Talk:Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897) article.
Article policies
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
WikiProject Bible This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] In Wikipedia

  • {{WikisourceEBD1897|headword}} allows to insert links to relevant articles of Easton's.
  • {{eastons}} can be inserted in articles derived mainly from Easton's.
The above was moved from the article page to avoid self-reference. ✤ JonHarder talk 20:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Question: is auto-adding entries from EBD to Wikipedia a

  • good thing?
  • bad thing?

What would make it useful? What should be added/subtracted/omitted?


It would be better to add them in chunks of (say) a couple dozen, let the 'pedia digest them. Is this sort of automated import likely to be a frequent event? It would be nice if future importings also built up a page called "imports from blah", with the full list. -- Tarquin 08:31 Aug 7, 2002 (PDT)

Perhaps there could be some way of noting on the recent changes and search pages that this is an upload from an outdated text and requires work. The same would be useful for Britannica articles from 1911. Danny

If we need obscure Biblical characters, they might as well come from the EBD but for words commonly used outside the Biblical context, the EBD does more harm than good. Imagine reading Augusto Pinochet and clicking on Ambassador next to Orlando Letelier's name and coming up with tsir, melets, and malak. It isn't an NPOV problem, just a plain old non sequitur, nearly irrelevant.
Of course, there are NPOV problems, see the history of Anger as fixed by Tarquin.
Any batch procedure like this is going to present problems. Imagine if someone did this with the 1911 EB. The Wikipedia would disappear in a morass. Ortolan88 08:39 Aug 7, 2002 (PDT)


As per discussion on the mailing list, I'm going ahead, but very slowly, and with a lot of filtering. I'm currently tuning and testing the submission script. Once every five minutes (current setting) should dump this batch in just over two days: I'm currently contemplating setting the final frequency to one every 15 minutes, which should take a week, and I hope not overstretch the interest or patience of on-line editors.

The script is turned off for tonight -- will re-start tomorrow

I have a question about editing these entries. If we go in and start editing them, should we give the full names of the books of the Bible? Right now, for example, it has "Jer" instead of "Jeremiah". Should we then wikify those book names so there are references to each of the books and an article on each one of them in the 'pedia? -- Zoe

Neil - it would be helpful if it were possible to have the script log in under a descriptive name (say, EASTON_ROBOT) to make easier to get to the contributions list. Enchanter

That should be possible by passing cookie headers in the HTTP request. -phma

That's a bit of a pain, so I'm running anonymously. To see a list of entries submitted by tha automatic script, try: this link

[edit] Mixing policy and content

This article inappropriately mixes Wikipedia policy (which properly belongs in the Wikipedia namespace) and Wikipedia content, as well as suggestions about improving the article (which belong here on the talk page).

I know; I should be bold in editing; but I'm about to leave and just saw this. :) Jdavidb 21:11, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Made a template, {{EastonDict}} --Random|832 11:27, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is an article from the public domain Easton's Bible Dictionary, originally published in 1897. This article is written from a nineteenth century Christian viewpoint, and may not reflect modern opinions or recent discoveries in Biblical scholarship. Please help the Wikipedia by bringing this article up to date.

Any pages that link to {{EastonDict}} have been modified to {{Eastons}}. I have not modified the template for historical purposes, though I have incorporated some of the text in the more commonly used template. --Reflex Reaction 15:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yuck

God I hate Easton's Bible Dictionary. Wikipedia's entries on Biblical subjects are bound to be deeply problematic to begin with, given the number of POV pushers to be found on these subjects. But taking articles directly from an 1897 Bible Dictionary guarantees that we are starting from an extremely tendentious point. Sigh. I guess there's nothing to be done about it now. john k 05:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved

Fond as I am of WikiProject:MEA, it's not good to have Wikipedia: stuff in the See also. I removed this:

-- Jake 05:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)