Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | KJV

Refactoring old material for legibility and usability. (Stopping for now, will pick up tomorrow.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I (-Ril-) have reverted this edit made to this page by a sockpuppet of User:Melissadolbeer 19:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry or not, that was blatantly not workshop material. I thought about rolling it back, but decided to let someone else deal with it. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 23:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I also don't think that long and disjointed rambles are very good for anyone's case. I do think the actual removal should have been left to someone less involved, however. - SimonP 23:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

1 Motions and requests by the parties
- 1.1 Template
2 Proposed temporary injunctions
- 2.1 Template
3 Proposed final decision

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] The Bible is a "primary source"

1) Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources applies, to the Bible as much as any other primary source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

But not to appropriate inclusion of a brief text if an article on that text is otherwise justified. Fred Bauder 15:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Doc notes this is a guideline. Phroziac and Ilyanep concur with placement. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Only small samples should be included

2) Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources asserts that only small samples of the source text may be included.

Comment by Arbitrators:

If an article on a chapter of a book of the Bible is justified, it is only common sense to include a reputable or traditional translation. Fred Bauder 15:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Traditional according to whom? Catholics would use a more catholic translation than the KJV. Using the KJV is evidence simply of Western and Protestant bias; we should aim to avoid systematic bias due to geographic locations of our editors. Also, it is very easy to provide a link to WikiSource which contains the KJV translations (and others). Also, this would be essentially arguing that we can include the entire lord of the rings and war and peace on Wikipedia (rather than wikisource) if we cunningly wrote articles that covered just one chapter or whole book, when the sensible thing to do would be to cover the book how it is done now. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Doc and SimonP point out Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry, which asserts that inclusion of some primary sources is desirable in some cases, drawa analogy to the use of the Bible verses; Ril protests that the verses are neither lyrics nor poetry thus the specific guidelines there are inapplicable, and points out Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] A whole chapter of the Bible is more than just a small sample

3) The entire text of one whole chapter of the Bible is in almost all cases, and in the case of all gospel chapters, too big to count as a small sample for an article about the same chapter

Comment by Arbitrators:

It is not that long Fred Bauder 15:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Doc points out that chapter length varies widely and that decisions on inclusion must be made case-by-case; SimonP notes that many are less than a page. Ril concedes that some are short, but argues that they should be presented in paraphrase, as presenting a particular translation is POV. Simon counters that deciding on a proper paraphrase would spark dispute. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Comment by others:

[edit] NPOV requires no translation favouritism

4) WP:NPOV requires that one translation of the Bible should not be favoured over another.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Definitely a problem, the King James Version is literary and traditional, but modern scholarship results in much improved modern translations. There is also a Catholic version which is widely used. Fred Bauder 15:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Doc argues that all editors working on an article may agree on an acceptable translation to present, and that this must be decided on a case-by-case basis; Ril argues that consensus of those present does not necessarily lead to NPOV, and that there is no verse for which one given translation is acceptably neutral to all. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Content forking is inappropriate

5) Wikipedia:Content forking asserts that attempts should not be made to discuss a subject in two seperate locations

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Attempts to gain consensus should be respected

6) Wikipedia:Consensus asserts that attempts to gain consensus should be respected, not mocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would change "mocked" to "ignored". Fred Bauder 15:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I would have "mocked" as well as "ignored". In my opinion, there is definite evidence of SimonP mocking the consensus that has been reached on the subject - as Thryduulf put it "there is consensus, consensus that there is consensus, and consensus that SimonP is acting against the consensus".

Comment by others:

Doc warns of meta-instruction creep and "wide ranging and ill-informed measures of consensus". Ril makes reference to Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew. Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.(Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

-Ril- made reference to those as "being narrowly focused not wide ranging". --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus from a wide range of editors should be respected

7) Wikipedia:Consensus asserts that a consensus involving a wide number of participants from across wikipedia should be respected

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Vexatious litigation

8) Wikipedians who show a pattern of misuse of the dispute resolution process to exacerbate disputes, harass opposing editors, or disrupt Wikipedia to make a point may be identified by the ArbCom to be vexatious litigants. If they become disruptive, the ArbCom may impose appropriate sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I suppose, but the principle does not apply to this case. Fred Bauder 15:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Ril protests that the filing of this case was not disruptive; Phroziac responds that it is not about the filing of this case in particular but a pattern of behavior. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Robert McClenon notes that Ril uses dispute resolution disruptively; Ilyanep does not believe it relates sufficiently to this case. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] No binding polls

9) Polls and discussions are not binding. However, recent consensus should be respected.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The decision making process must be considered as a whole. Discussion carry more weight if they have wider participation by involved users and if they are more recent. Fred Bauder 15:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Ril states that he has made it clear the poll was not for proposed policy; just consensus-finding. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Phroziac summarizes: polls aren't binding, but that does not mean SimonP may ignore the results as Ril claims he has.. Doc argues that this interpretation is equivalent to the poll being binding, and that consensus may still be wrong. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a democracy pragmatism, and article quality should take priority over any abstract poll, which did not consider the benefits of the organisation of material, and in many cases was driven by ideology, prejudice and ignorance. Indeed WP:NOT a democracy should perhaps be a key principle of this case. --Doc ^ask? 14:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a detailed verse-by-verse commentary on scripture. But wikipedia does operate on consensus - see Wikipedia:Consensus. WP:NOT democracy is there specifically to point out that a 1 vote majority isn't binding, but that Consensus is what matters. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew is not an abstract poll but something that very explicitely spells out exactly which very physical articles it refers to. SimonP ignoring consensus is definitely at the heart of this RFAR, if he had complied with it, this RFAR would never have existed. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 01:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The quality of the article is the paramount consideration

10) Whilst Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources and Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry are useful guidelines, the paramount question in a decision to include or exclude quotations in any particular article is: 'what improves the article?'

Comment by Arbitrators:

True, users should not follow guidelines when doing so results in an inferior article. Fred Bauder 15:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Ril states that consensus is paramount, regardless of the makeup of those coming to that consensus. Doc repeats that WP is an encyclopedia, not a democracy. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Doc remarks that those editing in a subject area are best placed to determine applicability of guidelines and content of articles. Ril claims that the arbcom extrapolates from guidelines to policy despite not editing in the subjects at hand. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Decisions concerning merging should be made in the interests of the best organisation of submitted material

11) The decision to merge should be made on pragmatic and not ideological grounds, and should always be reversable as new material is added. Polls and general debates to establish meta-principles are informative, but not binding, and may indeed be unhelpful.

Comment by Arbitrators:

In this case the decision to merge articles at the verse level cannot be cured by improving the articles. Meta-principles established after long discussion should be respected and conformed to. Fred Bauder 15:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Ril states that editorial decisions should not ignore the will of the community. Doc counters that WP:NOT a democracy. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Ideological considerations, or a desire to 'remove' material considered by non-specialists to be 'cruft' are not legitimate reasons for merging or splitting material. Decisions should be pragmatic, and reversable as suitable material is added. Enforcing a merging policy on a whole specialist field, on the basis of a general poll is inappropriate m:polls are evil. This would not be tollerated in astrophysics, anymore than Biblical studies.

Limiting the creation of articles on verses by notions of 'popular notability' (='I've heard of it') is absurd and biased. Would we insist that all articles on astrophysics be up-merged or limited to concepts that non-specialists thought were notable? Would we tolerate those admitting they have no specialist knowledge to dictate how articles on any other non-specialist field were organised? Would we allow a poll to determine how many asteroids might be notable? Biblical studies should not be treated differently from any other specialist subject
Decisions as to whether to merge or split articles are questions of content organisation not notability. It is not about pro or anti Bible POV, but about what makes our content in this field better. Often merging will be appropriate, but if good verifiable NPOV material is written on a small section (and such small section may historically have had huge artistic or theological impact), up-merging may be harmful to the coherence of the larger article. Thus, merging needs decided on a case-by-case basis and not by some meta principle.
In any case, it is unwise to decide the notability of an article before it is written. It is in the research that the impact of the subject is found and presented; to discuss notability in the abstract is absurd.
Any systematic bias should be dealt with by encouraging development of neglected fields not by the exclusion of material from larger fields. Wikipedia is not paper.--Doc ^ask? 01:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I assert that I am a qualified expert in Biblical Studies (and I am willing to verify secular academic qualifications, teaching experience and a publications record on request). The idea that non-experts (who admit they don't even contribute to this field), through campaigns and ill-informed ideas of popular notability, should be able to dictate what is included across the whole of a specialist field, or how such material should be organised, is damaging to Wikipedia. (I refer Arbcom to the Webcomics fiasco.) I testify that many Bible verses are highly notable within the disciple, and an abundance of verifiable NPOV material scholarship exists. I don not suggest that an article on every verse is desirable; merging into sections will often be beneficial. But, if ill-informed, abstract, agenda-motivated polls are allowed to 'ban' [1] material or pre-emptively dictate how it shall be organized, then I no longer wish to offer any expertise to Wikipedia.--Doc ^ask? 15:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I assert that I am a qualified expert in historical linguistics. I deliberately avoid getting involved in those articles in any substantial way for the purpose of avoiding conflict of interest. Editing in our own fields is highly liable to result in POV. Wikipedia is about outside editors referencing what inside people have said and done. No original research.

The poll about 1 Kings 4 and 5 was not in regards to the potential content but about the title that goes with it - in much the same way that there is a pre-emptive ban on Simian twat being the title of the article about George Bush - it wouldn't be NPOV. In the case of 1 Kings 4 and 5 it is not so clear to most editors what POV issue their could be with the titles, as most people are likely unaware that two major bible translations (the main catholic translation in america - NAB, and the main protestant translation in america - KJV) use completely different numbering at that point.

I testify that an abundance of cruft, for example, on minutiae of Lord of the Rings does not make that minutiae any more notable regardless of how much cruft there is, and regardless of how notable the actual book itself is. Likewise the bible.

I testify that I have asked an academically qualified professor of theology about this, on which I was informed that most bible verses are not individually notable, only in groups, be it groups of 3-4 verses, or whole chunks. Even phrases that appear as a single verse are more notable as a phrase than as a verse - it isn't the verse that has notability but the phrase that derives from it.

In the same way "monkey hanger" (referring to denizens of Hartlepool) is a far more notable phrase than the alleged trial itself - any article discussing it would primarily be about the phrase, and appear under the title of the phrase, not the trial's technical name, and would not predominantly discuss the trial. Furthermore, biblical verses are often duplicated elsewhere in the bible. This is particularly noticable with Matthew, since Luke very often has the same phrase mentioned, and so to discuss the instance in Matthew seperate to that in Luke is purely divisive, and not encyclopedic whatsoever. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Bible verses may not be individually notable. (Whatever the hell 'notable' means? Notable to whom? The man in the street, a scholar of that particular letter, someone who did a PhD on one verse? And who will judge 'notability' anyway - non-specialists? Shall I judge what is notable in astrophyics? - And judge on the basis of an article not-yet written?) But I submit that a merge/split decision isn't just about something as nebulous and ridiculous as 'notability', it is also about the bast way to organise the information supplied to wikipedia at that point; thus decions should be pragmatic and constantly reversable as our information base grows. And frankly, I won't even reply to your suggestion that qualified expects shouldn't get involved in articles in their field. Are we better having decisions made by the ill-informed? And in religion are they less likely to be NPOV? If Arbcom were stupid enough to agree with that contention, then I'd certainly not be editing Wikipedia again. --Doc ^ask? 23:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion criteria

12) Users should only tag articles for speedy deletion that meet the Criteria for speedy deletion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, contested "speedy deletions" are not at all speedy, rather they are productive of serious conflict. Fred Bauder 15:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This isn't really relevant as far as I can see. This arbitration is about what consensus on the source text and bible verse articles is, and whether SimonP has deliberately gone against that consensus, and attempted to exert ownership of the articles. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

From a previous case. (Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Not just a previous case, an IP (probably Ril, see evidence) has been recently tagging verses for speed deletion. --Doc ^ask? 10:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deceptive edit comments

