's work! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

More to come I hope. -- Secisek (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The 'Background' section has been reduced from its bloated 1,400 words to about 450 words! Progress is being made. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I second that I would also like to see things cut to eliminate the tangent articles to leave us with the main focus.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I see there has been lots of activity on the article. Will the main editors indicate when they think it is stable enough for me to look at it again re GA?

Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is stable in that there have not been massive additions or controversial subtractions. The article has been improved since the inital GA comments, but I would not say it is unstable. -- Secisek (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean the editors want me to review the article for GA as it now stands? Brianboulton (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement are most welcome and will be turned around in timely fashion. -- Secisek (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The text is now at 6,500 words and the lead is at 450 words. This is now within appropriate guidelines. Unsourced text has been removed. The text has been tightened up with tangential topics excised. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd Opinion rationale

Due to a computer glitch my reasons for seeking a second opinion on this article were not posted yesterday, nor was the status changed on the GAN page. I do apologise for this, but I've only just noticed, thanks to a message on my talk page.

I acknowledge that many changes to the article have been made in accordance with my suggestions, and I have no doubt that on the grounds of intellectual worth we have a GA here. It is still the readability issue, however, that bothers me. Although the earlier parts of the article are now perfectly accessible to the general reader, the mixture of exclusive language and over-detail is still prevalent in the sections after the committe lists. I am seeking a second opinion on this issue alone. With regard to the other GA criteria I have no problems, though I think it would have been wise to make a better attempt to meet wikipedia style in regards to dashes, hyphens, etc, and I still have small niggles with the text. But these are not decisive. In a nutshell, if another reader is satisfied on the readability issue, and doesn't raise other problems, then all will be well. Again I apologise that this was not immediately clear. Brianboulton (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To do list

  • Its length. At more than 10,000 words it is far above the maximum recommended length for a Wikipedia article. The impression I got was of considerable over-elaboration of detail. I found the prose quite turgid at times, which made concentration difficult. I can’t help thinking that several of the sections could be reduced, without any loss of coherence.
  • It is not very reader-friendly. An encyclopedia article is for a general rather than a specialist reader, so the use of words like “diglot” rather than bilingual, and “exegesis” for explanation, seems like unnecessary elitism. Unexplained phrases such as “medieval Rabbinical exegesis” will bewilder most general readers. I found the general tone more in line with an address to scholars than a general article.
  • You generally refer, throughout the article, to the “Authorized Version”. Occasionally you say “King James Version” or “King James version”, on one occasion “King James”, and late in the article you start using “AV”. It’s usually clear what you’re talking about, but perhaps some consistency would be better. I’d make much more use of the abbreviation throughout the article, if I were you.
  • You are a bit undisciplined in the use of commas – usually having too many. You need a punctuation expert to excise some of the surplus ones.
  • You appear to have ignored completely Wikipedia style guides on the used of dashes and hyphens. I haven’t fully checked other style issues but there may be other violations. Absolute adherence to MoS is not mandatory for GA status, but this will obviously be an issue should you want to take the article further.
  • The sentence in the lead beginning: “King James did not personally…” sounds a bit facetious, even a bit patronising. Out of place, I feel, in this article.
  • The last sentence of the lead could be prefaced by: "Apart from its scriptural function…" or words to that effect.
  • In the first sentence in the Background section, “and as such was made..” would be better: “and as such would be made…”
  • “Mary I herself..” sounds clumsy. Mary I, or Mary herself, OK
  • Elizabeth I became queen in 1558 not 1559
  • The Rainolds quote beginning “First, Galatians…” needs closing.
  • The statement: James believed – with good reason – etc needs a citation
  • The subsection you have called “Committees” ceases to be about committees after the first text paragraph, and is more concerned with early print history.
  • “12° New Testament” needs explaining.
  • Criticism, revision and defence section, approx. 1300-1400 words, is mainly about post AV versions and is surely a ripe candidate for some editorial scissoring.

Most of the suggestions have been implemented. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

(note that this is not a catalogue of Bible Downloads) I think it should include a link to a separate wikipedia page where people can list their bible downloads ad nauseum. Thoughts? Rogerdpack (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No! See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a directory. Whether a separate page or within this page, such an attempt at a directory would be speedy deleted. There is a style guideline Wikipedia:External links that helps to understand external linking. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling of the Title "Authorized" versus "Authorised"

very detailed discssion now archived.

- but simply stated, the term "Authorized Version" is a title and proper name, and as such is given a separate entry, with that spelling, in all current standard English dictionaries - Oxford, Collins, Chambers, Penguin. The fact that some publishers prefer to spell the counterpart adjective as "authorised" is irrelevant. TomHennell (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)