Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Earlier comments

Personally, I think we should listen to Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, which is, after all, one of the policies and guidelines.

Community consensus on the issue, as per, Wikipedia:Bible source text, is that they should go as well.

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. --Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 17:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The place for source texts is Wikisource. The Bible is already there, in several translations. --Angr (tɔk) 18:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with Angr. Wikipedia is also not a concordance. I suggest that if no spearate wiki exists, one be created. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Belongs on WikiSource. —Ruud 18:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There's a reason we have Wikisource. We can link to it from there. --King of All the Franks 18:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is clear. There are many places with full bible texts. Just link to them. -- SCZenz 18:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 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. - cohesion★talk 20:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No brainer. If it was any other publication, the offending text would be purged on sight. A link to Wikisource is quite sufficient. --kingboyk 21:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikisource. —Nightstallion (?) 22:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that source text belongs on Wikisource. Radiant_>|< 00:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 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 ... Alex.tan 00:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed. There are 450 English translations of the Bible, 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. --Interiot 01:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not that I'm a follower or anything, but Wikisource is in fact the place. Avriette 01:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, Wikisource. Logophile 13:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikisource is the correct place for this. Not Wikipedia. Stifle 14:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikisource them, if they haven't been already. Individual highly notable articles may need articles, but not this blanket approach. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with pretty much everyone above that Wikisource is the appropriate place for translations, not Wikipedia. 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 article we're effectively making a POV decision about which ones are more accurate/appropriate/whatever. Talking about the chapters/books is fine in Wikipedia, but having the text itself really isn't. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 17:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No primary sources. Line-by-line analysis is also not the job of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia should present the main ideas distilled from the commentary/analysis if this is necessary for the article. But this should be topical and not canonical. JFW | T@lk 11:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please let's be pragmatic

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 relevant sections may 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.

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. Avoid instruction creep.

The governing principle must be article quality, not some POV agenda that is pro-Bible or anti-Bible.

I'm having some difficulty assuming good faith 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 Bible?

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. --Doc ask? 18:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper, but it also is 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, I am at least as pro-Bible as any other Wikipedian (I actually read it and believe it), but I also understand what Wikipedia is and what it isn't. Logophile 10:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I've just found Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources which explains what should be in Wikipedia and what should be in Wikisource very succinctly and clearly. Thryduulf 10:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
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. -- SCZenz 04:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
This is not a pro-Bible or anti-Bible argument. This is an argument about what is suitable for Wikipedia 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 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. Gospel of Matthew) are or can be good articles. This is all about article quality.
The issue about quoting the bible wholesale is an issue of standards and Wikipedia's principles, primarily NPOV. The Bible is POV, indeed the point of the Bible is to be POV. This is not suitable for Wikipedia - see WP:NOT.
On the other hand, everybody agrees that the text of the Bible is apropriate for Wikisource - see Wikisource:Wikisource:Religious texts#Christianity. The articles we do have, should obviously link to wikisource - we have a template for this (but I can't remember its name atm). Thryduulf 08:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
There may be verses and chapters that are notable, and I would think there could be articles about 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? -- SCZenz 17:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note on Translations

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. A.J.A. 03:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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. - Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
On occasions I, a Roman Catholic, have quoted single verses in Wikipedia articles concerning Christian theology using the King James Version 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 Wikipedia is always striving for--consensus. Ruby 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Timeless beauty? King James Version is barly english anymore. If you want the origional learn hebrew --T-rex 18:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Volunteers please

So, anyone up for a lot of transwikiing? Radiant_>|< 18:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Thryduulf say above that there are already several versions on Wikisource? -- nae'blis (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • In that case, anyone up for a lot of striking-text-from-articles? Radiant_>|< 18:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • 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? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • That doesn't sound particularly helpful. Redirecting them somewhere appropriate would be less of a hassle. Radiant_>|< 17:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • 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'. --Doc ask? 18:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where are we at?

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 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 John 20:1. Should we start unlinking and redirecting? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. 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 point.
  2. 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 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 possible to provide signifivant amounts of verifiable NPOV information on just about any Bible verse. --Doc ask? 17:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is meant to be only about the source-text question (hence the name), so ...

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 20:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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 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. - SimonP 21:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It was advertised publicly at Template:Cent. I take it you don't pay attention to the list of centralised discussions?

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 WP:AN/I.

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 perfectly acceptable, and entirely appropriate.

Furthermore, over half the commenters here are not people I invited, but people that came here by some other means.

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 Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, and that putting one translation in over another fundamentally violates NPOV. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 23:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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 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. Avriette 01:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awaiting comments from Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism editors

I have notified some editors associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism and hopefully they will have something to add to the present discussion/s before any "final" decisions are reached. Thank you for your understanding. IZAK 09:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw man

Whether with reference to Wikipedia 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. - Jmabel | Talk 19:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The translations SimonP has been using are:

  • The King James Version, favourite of the fundamentalist King James Only 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 twice!!!!
  • The World English Bible, favourite, and protegee of the conservative evangelical Rainbow mission. - SimonP has duplicated 150+ bible verses from this, one article each
  • The New International Version, created, and favoured, by conservative evangelicals, and UCCF mission weeks. - SimonP has duplicated 50+ bible verses from this, one article each

As for scholarly translations, for example:

  • New American Bible - well regarded academically, and the official Roman Catholic translation for America - hardly insignificant but SimonP has quoted it about twice.
  • New Revised Standard Version - 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.

Straw men require there to be only straw. --Victim of signature fascism 00:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia vs. Wikisource

Wikisource would be a great place to do a variorum edition of the Bible. Articles that are just Bible text have no place in Wikipedia. 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 significant 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). -- Jmabel | Talk 19:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it just translates as Cetus/a cetus- 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. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 00:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obvious Links

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 -- T-rex 18:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a prominent template pointing to the text on Wikisource would be good.Thryduulf 20:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Roughly like

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

?--Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 00:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)