13) Intentional deception of other users is disruptive and in bad faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, but how does this principle fit into this case? Fred Bauder 15:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

No one has managed to bring any sort of sanction on User:Rednblu for pretending to support evolution when he is in fact a Creationist, despite his heavy editing in such areas. So this clearly isn't something that the community views as actionable. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Wikipedia is not a commentary on scripture

1) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is not an inclusive list of the vast number of ways non-enclyclopedic material may find its way into Wikipedia. From time to time innovative ways to include non-enclyclopedic material are anticipated. Wikipedia is not a commentary on scripture. Such material, if it belongs in any MediaWiki Project, belongs in WikiBooks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

While not expressly set forth in WP:NOT, commentary on scripture is not knowledge, but commentary on revealed truth. revelation. Fred Bauder 22:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It is my impression that Fred means "alleged revealed truth" here, particularly since no particular scripture is specified, and it is quite unlikely that all possible religious scripture is simultaneously the "revealed truth". In response to the below, it is also my impression that Fred Bauder is an arbitrator in this case, and so his argument is entirely 100% relevant to this discussion. --Victim of signature fascism 22:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Fred states commentary on scripture is not knowledge, but commentary on revealed truth. Whether Scripture is 'revealed truth' or not is POV, and irrelevant to this discussion. The fact is that their is a body of scholarship, a history of interpretation, linguistic, historical, and social-scientific discussion of the ancient writings, commonly called scripture. The fact is that many secular universities and scholars regard this as knowledge worth exploring. Sure, they are POVs and beliefs all over this field, but wikiedia is good at recording these in a balanced NPOV fashion. WP:NOT a Bible commentary? Well, I could equally say WP:NOT a directory of schools, an atlas of streets, a compendium of webcomics, a depository of pokemon. WP:NOT Burke's peerage. WP:NOT 'Whose Who'? WP:IMDB, or Allmusic.com. Shall I start deleting now? Wikipedia is unique, a 'compendium of all knowledge' should information about the history of scholarship on Bible passages and verse be the one thing that our inclusionist ethos excludes? --Doc ^ask? 23:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyway. Wikipedia should not comment on the Bible, that would be OR. What it can, and should do, is record commentary and scholarship on the Bible.--Doc ^ask? 00:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not convinced that we are an atlas of streets or a directory of schools either. Though there are certainly notable streets and roads like the A66, which despite its dull name is frequently referred to as "the sexiest road in england", the A1 (commonly called "the great north road", and a.k.a. Dere Street), or the A34 (famous for the Newbury bypass, Swampy, and the bypass at Twyford Down) . But take it up with the people who edit those articles, or wikipedia in general, and see if you can get a consensus, I did. --Victim of signature fascism 22:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Fred feels Wikipedia should decide to create a massive and obvious bias here. If providing a summary of research and opinion on a given topic is commentary, then Wikipedia provides commentary on a vast number of things -- history, science, mathematics, or Wikipedia itself. Why scripture is different is totally unclear here. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you are a bit confused with terminology here; "commentary" is a very specific type of thing in terms of written works, it isn't just "comments" about the work, its a specific form of Literary Analysis of the work. In the case of many large or standardised works, commentaries often identify themselves as such, and have titles like "A bible commentary", or "the bible, verse by verse" or "the first 8 chapters of Matthew" (one of the references SimonP frequently refers to in the articles has a very similar title to this). Concordances are connected strongly with "commentaries", though they are more often structured in the encyclopedic way that wikipedia is (e.g. bible concordances (e.g. "Nave's topical Bible" - I don't know the ISBN for this) are typically structured by topic like Homosexuality and the Bible, not under headings like Leviticus 18:22). If it was merely comments we were referring to, they would probably already have been moved to WikiQuote. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 01:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-encyclopedic material may be removed

2) Non-encyclopedic material may be removed from Wikipedia once its nature is clearly established.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Awareness that material is non-encyclopedic may develop over a period of time as conflict over its inclusion in Wikipedia increases. The tipping point when it becomes clear that the material is not encyclopedic is not fixed, but may result from failure to resolve disputes over its inclusion without resort to authority. Fred Bauder 22:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Define 'non-encyclopedic', If what is included is NPOV and verifiable? --Doc ^ask? 23:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD has gloriously rejected all attempts to remove Bible related material from Wikipedia (see evidence), so hardly a 'tipping point'. --Doc ^ask? 23:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see the proposed finding of fact below. Scripture is endless and POV by its very nature. Fred Bauder 15:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Over 450 translations exist

1) There are over 450 different English translations of the Bible, most of which are no longer copyrighted under any circumstances

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, but only a few actual "contenders", some of which are copyrighted. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As examples,

The Geneva bible is not under copyright, and a major Lutheran version.
The Douay-Rheims version is a more modern and scholarly version also out of copyright.
Young's Literal Translation is also a major and valuable version (as it is fairly close to being word-for-word, and hence theoretically one of the most neutral) out of copyright.

SimonP has quoted from none of the above, despite their merits, particularly Young's as being the least theoretically divisive.

Further, the New International Version, while in copyright, may be still quoted up to 500 verses without any permission whatsoever. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Doc states that most translations are recent and thus copyrighted; Ril claims to count at least 100 prior to 1920.

[edit] Different translations are favoured by different religious and academic viewpoints

3) The King James Version is favoured by the King James Only religious movement, which is generally considered to be conservative and protestant, while the World English Bible is favoured by the protestant evangelical organization that is sponsoring it. The official catholic version in America is the New American Bible, and modern scholars have updated the King James Version, to take account of academic knowledge about ancient manuscripts, by producing the New Revised Standard Version.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Excerpts from traditional, Catholic and modern scholarly translations may be appropriate in articles regarding the content of Christian scriptures, provided copyright is not violated. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agreed, but again the modern translations such as the NAB, NRSV, and NIV are all copyrighted and cannot be used. - SimonP 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Doc states that the KJV is the best-known translation.

Most UCCF groups use the NIV, while Catholic church groups use the "New Jerusalem" bible. Due to UCCF mission weeks, most people in the UK are familiar more with the NIV. This also applies to people who have actually been to church, in that the RSV or NRSV is the preferred use in most anglican services.

The point is that most users of the KJV don't prefer it, they just use it because its what they have to hand. This point addresses those who do exhibit a preference for one translation or another, not those who just use whats known or to hand. This point is about those who actually have a preference, and which groups they generally are part of (and more explicitely vice-versa). --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 23:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Most people in the UK havn't been to university nevermind having familliarity with a Bible translation through a 'UCCF misison week' - whatever that is. Can you evidence your contention that 'most people in the UK are more familliar with the NIV'? I find that highly unlkely. (And the argument very parochial for a global encyclopedia) I'm not really interested in 'prefered translations' that would POV, but in the fact that the 350 year old KJV has had by far the most cultural and linguistic impact among English speakers. Actually, I'm not even wanting to argue for the KJV, I'm simply saying that there are objective reasons to choose it, if in a particular case it is felt that including a translation of the passage would benefit the article. --Doc ^ask? 00:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A UCCF mission week is when a society of evangelical students (usually the university evangelical society - e.g. CICCU, OICCU (pronounced "whack you"), LICCU, and DICCU, the acronyms are unfortunate/not depending on your POV) tries to convert as many fellow students as possible to their form of christianity. They give out copies of the bible in the streets, including to random non-university passers-by. They get approximately 2 converts in small universities, and lose about the same number of members, somehow the UCCF views that as a successful use of large sums of money in marketing. However, the entire university is typically made well aware of the week.

What is objective about choosing a version of something (for inclusion in an encyclopedia article) merely because it is popular? I have pointed out the fallacy of that argument elsewhere on this page. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 01:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless your proselytizing, which we certainly must not, the entire importance of the Bible is its popularity and influence. It is thus reasonable to choose the English version that is the most popular and influential. - SimonP 22:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming you were meaning "unless you're proselitising" rather than "unless your proselitizing"?

There are two points here. The first is that we have an article about the Voynich manuscript despite the fact it is neither popular nor influential. We have the article simply because it is notable. Therefore your argument fails at the first hurdle - popularity and influence are not the entire importance of the Bible, there are other things as well.

The second point is this. Popular and influential amongst whom? Catholics? Protestants? or scholars? In which case we would have the NAB, KJV, and NRSV, respectively. To say that the KJV is the only one which is popular and influential is pure pov. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm saying the KJV is by the most popular and influential translation in the public domain, which is the set of translations to which we are confined. As to the Voynich manuscript, it gets over 68,000 Google his, which is pretty extreme popularity for an inscrutable medieval text. - SimonP 21:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Since when were google hits any sort of evidence? "heterosexual fucking" has only got around 2000 google hits, but I'd personally wager that it was significantly more popular than google claims. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 22:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I would also wager that the term youg Googled is far from the most commonly used one. - SimonP 03:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, "gay fucking" turns up 1,590,000 hits, 500 times more. "straight fucking" unfortunately includes things that also mean "straight" as in "purely", i.e. "just fucking", so it isn't really very indicative. "homosexual fucking" turns up 60,000 hits. So according to google, "homosexual fucking" is 30 times more popular than "heterosexual fucking", so either 1 in 30 men are straight and 29 in 30 are gay (and/or have gay sex), or using google to look up popularity is fatally flawed. Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 19:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preferring the KJV is biased

5) Use of the King James Version in preference to any of the other 449+ alternatives inherantly violates WP:NPOV

Comment by Arbitrators:

Used in preference yes, as a traditional rendering, no. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Choices have to be made. There are also hundreds of translations of La Marseillaise, but we choose one as the example in that article. An example, by its very definition, is choosing one out of many options. For instance our having Example Scrabble tournament game, does not require that we include every other Scrabble game that has occurred. Or, to pick a closer example the King James Version of the Bible article picks two verses to use in the opening template. It picks Genesis 1:1 and John 3:16, two of the best known and most popular, just as the KJV is by far the most popular and best known public domain translation. - SimonP

There are over 400 public domain translations. Several of them are Catholic. Using the Protestant version in all of the articles is entirely POV.

Genesis 1:1 is known popularly, as is John 3:16 (better known as "Jesus wept"), 2 Kings 15:32 isn't, Luke 4:3 isn't, even if a synopsis of their content is.

Exact translations of each verse of La Marseillaise aren't controversial. People don't read deep meaning into them that is violated by alternative translations, and its not like the original text has gone missing and suffered manuscript problems with multiple scribes. Putting in one La Marseillaise translation over another isn't pov because the difference isn't really of any significance. Likewise the differences between translations of John 3:16 don't have significance, but the differences between other verses do, especially if you point out that there are several interpretations in the text, but only present one or two translations.--Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 23:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see how using the KJV consistently in over 200+ articles counts as merely using it as the "traditional rendering" when clearly some would merit more literal word-for-word translations, or others more catholically biased (when the text discusses these biases). Yet the KJV is never ditched by SimonP in any of the articles. That strikes me as POV. An majority on average would plausibly be using it as the "traditional" version, but 100% of the time, even when other translations more clearly stand out, strikes me as being entirely POV. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Lawyering rubbish. If editors who are actualy working on an article can agree on the best translation to illustrate an article, then editors who do not work on Bible articles should hardly complain. The KJV, whilst not my translation of choice, is the by far the most widely used English translation. Further, its translation is usualy that which has influence popular cultural references to the passage in question. If this passed, then even to quote a sentence of the Bible outide its original language would require 450 translations or the article would violate POV. Absurd. --Doc ^ask? 23:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's like saying that because Internet Explorer is more popular than Firefox, the Web browser article should exclusively use images and examples and references to IE, or because IBM PC compatible is more popular than Apple Mac or than Colossus computer, the Computer article should exclusively use images and descriptions in reference to IBM PCs. That's just plain POV. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 23:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The is American English and there is British English, it would be POV to prefer one, but that doesn't mean we should use neither. In fact, we let whatever is used first stand. There is AD and there is CE to use one is POV - but we don't weaken our articles by excluding both. I'm not arguing a preference for the KJV, I'm simply saying that, if, in an individual case including a quotation strengthens the article, it is a reasonable choise, but if another (copyright free) translation is used then it should not be changed without good reason. Case-by-case basis, what strengthens the individual article. --Doc ^ask? 00:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that we should exclusively use one either. However that is besides the point, using one merely demonstrates the geographic quirks of the editor, but if favouring one form of english over another expressed a political pov then it wouldn't be allowed. That is the situation here - one version over another expresses more than just a geographic quirk, it expresses a pov, whether deliberately or not. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 01:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that we should 'exclusively' use one translation. I'm happy to let the originator use any translation they want. If someone wants to remove it, or change it, then they make their case for how that improves the article. The same process we use for any other choices we make regarding an article. --Doc ^ask? 01:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So basically you are saying that if someone goes around and inserts one translation into 200+ articles, we have to make 200 seperate arguments just to replace the translations? Thats just POV. Thats like watching a holocaust denier going around and adding holocaust denial into 200+ articles and not being allowed to remove any of it without arguing seperately against each instance. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 19:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm arguing that there is nothing inherently POV in allowing a translation (any translation) to stand where it benefits the article, and changing it only if another would be better for the article. Frankly, your comparison to Holocaus denial is melodramatic and distasteful. --Doc ^ask? 03:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There is something inherently POV in including only one or two translations. Frankly my comparison to Holocaust denial, besides being topical (at least in non-US-centric news media), is entirely aposite. Here we have (potentially) one user expressing a single POV that many may find offensive and distasteful and pouring it into over 200 articles. Since when was "unlike elsewhere, this does not advocate pacifism" an NPOV way to discuss a biblical passage? --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 17:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

(un-indenting) A Neutral Point of View is not determined by summing versions over all articles. If each article is NPOV when considered by itself, then the whole encyclopedia is therefore NPOV. If there is no controversy over a translation of a particular verse or passage, then using a single translation is perfectly acceptable. Adding two more translations to an article on a verse over which there is no controversy (e.g., Matthew 1:7 would seem unlikely to be a magnet for sectarian conflict) is not necessary to make that article NPOV. If there is controversy over an article, then part of a balanced article will be the explanation and discussion of several translations. The way to make articles on Bible verses, chapters, or passages NPOV is not to enjoin the inclusion of a particular translation in them. Rather, it is to include the lowest number of appropriate translations necessary to give a comprehensive treatment of each article's subject, and to include additional translations to articles whose interpretation has generated controversy or serious disagreement. NatusRoma 06:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Highly controversial verses, like Matthew 5:32, will often need a number of extra translations. - SimonP 15:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If each article is NPOV this still does not make the whole encyclopedia NPOV. One can be NPOV about the facts, but still be non-NPOV about which facts are mentioned and get articles. In the specific example of Matthew 1:7, we have SimonP stating "His son Asia had a brief and unsuccessful reign", something the bible claims, but many archaeologists dispute (they dispute the unsuccessfulness, not the length), so how is SimonP possibly upholding NPOV by presenting it as fact? Also, "Gundry notes that the author of Matthew adds a "φ" to Asa's name", so translating it as "Asa" not "Asaph" is clearly POV - it is assuming that Matthew made an error and was meaning "Asa" not someone by the name of "Asaph".

I still have yet to see a defence of "unlike elsewhere, this does not advocate pacifism" (written by SimonP) being an NPOV and no-original-research way to discuss a biblical passage. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Give me a source that disagrees with Gundry's view. If one exist I would include, if it doesn't making up theories on our own is original research. And I have multiple times explained where the pacifism remark comes from. The very next sentence of Matthew 5:9 moves on to a more detailed discussion of the issue and makes explicit that it is cited to David Hill, a respected scholar. Also it is a fact that does not seem to be questioned by anyone that the Koine Greek word translated as "peacemakers" refers to those who actively bring conflict to an end, not to those who are passive. - SimonP 22:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There were several conscientious objectors in WWI that argued just that. You have multiple times presented the pacifism remark as fact rather than qualified it as belonging to Gundry. That isn't NPOV. Now exactly where do you mention gundry here? I can't see anyone mentioned in the entire paragraph except Clark, and even then nowhere near the pacifism remark. In fact, you don't mention Gundry anywhere in the article, not even in the references. So why did you present it as if it was a fact? --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've twice stated that the remark in Matthew 5:9 is referenced to David Hill. I mentioned Gundry in response to your remarks about Matthew 1:7. - SimonP 21:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No, what you have there is "xxxxxxx. yyyyy. Hill notes that zzzz". You seem to present highly POV original research ("xxxxxxx" and "yyyyy"). The presence of Hill noting zzzz seems to be an attempt to imply that the highly POV original research belongs to him when in fact it clearly is as disreputable as it appears. Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 22:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No, if you read the article it states "xxxxx. Hill demonstrates xxxxx." The translation of peacemakersis precisely what the first sentence is about. - SimonP 03:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That's even worse - that's writing it as "XXXX is true and Hill proves it" which is absolutely pov beyond a doubt. Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 19:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not including Catholic or Academic translations is biased towards Conservative Protestants

6) Failing to include either the New American Bible or New Revised Standard Version, both of which are respected by modern scholars for their care for ancient manuscript variations, demonstrates a Conservative Protestant bias, whether intentional or passively, on the part of SimonP

Comment by Arbitrators:

True, but alternatives may not be available due to copyright considerations. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

(Regardless of what SimonP claims his religions opinions/non-opinions to be) --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Young's literal translation, and Douey-Riems are always available due to being out of copyright. So are several older and catholic translations. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, these modern editions are copyrighted, and we cannot use them. Pretty much the only translations we have available to us are those that have passed into the public domain, and all translations that old are by modern standards quite conservative. - SimonP 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Young's literal translation is only about 100 years old, and is still academically valuable due to its use of word-for-word type translation - rather than interpreting what the text tries to mean, it just translates each word and leaves the reader to guess for themselves. Admittedly this still leaves some interpretation during translation, but far far less than in other versions. Though it suffers by not being up to date in terms of modern knowledge about ancient manuscripts, the KJV suffers this problem far far more, being significantly older. Young's literal translation is public domain, and so there is absolutely no justification for preferring the KJV to it. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

KJV is not only used by 'Conservative Protestants'. As I have said above, because its cultural impact has far exceeded any other translation, it is the best known among less-avid Bible readers. Further, since many Bible related articles may wish to discuss the use of the passage in other cultual works, often the KJV will make perfect sense to quote. Obviously, if the article is discussing difference of interpretation among Protestants and Roman Catholics, it would be proper to include quotations from other translations to illustrate difference. --Doc ^ask? 23:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Et tu brute" is the best known last words of Caesar in the general populous, but his last words are really "se ku teknon". "Et tu brute" is what Shakespeare's play has him say. Cultural impact and factual accuracy are two different things - is this to be "just what modern culture says" or "what the facts say and what the facts about what modern culture says are" ? --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 23:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so shall we always quote even the smallest Bible phrase in Greek or Hebrew, because that's 'more accurate'? No, we shall always choose an appropriate English translation. Again let's simply ask 'what benefits the article' - if the article is focused on original meaning and a more accurate translation is copyright free, let's use that. If the focus is on linguistic impact on the English language then the KJV will often prefered. Pragmatism on a case-by-case basis. --Doc ^ask? 00:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The key is the word "appropriate". It is a religious pov as to which is "appropriate" and which not, unless we include all of them. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 01:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

To a large extent the importance of the Bible is not in what it says, but rather the influence it has had. (I'm a big Northrop Frye fan) Like it or not, the version that has had the greatest influence is the KJV. - SimonP 00:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That's just pure sophistry, not reasoned argument. I don't see how most Catholics (thats the largest Christian denomination, by the way) would be influenced by what the KJV says when they have their own official translation. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 01:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read some James Joyce, someone of a clearly Catholic background who was a great one for including references to the KJV. For the most part even Catholic writers, including most modern ones, allude to the King James Version more than any other. - SimonP 01:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

James Joyce rejected Catholicism at age 16. So really you are saying that someone who rejected Catholicism at an early age used the KJV, that isn't much of an argument. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 19:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Joyce's work is still infused with Catholicism from beginning to end. Yet he picks the KJV. - SimonP 15:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

So basically you are saying that someone who was brought up for 16 years as a catholic went on to write work that was infused with Catholic themes, and that someone who rejected catholicism at age 16 used the protestant/anglican KJV. That doesn't exactly prove much, or demonstrate anything about the KJV other than that ex-catholics who reject catholicism at an early age have used it. That's not exactly surprising, and its not exactly an argument that the KJV is supported by catholics.--Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying the KJV is endorsed by Catholics. The KJV is no more used by Catholics than it is by most Protetants. I am saying that even those who are not Protestants, and who have no Protestant background, still use the KJV as the default English translation. - SimonP 22:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Including a large number of translations is required for NPOV

7) Including a broader selection of translations than 6 whole chapters of the King James Version, or just Conservative Protestant versions elsewhere, is required for the articles to meet NPOV requirements

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not a good idea to include several versions of entire chapters; this consideration might serve as a reason to not have entire chapters at all. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As I stated above that we have one example That we present two example verses in the KJV article does not mandate that we add every other verse, just as having two example translations does not necessitate us have all of them. - SimonP 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

So why is it that 1 of the 2 example translations in each of the 200+ articles you wrote are from the KJV. I.e 200+ KJV translations compared to maybe 20 for the NIV, and 0 for Youngs, Duoey-Reims, NASB, NAB, NRSV, etc. - this gives extremely undue weight to the KJV as a translation. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It is exactly my point that this consideration would serve as a reason not to have entire chapters at all. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Utter nonsense, see my comments above. NPOV is in the overall stance of an article, not the translation it uses. If this passed, it would be impossible even to quote any Bible passage without dozens of translations, even when the differences in translation were not pertinant to the article itself. --Doc ^ask? 23:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

So if one part of the article went "Jesus was a gay twat who killed his mother" it would be alright, because overall the article was NPOV? No, it wouldn't. NPOV applies to every part of the document. Why do you want to quote Bible passages in the first place? CITE, just put in a reference to it, and people can use the version they want themselves. The bible isn't exactly the rarest book in the world, I'm sure people can look up the text if they wish. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So, you are now suggesting that your interpretation of NPOV would exclude any quotation of the Bible whatsoever? No quotations however short? Would the Bible be unique in this prohibition, or would this apply to English translations of any foreign language work? Seems to me that you are willing to sacrifice the quality of articles for an extreme interpretation of NPOV. --Doc ^ask? 00:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm referring expressly to SimonP's usages. The 200 verses of Matthew, the verses of John 20, and of whatever other chapter/verse articles SimonP has been writing in the meantime. This RFAR isn't about general terms, its about SimonP. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal

The proposed finding is phrased in general terms, so we need to examine it on those terms. And on those terms, the logic behind it is harmfull to articles. --Doc ^ask? 01:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

the term "the articles" refers to the articles at the centre of this RfAr - i.e. those bible verse/chapter articles that SimonP created and/or added the source text to. Its the articles, not articles--Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 19:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Eww...so by your logic since there are 450 translations and we need a large number for NPOV we should include all 450? Or where is the line drawn? — Ilyan e p (Talk) 17:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the only fair way is to include none, and merely provide wikisource links/external links. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 17:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, I was trying to take this proposal to an extreme to argue what you're arguing. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 23:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

How many translations do you like are on Wikisource? While on Wikipedia we can use the occasional modern translation under fair use, we can never do so a Wikisource. - SimonP 15:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"Never"? That presumes that wikisource-or-a-successor won't exist in 70 years when all of those fall out of copyright. We can just give a link to a google search for the text, or a link to a site with a wide selection of translations - remembering that some sites only offer translations that support their POV (e.g. bible.org neglects catholic translations). And the bible happens to be currently the world's number 1 best seller, a book that is virtually everywhere, including in random hotel rooms, so if someone wants to look it up, then it won't exactly be difficult for them to find a version that they don't regard as biased. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In 70 years we can integrate the NRSV into the articles. Until then we are left with the versions that are in the public domain. - SimonP 22:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean like the 100+ that already are in the public domain that you didn't include? --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you give me a couple of public domain ones you would prefer to the KJV and WEB? If there is one you hold in high esteem, there is no reason it cannot be added. - SimonP 21:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Youngs for a start. The important point though is that you are unwilling to allow "instead of the KJV" rather than "as well as". This is POV. Victim of signature fascism22:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Young's is just as conservative as the KJV. Consider Matthew 1:19, where it deliberately avoids the word divorce, despite that being by far the most accurate translation. Also when have I ever stated that I opposed replacing the KJV? I have repeatedly stated that I would prefer a more accurate translation, and the KJV is merely the best of a number of flawed options. If you believe that Young's is better, feel free to replace the KJV across any articles you feel would be better served by that translation. - SimonP 03:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If Youngs is "just as conservative" as the KJV how is the KJV "the best ... option...", when Youngs has the added benefit of being word-for-word in most cases ? And while I agree there are a few contrived parts in youngs, there are certainly many others where its literalism far improves on the contrivances in the KJV. Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 19:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Including all translations isn't practical

8) Including all 450 translations would make the articles unwieldy and unreadable

Comment by Arbitrators:

Really? Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I.e. see next --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

obviously. Does this even need to be said? --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 05:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Its a step in the logic. Cutting it out breaks the logic chain. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The chain of logic seems to break here. There is a difference between including "a large number" of translations and including all existing translations (ignoring copyright issues for the moment, of course). Is including, say, five translations unwieldy? Is it NPOV? NatusRoma 02:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

For an article about a chapter, including 5 translations is unwieldy - that's about 7-10 800x600 screen pages inserted into what is otherwise an encyclopedia article. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 17:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you believe that there is any tenable balance with a smaller number? NatusRoma 00:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe in 1 or two occasions compared to the 36000+ that don't. For example, Mark can be read in a gnostic way, a Catholic way, a Protestant way, or a way that secular scholars have arrived at, or a way that you get when you include the fact of the Secret Gospel of Mark. Now that's 5 already, and I haven't included the Orthodox, Mar Thoma, or Coptic Christian interpretations. And none of them are the same. And some are wildly different. And that's just one of each. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Including translations is inherently flawed

9) Including translations will either violate NPOV, or make the articles unwieldy, or both, and is therefore inherently inappropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, but a quotation, up to an entire chapter, from some widely used version seems appropriate. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This principle would ban all examples anywhere from Wikipedia. Picking a single translation for a good reasons, such as its overwhelming popularity, is a necessary compromise. - SimonP 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should just state as fact that Iraq and Al-Qaeda were intrinsically connected at the time of the new york trade centre collisions? After all, the view has overwhelming popularity. Popular isn't NPOV. Please learn to distinguish the two concepts.

The principle explicitely refers to translations of the Bible, and nothing else, the principle would not ban all anything from Wikipedia, except for translations of whole chapters of the bible and of most verses. If the text of a verse is famous, then quoting a non-famous version isn't appropriate - its only the famous version that is famous, and only the famous version that should be quoted, and you aren't quoting a translation, you're quoting a famous quote. Most verses are not famous. For non-famous verses, why do you want to quote it in the first place rather than just paraphrase it in general terms, or provide reference, or both? There are plenty of places people can look up the exact text for themselves, according to their own translation preference. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 01:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why a quotation of an entire chapter would be appropriate when we can link to its presence on wikisource, link to several tens of thousands of websites that carry such translations, and it involves the book for which there are the most copies of in the entire world, a book which people even find in random hotel rooms. It isn't even remotely rare, and adding it into the article is unnecessary, and breaks up the content. No major printed encyclopedia anywhere in the world includes the entire text of a chapter of the bible in every articles about entire chapters of the bible. Indeed no major printed encyclopedia covers the bible in that structural form.

Comment by others:

Including translations does not inherently do either. The KJV could be quoted and then any significant disputes over translation could be recorded. NPOV has to be judged on the article in the round and not in some abstract instruction creep. --Doc ^ask? 00:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Bishops Bible could be quoted too, as could a word-for-word translation of the vulgate, consistently choosing one above another is simply POV. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 01:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Whilst we strive for NPOV, editing is about making choices. --Doc ^ask? 01:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Whilst editing is about making choices, we should strive to avoid any decision that requires us to commit to a POV. I.e. avoid the choice altogether, e.g. by not including the translation in the first place. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 19:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Essentially you're saying we should delete anything that could possibly offend someone. - SimonP 22:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giving preference to one translation google bombs it

10) Including one translation in several articles is an effective way to google bomb that translation, owing to wikipedia mirrors

Comment by Arbitrators:

We can't go down that road. All manner of nonsense and outdated material is carelessly mirrored. The publisher of the mirror is responsible as is Google which is producing volumes of useless duplicated material. We can only make the current Wikipedia as good as we can. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I.e. there is a potential motivation to doing so --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I very much doubt the KJV needs to be Google bombed. - SimonP 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Currently, "Matthew 1:1" on google has its first hit as the New American Bible. Some people would like to see the KJV at first hit (its currently second), a tactic that would achieve that is google bombing. This question and point merely asks if adding the translation would be effective in google bombing, not whether that is the purpose, or whether it has been done. I'm sure it is a simple point that you can agree is true. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This point is about what SimonP's motivation might be, not what should or shouldn't be done in general. The point is arguing that SimonP has added the translation in order to google bomb it. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

And how many hundred years old is the KJV, again? This is rediculous, everyone knows about the KJV, and it's still a very common translation. I've had a copy since I was in 2nd grade. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 05:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Google says otherwise. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd always heard that Google knows everything, but for it to know that Phroziac didn't in fact get a copy of the KJV in second grade is truly impressive. - SimonP 00:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This finding is absurd. Please evidence that this has occured to anyone except Ril. --Doc ^ask? 00:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

click here and witness it for yourself. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal

Eh? How does that prove that people are using wikipedia to google bomb the KJV? --Doc ^ask? 01:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No, thats evidence that the KJV isn't top of the list in google for "Matthew 1:1"; the finding that you accuse of being absurd.

You seem, at any rate, to have confused this point. This particular point is not itself about proving that anyone has used wikipedia to google bomb the KJV, instead, it is about proving that wikipedia could easily be put to that purpose by the action that SimonP has carried out. Whether that was SimonP's actual purpose or not is addressed elsewhere, this is about addressing whether it is plausible for it to be in the case of a more general user. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 19:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, this isn't actually how Google works. Simply mentioning the KJV in an article has no effect on Google, and will do nothing to move that translation from second to first. Google ranks sites largely based on number and quality of incoming links. So ironically your preferred solution of having all 200 articles link to the KJV on another site, would have a far more dramatic effect on Google. - SimonP 02:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

searching google for "king james version" gives no wikipedia links. [2] --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 14:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It does, but they are far down, after all, wikipedia has an article on the subject. What you should be searching for is the verses, this isn't about bombing google for searches for "king james version" - that would be people who already have chosen a version. What we should search for are terms like "matthew 1:5", where Wikipedia comes out close to the top - it google bombs the king james version close to the top, since that is the version in wikipedia currently. I.e. by being in something so heavily cross linked and referenced as wikipedia, the content appears at high ranking, so whichever translation is used also appears high ranking, hence consistently including one particular translation results in that translation appearing at or near the top of google search - by virtue of wikipedia's presence at that location. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 21:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SimonP has violated NPOV by including the KJV

11) By including the entire source text of each chapter and verse of the King James Translation of the bible for the respective articles, SimonP has, whether intentionally or not, violated NPOV requirements

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not in a serious way, the KJV is a traditional version most readers are familiar with even if it is not their preferred version. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It's quite interesting to note that only a few months ago -Ril- had no trouble with only having the KJV version, and he actually edit warred to replace the text with a redirect to the Wikisource copy of the KJV. - SimonP 01:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Replacing it with a link to wikisource is not supporting the KJV's presence in wikipedia. I would readily have pointed it to a more general location on Wikisource where other translations can also be found, but I had insufficient familiarity with items at wikisource to do so. Someone else could easily have done so had you let it stand rather than edit warred.

I disagree with Fred Bauder's claim that "most readers are familiar with" "the KJV". The claim demonstrates a "limited geographic scope" and similar-type (probably unintentional) systemic bias. As I argue elsewhere, most english-language Catholics are more familiar with the NAB. Other groups also have different familiarities. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] SimonP has violated Don't include copies of primary sources

12) By including the entire source text of each chapter and verse of the King James Translation of the bible for the respective articles, SimonP has, whether intentionally or not, violated Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources

Comment by Arbitrators:

The excerpts were not so lengthy as to violate the guideline. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Don't include copies of primary sources explicitly states that copies of short sources are desirable, and a single Bible verse is a bout as short as you can get. Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry is even more explicit in stating that public domain source texts should be included. - SimonP 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought the problem was that you were including chapters. Verses are a lot shorter, and I have no problem with including them. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 05:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that most of the bible, particularly the part that is relevant to this case - the gospels - (as this is the part SimonP has been creating articles for) is neither lyrics nor poetry. And, as almost everyone at the centralised discussions argued against the lyrics and poetry excuse, I don't see how it can be viewed as relevant. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm, not one person mentioned the lyrics and poetry policy at that discussion. - SimonP 00:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You can't violate a guideline. In any case since the guideline speaks of all promary sources, Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry would also violate Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources it if that was the case. --Doc ^ask? 03:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You can violate a guideline. You can violate a suggestion, and a request. Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry specifically sets itself out as an extension/exception/special case, I can't see any such situation existing for bible articles, which are, by and large, neither lyrics, nor poetry. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 17:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The excerpts were the entire source text of the chapters and verses. If SimonP carried on doing so, we would eventually have the entire source text of the (KJV) bible on wikipedia as well as wikisource. This clearly violates Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. And if it did not then nothing would, since we could scatter the text around sufficiently (e.g. by breaking into verses and chapters). --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It is my understanding that not only some verses were included, but very many were. In fact, many were that didn't have a very good reason to be there because we should only quote the important/frequently cited ones and simply summarize the nonnotable (to an extent) verses/chapters. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 17:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you point to some of these examples? Almost all the articles that you might consider "nonnotable" have actually survived multiple AfDs. - 18:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

(unsigned, presumably by SimonP)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John 20:19 springs to mind. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

So you are using an article I never edited, and actually voted to have deleted, as an example of my intransigence? - SimonP 22:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm giving it as evidence that your claim that "the articles that you might consider "nonnotable" have actually survived multiple AfDs" is misleading and false. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And I am saying I never once editted these articles, so how could I be censured for their existence? - SimonP 03:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

And I am saying that you said "Almost all the articles that you might consider 'nonnotable' have actually survived multiple AfDs" and then I proved you wrong by giving an example of "an article that [I] might consider 'nonnotable'" that was actually deleted due to AfD. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 19:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SimonP has engaged in content forking

13) By discussing topics such as the Genealogy of Jesus in several articles - Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:2, Matthew 1:3, Matthew 1:4, Matthew 1:5, Matthew 1:6, Matthew 1:7, Matthew 1:8, whether intentionally or not, SimonP has engaged in content forking

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

And are our articles on hydrogen, helium, and lithium forks of our article on the periodic table? - SimonP 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically, yes. :P --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 05:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That isn't the same thing. It is more equivalent to creating articles elements 1-3.6, elements 3.6-9.5, etc. Remember, the verse divisions have absolutely no relation to the structure of the original text, its a mediaeval addition to the text. In your (SimonP's) articles, you discuss several things like "women in the genealogy" and "missing people between mark and luke" and "the 14-14-14 pattern of the genealogy". This is clear content forking, those aren't things that belong at any specific verse, you just shove them in because you have nowhere else to put them, and then add "for a full discussion of women see verse 15" - why verse 15? well, its just where you shoved it, there is nothing that means that verse 15 is better than verse 21 for discussing it (its probably a different pair of verses, I don't recollect the exact numbering). Thats just not the way to address topics. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The current article at Genealogy of Jesus is actually almost entirely my own work. How can the verse articles be POV forks, if they are forking off my own article? - SimonP 16:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] SimonP has used the 200+ verse articles as a soapbox

14) SimonP has, in bible verse articles, frequently presented opinions as facts, violating WP:NOT (a soapbox) and WP:NOR. Example diffs provided here - [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] (these are unfortunately article-creation-diffs, and are substantial. The pov problems are explained in -Ril-'s evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

This finding lacks the diffs which would be necessary to establish its validity. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

These articles are certainly not perfect, there are many bits that could be better worded and certainly opinions and views that still have to be included. They are, however, well referenced and based on the latest scholarship. - SimonP 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but "This verse does not express absolute pacifism, unlike later ones" or whatever your exact wording said is just absolutely pure pov, its not "imperfect" its "deliberate pov". --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the article in question, Matthew 5:9, you can see that the very next sentence makes clear that the information on this translation issue is cited to the scholar David Hill. - SimonP 00:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Actually, I disagree. But that would be a content dispute in any case. Ril could help us fix any POV problems .... oh sorry, I forgot, he doesn't edit Bible articles, he just polices their NPOV. --Doc ^ask? 00:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And what exactly is wrong with policing articles for POV?

Maybe you could fix the POV problems yourself, before you even wrote the article?

The point of this is more to suggest that SimonP wants the articles seperate deliberately as it is easier to POV several disparate articles than it is ones under clear encyclopedia-like titles such as Genealogy of Jesus. I.e. that SimonP is creating these articles as an exercise in deliberate POV-forking articles and potential-articles that would be much more visible. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 01:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. --Doc ^ask? 03:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above Genealogy of Jesus is also my work, so the argument here doesn't make much sense. - SimonP 16:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SimonP created the 200+ articles to deliberately push a POV

15) SimonP's intention in creating Bible verse articles could, whether admitted or not, be assumed from the evidence to be to deliberately push POV about the subject matter of the articles by hiding the POV in so many articles that they are difficult to watch and are unlikely to attract sufficient attention to prevent

Comment by Arbitrators:

So he created such a blizzard of small articles that you couldn't keep track of them, perhaps. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

That -Ril- has so utterly confounded my actual personal point of view in these matters, is to me fairly good evidence that I have avoided biasing these entries. - SimonP 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, while it might be unusual for some users to have created hundreds of articles on a single subject, this is not the case for myself. I have also created several hundred articles in Category:Canadian writers. Category:Lists of state leaders by year, Category:Buildings and structures in Ottawa, Category:History of Canada. I have a habit of adding large quantities of content to Wikipedia. In the past this usually wasn't considered a problem. - SimonP 19:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wow, yes this is true 'it could be assumed that SimonP is POV pushing'. But why would we want to assume bad faith? We could assume many things (rightly or wrongly). I could assume -Ril- is a troll? --Doc ^ask? 00:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I could assume that SimonP and you are bible-bashing (that's a uk phrase with a similar meaning to bishop-bashing) trolls. But that's enough paralipsic personal attacks. I've added the phrase "from the evidence" to make it clearer. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The argument here seems to be that simply creating a large number of articles is automatically POV pushing. Personally I've always felt adding content to Wikipedia was a good thing. You also still haven't presented any evidence that these articles are POV. With the one example you gave above actually being quite clearly cited from a respected scholar. - SimonP 16:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have. I have given clear evidence of your asserting strong POV as if fact on the evidence page. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 17:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And I have shown how your example is referenced to a noted scholar, and is not my own POV. - SimonP 15:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I gave more than one example on the evidence page, at least one for each article you wrote, in fact, from a small sample of the articles.

Some articles could be better worded, but pretty much none of your examples actually raise issues of POV. Consider the egg/white scorpion question. If I had encountered that in one of my sources I would have included it, but not including absolutely every piece of trivia in an article that is only a few weeks old is not a POV problem. - SimonP 22:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The egg/white-scorpion example isn't about whether you noticed it or not, but about the fact that you state "is not similar" when there clearly is at least one obvious contradiction to "is not similar". I.e. that you made a strong statement of fact when it wasn't actually true. I.e. that you inserted POV original research. Regardless of whether you notice something is the case or not, you shouldn't make statements of fact at all - that would be original research - you should quote people and reference them, and then you wouldn't run the risk of your statement being inaccurate, since those people would still have said that even if it turned out that they were wrong. But you didn't. You presented POV as if it were fact, apparantly using original research in the process. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Since there is only one source at Matthew 7:10, it is quite obvious you simply need to go to that book to find the source. These articles are some of the most immaculately referenced in Wikipedia. Are you honestly saying that any Wikipedian who inserts a single unreferenced sentence should be banned? If so there will be very few Wikipedians left. For instance I note that most of your contributions have no references whatsoever. - SimonP 21:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"immaculately referenced" - nice and modest. You are inserting hundreds of unreferenced sentences, several of which are highly POV and presented as if fact, and the interpretation of the bible is a highly volatile subject, so to present one version as if it were a fact is an extreme POV. One can "immaculately reference" fancruft, one can "immaculately reference" all sorts of nonsense, and filler, the bible is a very well known book, there is enough commentary of all sorts of quality out there to reference any sort of worthless issue, like "Anderson notes there are 20,000 uses of the letter p in the bible, Bob Holness puts this down to constraints and the liquidity of language in the era. Many commonly used words of the time lacked the letter p due to the dry atmosphere, which Paul Parpernafe argues produced a particular difficulty in pronouncing plosives". --Victim of signature fascism 22:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew is not gerrymandered

16) Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew involved 36 people, at least 60% of which joined the discussion without being solicited to do so

Comment by Arbitrators:

Including expressions of opinion on the talk page there was a substantial discussion. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Only 40% of the electorate was recruited by artificial means! It must be a reliable reflection of the will of the community. Actually you should check your numbers. Only 25 people contributed to the discussion on that page, and 13 of them were contacted by you. A closer look will show that during the first 48 hours, when the "consensus" was actually formed, over 70% of the people who participated had been contacted by you. - SimonP 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Cut out the 40%, a large majority of the 60% hold the same view. Its a consensus regardless of how people were contacted, regardless of whether you include people that were contacted by me or not. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

lol. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 05:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Consensus is to merge most verse articles

17) By a large margin, the consensus of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew was that the vast majority of the articles should be merged

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think this is supportable. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It's odd that at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew not one person opposed merging, yet when someone attempted to merge Matthew 1:2, this was twice reverted by two different users, neither of whom were myself. The discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew only represented one portion of the community, those who were already predisposed to merging them. - SimonP 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

(see my evidence on this) Ultimately merging is a pragmatic decision based on the particular material that has been submitted and how it is best organised. I've problem with merging if it is justified on the grounds of the content of the article and its target, and what improves them. But large scale poles to pre-determine merges based on nothing other than people preconceptions about the 'notability' of the subjects of hundereds of verses are a bad idea.--Doc ^ask? 03:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

-Ril-'s selective advertising of the poll aside, this sort of result is unsustainable precisely because it was obtained by conflating dozens of separate issues and divorcing the debate from the relevant facts. It is a mistake to think that the discussion referenced here generated a consensus that Simon's verse articles should be merged -- how could it have, when Simon's articles were not discussed at any specific level? The debate carried on in demonstrable ignorance of the fact that the large part of them are already beyond stub length, and contain substantially more than just the translations.

-Ril-'s strategy, understanding that there is no consensus to delete these articles individually, is to abstract the debate away from the issue of whether the articles are WP:NPOV and WP:V. At Wikipedia:Bible verses#Roughly_how_many_verses_are_notable?, this failed -- a large group of people abstained from the voting, citing the fact that these issues are best decided on an article-by-article, topic-by-topic basis. But at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew, the strategy worked, and as Doc mentions, the discussion centered not around the quality of a specific set of articles but around people's preconceptions about the notability of the subjects. (Note that, to my knowledge, where a consensus HAS emerged regarding a specific article, Simon has not been energetic in opposing that consensus: see e.g. the history of Matthew 1:2, where Ril's merge/redirect per and AFD on the article has not drawn a response from Simon, despite the fact that per -Ril-'s evidence he is probably watching the article like a hawk.)

The "consensus" that emerged at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew was one engineered to exclude the facts and discourge people from educating themselves on the topic of debate. Its framing was such that people were encouraged to contribute without actually considering the dozens of specific articles that were supposedly at issue. In short, it was exactly the sort of discussion that cannot form a useful consensus regardless of how many people 'vote' one way or another. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew clearly and explicitely listed each of the 200+ articles that it covered - this is what that page looked like during the discussion (the discussion was on the talk page). Its framing was clear and explicit about exactly which articles were involved, and I took no part in it except for the opening statement, so as to be able to avoid these very accusations of engineering the outcome. The outcome was not of my doing but of the 30+ other people who took part.

At Wikipedia:Bible verses#Roughly_how_many_verses_are_notable? 29% abstained, while 56% voted for it being less than 300 (37% for 100-300 ish and 19% for 10-30 ish). Only 15% voted that there were more than 300 (10% for tens of thousands, and 5% for hundreds). The difference between 56% and 15% is 41%, the abstentions would not have changed which group was in the majority had they chosen to vote and had they voted for the 15% side, neither of which they did.

Advertising these polls at Wikipedia:Current surveys, Template:Cent (the centralised discussion template that appears at AFD), and in my signature at WP:AN/I is not "selective advertising", but the very opposite - advertising to as wide a group of people as is plausible. Victim of signature fascism 21:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prior consensus is also to merge most verse articles

18) The majority of people at Wikipedia:Bible verses stated that in general only notable verses should have independent articles, and that there were less than 300 in the entire bible which were notable. This implies that most of the first 200 verses of Matthew should not have independent articles, as it is implausible that 2/3 of all the notable verses in the entire bible should occur at the start of Matthew.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is supportable but rather wordy. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Actually, the most popular opinion at that poll was that less than 300 verses were notable, 'check it yourself.

Actually the most popular option at that poll was that putting an exact number figure on the number of verses is silly. The subsequent discussion at Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses concluded that no mass mergers should take place. - SimonP 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No it didn't, Christopher Parham and Doc Glasgow, clear and obvious supporters of your cause (e.g. Christopher's "good luck" message on your talk page), made those conclusions. And furthermore, Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses covered very general cases wheras Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew covered the specific cases of your 200+ articles of Matthew, and hence, being as how it is also a more recent discussion, superseeds any conclusion at Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses. The very section "arguments for transwikiing" seems to be generally of the opinion that the verses should be transwikied, not kept on wikipedia, the section "arguments for merging" generally seems to be of the opinion that the verses should be merged, and "arguments for keeping seperate" seems to generally be of the opinion that they should be kept seperate. And to top that off, the very design of that discussion, whereby viewpoints were segregated, made for a false discussion, where very little contesting of each section occurred, and where only a vague idea of what had been concluded could be arrived at - it appeared to be designed to stifle any serious discussion by partitioning people into groups, much like fascist dictatorships do to anyone who opposes them. Apart from each side stating their arguments and concluding that they are right, no actual discussion is evident on that page between the groups. How anyone could claim it concluded anything is beyond me. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 21:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Further, the most popular opinion at Wikipedia:Bible verses was not that it was silly to put an exact number, but that less than 300 were notable. Check the figures. More people voted for there being less than 300 than voted for there being more than 300, and very few voted that the idea was silly. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 21:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

SimonP (and I suppose me) you should be commenting in the next section, not here, you are not an arbitrator on this case against you --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal

Sorry, I've move my comments to the proper section. - SimonP 01:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 21:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] SimonP shows contempt for consensus about verse articles

19) By continuing to create verse articles about the verses of Matthew systematically, SimonP is violating consensus that has already been drawn on the subject

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, he is ignoring the expressed consensus of the community. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It should be noted that just about the first thing I did after creating the first of these articles was to ask for community input on how they should be arranged. I've hardly tried to proceed unilaterally. - SimonP 23:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Talk:John 20:16 isn't exactly the most obvious place in the world to ask for "community" input. Its more the kind of place that you mention things that you don't want anyone who might oppose your stance to find out about. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 01:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That page was on the main page of Wikipedia at the time, in the DYK section. As the number of comments demonstrates, it was attracting a lot of interest. - SimonP 01:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That's only attracting attention from newbies and so forth, very little of the community actually watches DYK much as it is about new articles, not proposals or projects. Why didn't you put a notice at VFD/AFD, for example, or WP:AN/I, or one of the pages at the community portal, or at WP:RFC - there is nothing forcing RFCs to be negative - or why not propose a wikiproject. Or perhaps the most obvious of all, why didn't you even mention it at Wikiproject Bible? the project that exists for the specific purpose of "organising material related to the bible" ? At the time, it wasn't anywhere near as dead as it is now.

There was also an AfD, which got 55 votes and a strong keep decision. Also how many newbies participated on that talk page? It was almost all users with long histories, unlike your own discussions which attracted many users who had just arrived. - SimonP 15:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

(un-indented)I make the votes there as

33 keep
22 delete
2 transwiki or delete
2 merge
1 transwiki

Now as far as I can see, that's 33:22, a 3:2 decision, that's not a consensus, and its definitely not a strong keep - it's only about 60% not 66%, and if you consider keep vs. do-not-keep-independantly it becomes 33:27, which is barely a majority for keep at all.

Also, although Keep takes the initial lead, delete votes appear to more the average towards the latter stages of the vote, giving every indication that had the vote been allowed to continue longer that it would have resulted in delete or no-consensus being the outcome. I note that Oldak Quill closed the debate as "keep" despite voting for "keep" during it, this is simply biased, and given that closing the debate after only 8 days, when it was clearly not a clear consensus, worked in every advantage of the keep votes, I don't really think you can say that the alleged outcome of "keep" is in any way significant. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Except if you look at the renomination a few weeks later the votes are almost 100% in favour of keeping it. - SimonP 21:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Consensus is to remove the source text of biblical chapters from the relevant articles

20) At Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text, the overwhelming majority again argued that the source text for entire chapters of the bible should be removed from the chapter articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Supportable Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Again this consensus is a manufactured one. - SimonP 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how. It was listed at Template:Cent, and the majority of the people there are entirely independant of me, and the consensus just amongst those who are independant of me was also the same as the general consensus. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 01:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Again only true if 1) the 'poll' was valid 2) polls are held binding across hundreds of articles, regardless of the benefits or detriment of the individual article. I say such polls are evil. --Doc ^ask? 00:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

So, now you are saying that policies like WP:NPOV are invalid because they are binding across hundreds of articles, or that policies that people vote on that cover hundreds of articles are invalid?

[edit] Prior consensus is also to remove the source text of biblical chapters from the relevant articles

21) At Wikipedia:Bible source text (which was later moved to Wikipedia:Bible verses/Survey despite the fact that they were about different things) the majority of people considered that the source text for the entire chapters of the bible should be removed from the chapter articles. This was a decision made by 65% of the participants, and 70% if abstentions are not counted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Supportable Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

65% is usually not considered enough to create a new policy. It should also be noted that again many of those who voted in -Ril-'s favour were personally contacted by him. (Also is was actually Radiant! moved that page.) - SimonP 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's 70% without the abstentions, 65% is enough for many AFDs to be closed as delete, and it wasn't about creating new policy, but about assertaining what the community interpreted the current policy to mean, it said that much in a huge box at the top. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 01:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] The consensus results about verses and chapters are publicly and centrally announced

22) These conclusions about bible verses and chapters are listed at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Conclusions

Comment by Arbitrators:

Supportable Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] SimonP shows contempt for consensus about source text and has tried to assert ownership

23) Despite consensus on the matter, SimonP has repeatedly reverted any attempt to remove the source text from these articles, and can consequently be viewed as trying to assert ownership of the articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Supportable but weak on citation of evidence Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is only true if we regard a poll as binding across a whole range of articles, regardless of belefit or otherwise to the article in question. Polls are evil. --Doc ^ask? 00:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is not evil, the very opposite in fact - Wikipedia:Consensus. The polls in question were at pains to point out that they most specifically referred to SimonP's articles that already existed, particularly discussions like Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew, and hence were clearly about the articles in question, not just arbitrarily general cases. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] -Ril- using dispute resolution disruptively

24) -Ril- has shown a pattern of using both this RfAr and other recent RfArs to disrupt Wikipedia to make points or harass.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

-Ril- isn't the only person bringing the case against SimonP. I can see someone trying to make a personal attack, a logical fallacy instead of an actual defence here. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 21:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Definitely. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 02:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ril has a history of disruption and trolling

25) Ril has a history of disruption and trolling.

Comment by Arbitrators:

So Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See my evidence. --Doc ^ask? 01:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ril is intent on removing 'cruft' not improving Wikipedia's content

26) Ril's activities are an attempt to prevent and/or restricting the growth of wikipedia's coverage of Biblical studies, rather than helping to improve articles in this field.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Even a blind pig finds an acorn from time to time. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

No, they are an attempt at stopping unilateral action by one user against a clear consensus. As well as against filling wikipedia with cruft. Coverage of Biblical studies is not something that bothers me, but flooding wikipedia with non-notable content about non-notable verses is. Further, I object to what appears to be a clear attempt at pov-forking - making it impossible to track bible articles for pov by spreading content thinly across several articles. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 21:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right about many of these articles, but your methods are...disturbing. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 14:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

My methods are necessary when people like SimonP totally ignore consensus and attempt ownership of articles. My methods involve (a) creating a centralised discussion to determine what consensus is (b) creating a further centralised discussion when SimonP alleges that the initial one covered articles in general and not the specific case of his articls (c) bringing this RfAr against SimonP for continuing to ignore consensus. Are you arguing that this is the wrong thing to do, and that maybe instead of seeking discussion I should, say, edit war?--Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 17:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

See my evidence, particularly his numerous 'deletion' attempts, and endevour to get a unique policy pre-emptively 'banning’ certain Bible articles from creation--Doc ^ask? 01:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I further submit that the fact that Ril, through an IP, nominated verse articles for speedy deletion give evidence to my contention that he is not wanting to merge material for better organisation (which is why we should merge) but this is a roundabout way of removing information that he considers 'cruft'. When Ril says merge, he means delete, and thus he seeks to exclude proper material from wikipedia. --Doc ^ask? 16:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] -Ril- has mistagged articles for speedy deletion

27) -Ril- has attempted to tag a number of Bible verse articles for speedy deletion as "POV forks" ([8], [9], [10]). This is not a valid CSD. He did this logged out as User:86.136.61.186, but the edit history of that IP address makes quite clear it was -Ril-, and Matthew has confirmed this with CheckUser.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No article should be tagged for speedy deletion if other users do not agree. This arbitration is the appropriate course, not fighting it out at speedy deletion. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

And this determines whether SimonP is attempting ownership of articles or violating consensus exactly how? --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 17:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] The ArbCom has previously banned -Ril- for one week for mistagging speedies

28) This summer the ArbCom issued a one week ban to -Ril- for very similar behaviour.

Comment by Arbitrators:

So, is he then some dog to be ignored Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

And this determines whether SimonP is attempting ownership of articles or violating consensus exactly how? --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 17:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] -Ril- blatantly tried to deceive other users

29) These articles were nominated for speedy deletion by an anon IP. When confronted the IP claimed to be to new a user unable to create an AfD. See also the IP's talk page. CheckUser later determined that the IP address belonged to -Ril-, far from a new user and someone who has initiated a number of AfDs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Maybe, but -Ril- is not the focus of this case, SimonP is. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Why is this relevant? What exactly are you trying to demonstrate here? --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 17:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Just that you habitually and consistently use deception and bad faith to try and get your way. - SimonP 18:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I could make the same claim against you. Indeed others have done so for me in their opening statements. You decieve people about how votes came out - below you argue that one vote wasn't a "delete" outcome so the article should be kept, totally misrepresenting the debate which in fact concluded with a clear "merge" outcome. You use bad faith - constantly making personal attacks, and off topic arguments against those who have opposing views, a case in point here; while I have been careful to cover only your behaviour in the matter at hand, you have dredged up all sorts of issues against me, many of which are entirely unrelated to the subject matter. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Lyrics and poetry

30) Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry encourages the inclusion of certain primary sources, within an 'analytical framework that describes the song and its cultural impact'. It is that recognised that it can be beneficial to include the words of a text within an article on it. Taken at face valus, this conflicts with Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, indicating that wikipedia guidelines are not set in stone, and should be viewed pragmatically.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A few excerpts are very different from chapter and verse. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

See below--Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 17:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm not trying to argue that the Bible = Lyrics and poetry (although parts of it certainly are), simply that there are precidents for a valid inclusion of text to aid in the discussion of of words and their cultural impact. --Doc ^ask? 03:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lyrics and poetry does not apply to the gospels

31) The Gospels are neither lyrics nor poetry, and so Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry does not apply.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The underlying principles apply. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources on the other hand does. In addition, consensus discussion as to what is the case superseeds both. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 17:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

For several weeks now Matthew 1 has actually been one of the example good articles listed at that page. While I admit that I myself added it, it does show that the people who monitor that page do not consider it out of place. - SimonP 18:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Marking your own work as a "good article"!!!!! Oh, that's so neutral. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The policy on lyrics and poetry exists not because lyrics and poetry are substantively different from prose, but rather because songs and poems are often fairly short and can thus fit into articles. Just as Bible verses and chapters are fairly short. - SimonP 15:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The community rejects the deletion of articles on Bible verses

32) There have been nine separate deletion debates over articles about Bible verses. (1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.) None of these have come close to the standard level of support needed for deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Support has never been strong for keeping, merging was nearly always a strong alternative, delete combined with merge was more than keep in the ones I viewed. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Misrepresentation. The community rejects the existance of large numbers of single-verse articles. Just because they support merging rather than deletion does not mean that they support keeping as it stands. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out an merge vote is officially a form of keep. While I agree there is an ongoing debate about formatting it is still a fact that there is only a very small minority that seems to favour deletion. - 21:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge vote is a merge vote. Not a keep vote. If people wanted to keep it rather than merge they would have put keep rather than merge. They put merge. They wanted it merged. Regardless of your interpretation of the rules. They wanted it merged. Victim of signature fascism22:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If a merge vote is a merge vote, why do you keep claiming it is also a delete vote? - SimonP 04:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ignore whatever you claim I claim for the moment. Do you argue that those votes were not to merge. Do you claim that the outcome of those votes was something other than "merge". Do you claim that the clear consensus of the community expressed at those votes was something other than to merge? --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 19:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Redirecting articles is a form of deletion

33) Simply redirecting articles, without merging any content, is a form of deletion, as it effectively erases the content to most readers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

True, but if an article on the chapter is justified it can and should be rewritten. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

See below. SimonP is attempting to present a false argument by neglecting to include all the details.

Comment by others:

[edit] Redirecting articles is not a form of deletion

34) Redirecting articles, after merging any content, is not a form of deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Supportable, but might not be needed. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agreed. However, let's look at the percentage of each article that was merged when a user went through "merging and redirecting" some Bible verses:

Article	Dif of merge	Amount of article merged into Matthew 1
Matthew 1:5	[11]	0%
Matthew 1:6	[12]	0%
Matthew 1:7	[13]	0%
Matthew 1:8	[14]	0%
Matthew 1:9	[15]	0%
Matthew 1:10	[16]	0%

We are not here talking about mergers and redirecting, we are simply talking about redirecting and dumping the content. - SimonP 22:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again you are trying to deliberately mislead arbitrators. The above articles could easily be merged - as shown here (as a first draft of merging them). The point is that you are trying to claim that any redirecting of the articles would be deletion and rejected by the community. My point is that the community have argued that the articles should be merged, and that merging is perfectly valid and acceptable, particularly in the light of the community view that this is what should happen. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 21:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Except merging is nerver what has happened simply redirection, and even in your example the merger involves the deletion of the bulk of the content. - SimonP 21:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] The community rejects the existance of hundreds of independant articles on single Bible verses

35) The community believes that articles about bible verses should be variously merged in most cases. In other words they reject the independant existance of such articles - this is not to say that they wish for the content to be deleted, just not kept seperately verse-by-verse.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Supportable Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] SimonP deliberately attempts to decieve people about this issue

36) SimonP has presented half-truths in deliberate attempts to deceive people, including the arbitrators of this case, about community opinion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

He's just making his point best he can. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

See, for example, SimonP's argument that the community reject deletion, where he neglects to mention that they also reject keeping, since the community argue for merging. See also SimonP's reference to a highly corrupt AFD, where one of the "Keep" voters closed the AFD themselves as "keep", just when the delete voters had started to vote in substantial numbers. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Except that merging has lost by a fair margin in every fair poll or discussion held on the subject. - SimonP 22:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a pure lie. See Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 21:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Note the word fair in my comment. - SimonP 21:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how anything that gets more than 50% can count as "losing". Victim of signature fascism 21:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] An actual merger would counter Wikipedia:Article size

37) Most of the verse articles are not stubs. The text of the articles on Matthew 1, without source texts, images, references, or introductory lead sections, comes to about 10,000 words and 60Kb. (Run a word count on User:SimonP/temp to confirm this). Moreover, most chapters are considerably longer than Matthew 1 and have more content. A combined article would be considerably longer than standard guidelines allow.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This proposal is basically is a misleading lie. As an example, here is a demonstration merge of 17 verse articles. The merge there is under 32k (i.e. within "ideal article size"), and there is no need for either of the two copies of the quite bland source text, so removing them would reduce it still further. It is most certainly not anywhere near 10,000 words or 60kb.

Your example proves quite nicely that the only way to merge articles is to dump the majority of the content, and leave off 8 of the 23 verses completely. - SimonP 04:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

A) There are only 17 verses between Matthew 1:1 and Matthew 1:17, not 23. The merge would be to Genealogy of Jesus, the Matthean part of which only covers Matthew 1:1-17, not 18-23 as well.

B) The content that was dumped was that vacuous fluff like the (fictional) example given elsewhere about Bob Holness' argument that p is rarely used in these verses due to the dryness of the air at the time, and the lack of plosive-based words in the era.--Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 19:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

And SimonP seems to be claiming that the only possible merge is all of the articles from Matthew 1:1 to Matthew 1:34 into Matthew 1, wheras there are several other possibilities, including merging from Matthew 1:1 to Matthew 1:17 into Genealogy of Jesus, as demonstrated in my example merge. Victim of signature fascism 21:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The "consensus" at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew is quite clear, verse articles should be merged into the chapters. Do you now agree with me that that discussion is far from perfect. - SimonP 04:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The mergists there don't appear to have reached a consensus about whether it should be merged into chapters or subjects. For example, most don't comment about destinations at all. Several also propose subject driven merging, not chapter driven merging - e.g. User:Smerdis of Tion, and User:Parallel or Together? argues that chapter articles are overkill. Subjects is the general encyclopedic way, particularly as chapters artificially break up subjects, and several gospel subjects are repeated in multiple gospels, e.g. the Genealogy of Jesus appears both in Matthew and in Luke. The corresponding chapter articles would contain similar content, and this is in addition to the content already at Genealogy of Jesus. Keeping the content seperate is absurd, merging it together is the obvious and encyclopedic thing to do. There doesn't appear to be consensus on the question of destinations, indeed there doesn't even appear to any attempt to gain consensus about the destination, or any polls about where it should go. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 19:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Merge attempts involve deleting the vast bulk of the content

38) The attempts that have been made to "merge" Bible verses have involved deleting almost all the content. For instance Matthew 1:5 survived AfD on January 11, but on January 16 it was redirected with not one word of the content being merged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This proposal is basically is a misleading lie. Most of the content that is deleted during merging is duplication of the content. Other things that can be deleted are non-encyclopedic fluff, even if it is well sourced non-encyclopedic fluff. As an example, here is a demonstration merge of 17 verse articles. The merge there is under 32k (i.e. within "ideal article size"), and there is no need for either of the two copies of the quite bland source text, so removing them would reduce it still further. Victim of signature fascism 21:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

37) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] The KJV is dodgy in light of modern scholarship

W1) Most modern scholarship believes that many passages in the King James Version were not originally part of the Bible but were forged additions from the mediaeval era or dark ages, such as the Comma Johanneum, and the traditional ending to Mark 16. Many modern translations leave these texts out or mark them in some way that identifies the view that modern scholarship has of them, as demonstrated by the New Revised Standard Version, which uses an alternate ending to Mark.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Content issue; withdrawn. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Modern scholarship has produced better translations. Fred Bauder 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The NRSV is one of the most neutral and most academically supported

W2) The New Revised Standard Version is non-denominational, being officially praised by the Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and several other Protestant churches, as well as being supported by scholars.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Content issue; withdrawn.

[edit] Volume of scripture

1) Considering only the major religions of the world, there is a vast volume of commentary on the text of scriptures and revealed truth. Texts which could be analyzed to the verse level include the Torah, the old and new testaments, the Koran, the Confucian texts, the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita, and voluminous Buddhist texts. This activity could be logically extended to epic literature such as the Mahabharata or Iliad and to classic philosophical or political works by Plato, Karl Marx or even Mao Zedong.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This fact is the foundation of the principle that Wikipedia cannot include detailed commentary on scripture. Fred Bauder 14:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Systematic bias ought to be removed by inclusion of neglected areas not exclusion of material in more popular areas. Wikipedia's ethos is inclusivist. So the comparisons are irrelevant, since Wikipedia is not paper. Wikipedia cannot be a commentary on those ancient texts regarded 'Scripture'. However, it can, and should include information (as detailed and well-ordered as possible) about that extensive body of scholarship known as Biblical studies/commentary. --Doc ^ask? 17:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scriptural commentary articles by SimonP

2) SimonP has created and vigorously defended a series of articles based on the Canonical Gospels such as Matthew 1:5 and Matthew 1:9. These articles have been the subject of repeated Wikipedia:Requests for deletion and commentary, see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Consensus of the community

3) The consensus of the community, as expressed in Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew is that "that, taking into consideration Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, the vast majority of these articles should be merged (if any content proves relevant) and otherwise redirected to its parent chapter article, unless it can prove outstanding noteability on its own. A simple discussion of a verse does not make for an acceptable article, original research or not."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fred Bauder wrote the above, I concur with it. Victim of signature fascism 21:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Consensus of the community 2

3.5) The consensus of the community, as expressed in Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses is that "there is no consensus to move this material away from Wikipedia, and that there is no consensus to delete the material en bloc." and "Good, full, well-referenced articles should stay. Stubs and bare-bones may be merged."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

SimonP wrote the above. It is entirely misleading.

(a) "there is no consensus to move this away" and "there is no consensus to delete the material en bloc" is an attempt to imply that the material should be kept in the structural form that it is, rather than the clear desire of the community to merge it. It is also an attempt to cover the source-text issue by the same argument. The consensus of the community about the source text is clear that it should be removed from chapter articles.
(b) "Good, full, well-referenced articles should stay". The key word here is "good", and the question of what constitutes "well-referenced". At any rate, regardless of this, the community clearly stated that the 200+ verse articles should be merged.
(c) above all else, Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses has no consensus about anything whatsoever. All it is is a presentation of the arguments of each side in their own quite seperate sections with very little actual clear discussion between the sides. Any summary/claims of consensus having occurred at that location have been made by those biased editors (SimonP, Doc glasgow, etc.) which previously argued that SimonP's articles should stay.

--Victim of signature fascism 21:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] SimonP ignored community consensus

4) SimonP's reaction to the expressed consensus of the community, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew was to ignore it. See the links following SimonP's statement at the top of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew, defending the legitimacy of the consensus reached in that discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] -Ril- banned for 1 year

1) -Ril- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (under any account or IP) is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't know that he deserves a barnstar, but banning him for bringing a serious problem to our attention has no basis. Fred Bauder 16:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

See below. Also, I don't see how the issue of SimonP's behaviour in the KJV matter (the topic of this arbitration, and the reason why it has the name it does) is in any way related to me making 6 fairly brief comments about Arbitration Clerks; i.e. this is suggestion by Phroziac is vehemently off-topic for this arbitration, and I strongly suspect it has something to do with Phroziac's religious stance. --Victim of signature fascism 21:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The incident happened in the process of filing the request for this arbitration. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 01:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

So did several other incidents. It isn't relevant. Nor are SimonP's several other edits in non-KJV topics. This is an RFAR about (a) SimonP and (b) behaviour over the inclusion/disclusion of the source text of the KJV. Why do you think it has the title it has? Victim of signature fascism. P.s. as per your comment below, you've posted in the wrong section. 19:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant because you did it right in front of arbcom. ;) I do not feel that I posted in the wrong section, because i posted an indented reply to a post in the right section. It would break the thread if i posted in the "others" section. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 02:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

UninvitedCompany violating Admin rules and putting an indef ban on me at a time previous to me even raising this RfAr is simply not relevant to this RfAr. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 22:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

He's constantly trolling. UninvitedCompany tried to indef ban him in August 2005, and I tried again very recently. And he's still doing exactly the same stuff he was doing on his last rfar. I see no evidence we should put up with it. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 23:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

One year is too long. FuelWagon was only banned for six months. He and -Ril- both made constructive edits. FuelWagon's escalating personal attack was more disruptive than -Ril-'s trolling. The last editor to be banned for a full year was EffK, and his edits were not only never constructive, but were not even comprehensible. Robert McClenon 19:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not follow FuelWagon enough to know anything about him. I was thinking of it more like Pigsonthewing, however the main thing pigsonthewing did to get banned was contempt arbcom. Hell, he even said that he will "treat this[it] with the utter contempt it deserves". --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 02:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to try an RfA on Ril specifically for this? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the KJV or debates over that as such. Michael Ralston 20:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That is my point entirely. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 22:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] -Ril- a vexatious litigant

-Ril- is declared to be a vexatious litigant. Any user conduct RfC or RfAr that he files may be deleted by any admin, advocate, or defendant without regard to process.

Comment by arbitrators:

No justified after going though this. He has served the community well by bringing this case to our attention. Fred Bauder 16:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Erm, how, exactly? This RfAR for example was directly supported by not only me but also 4 others - Thryduulf, Ilyanep, JzG, and Radiant, and nor am I the only one to submit evidence against SimonP. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 21:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This RFAr is obviously fine, seeing as how the arbcom accepted it. You know what we're talking about. Remember requesting arbitration against UninvitedCompany in August? Because he blocked you for 3RR, and oh noes, the 4th revert was 26 hours after the 1st? --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 05:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Vexatious litigant is someone who constantly raises unsuccessful claims against people as a form of harassment. It can't be vexatious if the arbitration committee actually accept it. You should charge snowspinner with being vexatious before you charge me, after all, snowspinner has raised significantly more RfArs against people. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 22:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, erm, p.s. I raised the RfAr against UninvitedCompany because he blocked me for infinite time, and had previously admitted to me that he hates Islam, while I was combatting anti-Islamic Pov-pushers, and had already had an altercation with me, i.e. UninvitedCompany blocked a user he has a personal and religiously prejudiced dislike of, for a ridiculously out of order duration, for something that even 2 arbitrators at the time said the block should be lifted. This abuse of power is why I brought RfAr against UninvitedCompany, which is hardly a petty complaint. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 22:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. It's rather obvious to me your only purpose of being here is to make trouble. I highly doubt that you failed to read my ENTIRE MESSAGE --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 23:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So, erm, your argument here is that I should be declared a vexatious litegant because of something I did in august and was dealt with at the time, and has absolutely nothing to do with this case, which you admit was fine? So basically you are saying you are trolling? --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 22:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Try reading my message. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 23:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not as extreme as a ban, but will deal with his disruption, which is largely in creating disputes via dispute resolution. Robert McClenon 19:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not in direct competition of a ban, however; if -Ril- were to be banned for a year, and this was applied, it would simply take effect when/if the ban expires. I definitely agree with it though, his vexatiousness is one of the reasons I still believe he's a CheeseDreams sock. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 02:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I was wrong. I read vexatious litigation again, and the filing of this rfar was indeed vexatious. This rfar is for a semi-good reason, but it looks a hell of a lot like -Ril- is only doing this to make trouble. Does he even edit bible articles? Last I knew, he wanted all bible verse articles deleted. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 23:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] -Ril- under vexatious litigation parole.

-Ril- is placed under vexatious litigation parole, a new but necessary remedy to deal with disruptive use of the dispute resolution process. He may be blocked on a non-escalating basis for between 48 hours and one week if he disrupts a dispute resolution process such as RfAr or RfC.

Comment by arbitrators:

No basis for this. Fred Bauder 16:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Again this is quite off topic, and inaccurate, I don't see by what justification I can be accused of violating RfAr, or how this is on topic for this RfAr. It should be pointed out that ths RfAr was accepted and was about SimonP not me. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 21:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's on topic because you did it. See the FuelWagon vs Ed Poor and Pigsonthewing rfars for examples of other cases where decisions were made that were not part of the original complaint. (FuelWagon was banned for being FuelWagon, though he filed an rfar for alledged abuse by Ed Poor, and Karmafist was slightly sanctioned for going a little bit crazy with Pigsonthewing. Additionally, Karmafist complained about proposed decisions made against him, for the same reason you are, and a few of them passed). --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 02:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Phroziac banned for 1 year

1) Phroziac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (under any account or IP) is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

For what? Fred Bauder 16:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

He's constantly blocking people in disregard for the blocking policy. Phroziac first blocked -Ril- for "being a sockpuppet of CheeseDreams" despite the fact that the arb com was on the way to rejecting the charge at the time, and has since done so. Secondly, Phroziac then blocked -Ril- for "trolling" about a particular subject that I had only made 6 comments about anywhere ever - "trolling" is not a criteria for blocking under the blocking policy, and nor is blocking people you don't like. --Victim of signature fascism 20:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparantly the community (as per centralised discussion straw poll) want the ArbCom to clamp down harder on rogue admins. I think banning one for a year would send a suitable message about how admins are expected to behave and what happens if they don't. --Victim of signature fascism 19:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. So do it. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 23:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Heh. You realize it's extremely hard to get someone banned for a year, even if they really are doing something that would require it? Desysopping me would be just as effective against my alleged abuse of powers. :) --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 01:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This so ridiculous that I think my ridiculousity detector just exploded.--Sean Black ^(talk) 01:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should just ban everybody for a year and come back after a nice vacation, eh? Karm a fist 04:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There are other cases currently open involving allegations of misconduct by admins, and I do not see -Ril- requesting long bans in them. That makes sense. He doesn't have a vendetta against other admins besides Phroziac. Robert McClenon 16:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a vendetta against Phroziac. You can check my edit history to confirm that if you like. There are indeed other cases currently open involving allegations of misconduct by admins, but I never took part in requesting them, nor am I a party to them, so it would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment. HINT --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 21:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

He really doesn't have a vendetta against me, he simply posted this in retaliation of my proposal to ban him for a year. :) --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 02:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT I think --Doc ^ask? 00:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Phroziac's actions, which Phroziac clearly admits elsewhere on this page are not pertinant to this particular RfAr are examples of WP:POINT. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 01:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disrupting or proving a point. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 23:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree you aren't proving any points. But you are trying to, you are trying to assert a point about me. This RfAr is about SimonP's actions in relation to bible verse and chapter articles, and to an extent the articles themselves. You are disrupting that by putting forward an entirely off topic issue. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 21:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, as are most of these proposed 'remedies'. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 22:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to explain why? Or are you just going to shout accusations?--Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 17:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't just go around and ban people for one year just for first-time violations. Or ban them from editing certain types of articles for that amount of time. One year is quite a bit for a first time! Perhaps 3 months for certain types of articles was a little less extreme, and if we're banning anyone for the first time a week is enough. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 00:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SimonP banned from inserting any portion of the source text of any translation of the Bible into any article for 1 year

Comment by Arbitrators:

A portion might be acceptable, but no user should add the entire text of any Chapter of the Bible into an article.

Comment by parties:

It neatly prevents the problem of his ignoring consensus, without preventing him editing elsewhere. It isn't a major issue, and I'm sure if it has merit then someone else would add it. --Victim of signature fascism 20:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'd suggest a lesser time for a start. One year seems a bit much. Michael Ralston 20:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Urm, its one year for this very specific thing, that other people aren't being banned from doing by this particular proposal, and that doesn't prevent SimonP from doing anything else, even allowing him to make other edits apart from this one to the articles during that year. So I'm not really convinced that 1 year is a major penalty here. Personally I would like to see it set at infinite, since if SimonP carried this out it would violate consensus, but ArbCom can only impose maximum 1 year penalties. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 22:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SimonP banned from inserting an entire chapter of the bible anywhere in wikipedia for 1 year

Comment by Arbitrators:

Why would it be limited to SimonP and for only 1 year. Fred Bauder 16:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

After all, we have Wikisource. --Victim of signature fascism 21:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to Fred's question; (a) no-one else has demonstrated any intent on doing so, only SimonP, though I suppose the principle could be applied in general, (b) I thought that the maximum ban that ArbCom were allowed to impose was 1 year. There is no other reason for it to only apply to SimonP, or for it to only be for a year. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] SimonP banned from creating or un-redirecting articles about a single biblical verse

Comment by Arbitrators:

Obviously Fred Bauder 16:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

If it's noteworthy then other people will create them. --Victim of signature fascism 21:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The day someone gets banned for simply adding quality content to Wikipedia, is the day I quit this project. - SimonP 01:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The key word is "quality". If, however, you wish to quit/edit under a sockpuppet/new account, I don't have a problem with that, providing that such sockpuppets/new accounts continue to abide by this ruling. --Victim of signature fascism 21:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] SimonP banned from editing articles about a single biblical verse for 3 months

Comment by Arbitrators:

No reason for just 3 months Fred Bauder 16:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is really about the POV editing, presenting opinions as fact rather than attributing them, heavily skewing the references used towards one general POV, etc. It won't prevent SimonP from editing elsewhere, and he clearly has a wide number of articles that he is interested in outside the subject since he has one of the highest non-bot edit counts in wikipedia. --Victim of signature fascism 21:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't presented any evidence that these articles are POV. Your entire list at the evidence page seems to be for items that are not as well cited as you would like; however, in most cases the very next sentence explains where these arguments are coming from. - SimonP 17:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Most of these should just be deleted anyway. By the way, you posted in the wrong section. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 01:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a valid opinion, but you must agree that when you did AfD one of the articles it came nowhere close to being deleted. Despite it being one of the poorest and shortest of all the verse articles. Unquestionably some dislike these pages, but the community as a whole quite clearly opposes their removal. - SimonP 17:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:2 (second attempt) was merge and redirect. So, sorry, but you are clearly mischaracterising the "community as a whole", whic quite clearly wants the articles merged and or deleted and above all else not to exist seperately. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 17:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, a merge vote is a form of keep, not delete. That 90% of the community support either keeping or merging these articles, I find it hard to comprehend how you can argue the view is to delete them - SimonP 22:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Trying to claim that the community wanted to keep the articles when the votes were at least 70% to merge them is almost a total lie. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 21:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you show me this poll where 70% voted to merge the articles? I've certainly never seen such a result. - SimonP 21:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ril banned from instigating further debates

Ril is prohibited from instigating further polls or discussions or making mass deletion nominations in fields outside his direct editing interest, and specifically in areas relating to the Bible. --Doc ^ask? 01:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Commended maybe, certainly not punished for taking the lead in this important matter. Fred Bauder 16:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This seems to be an attempt to say "we won't let the opposition have a voice". SimonP is very forceful, and wears down most people who attempt to oppose him, i.e. he violates WP:OWN. Attempting to stamp out any strong or serious opposition is quite inappropriate. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 21:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Stop further trolling. If anything he says has merit, he will be able to persuade someone else to open the discussion. --Doc ^ask? 01:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doc glasgow banned from criticising further debates

Doc glasgow is prohibited from criticising further polls or discussions or making mass deletions of userboxes in any field, and specifically in areas relating to -Ril-. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 22:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Nonsense, criticism is welcome. Fred Bauder 16:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Doc glasgow is verging on trolling here. Discussions have a clear place in wikipedia, and Wikipedia:Consensus advocates seeking discussion rather than unilateral action. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 22:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Okay, now you're acting like a five-year-old. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 18:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles to the verse level shall be merged

1) In accordance with community consensus articles to the verse level, other than notable passages, shall be merged into more comprehensive articles dealing either with the subject matter of the scripture or its sections.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am willing to perform this task if it is passed, and if no other person chooses to do so. If I were to do this it would be based on me simply sticking the whole of a group of articles together (in the grouping outlined by User:Uncle G on one of the AFDs), and then refactoring to remove duplication - two examples of this are here and here (in these examples I included as much as possible, including the source text, and all the very similar images). --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] SimonP banned

2) SimonP is banned from creating or editing articles which deal with individual bible verses.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] SimonP cautioned

3) SimonP is cautioned to respond appropriately to the expressed consensus of the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

==Proposed enforcement==Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KJV#Log_of_blocks_and_bans

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Should SimonP violate the ban imposed he may be blocked for a brief period, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After one year the maximum ban shall be increased to one year. Should he unblock himself he shall be desyopped.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This seems fair. It allows SimonP to edit other biblical articles. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Template

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] The Bible is a "primary source"

[edit] Only small samples should be included

[edit] A whole chapter of the Bible is more than just a small sample

[edit] NPOV requires no translation favouritism

[edit] Content forking is inappropriate

[edit] Attempts to gain consensus should be respected

[edit] Consensus from a wide range of editors should be respected

[edit] Vexatious litigation

[edit] No binding polls

[edit] The quality of the article is the paramount consideration

[edit] Decisions concerning merging should be made in the interests of the best organisation of submitted material

[edit] Speedy deletion criteria

[edit] Deceptive edit comments

[edit] Wikipedia is not a commentary on scripture

[edit] Non-encyclopedic material may be removed

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Over 450 translations exist

[edit] Different translations are favoured by different religious and academic viewpoints

[edit] Preferring the KJV is biased

[edit] Not including Catholic or Academic translations is biased towards Conservative Protestants

[edit] Including a large number of translations is required for NPOV

[edit] Including all translations isn't practical

[edit] Including translations is inherently flawed

[edit] Giving preference to one translation google bombs it

[edit] SimonP has violated NPOV by including the KJV

[edit] SimonP has violated Don't include copies of primary sources

[edit] SimonP has engaged in content forking

[edit] SimonP has used the 200+ verse articles as a soapbox

[edit] SimonP created the 200+ articles to deliberately push a POV

[edit] Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew is not gerrymandered

[edit] Consensus is to merge most verse articles

[edit] Prior consensus is also to merge most verse articles

[edit] SimonP shows contempt for consensus about verse articles

[edit] Consensus is to remove the source text of biblical chapters from the relevant articles

[edit] Prior consensus is also to remove the source text of biblical chapters from the relevant articles

[edit] The consensus results about verses and chapters are publicly and centrally announced

[edit] SimonP shows contempt for consensus about source text and has tried to assert ownership

[edit] -Ril- using dispute resolution disruptively

[edit] Ril has a history of disruption and trolling

[edit] Ril is intent on removing 'cruft' not improving Wikipedia's content

[edit] -Ril- has mistagged articles for speedy deletion

[edit] The ArbCom has previously banned -Ril- for one week for mistagging speedies

[edit] -Ril- blatantly tried to deceive other users

[edit] Lyrics and poetry

[edit] Lyrics and poetry does not apply to the gospels

[edit] The community rejects the deletion of articles on Bible verses

[edit] Redirecting articles is a form of deletion

[edit] Redirecting articles is not a form of deletion

[edit] The community rejects the existance of hundreds of independant articles on single Bible verses

[edit] SimonP deliberately attempts to decieve people about this issue

[edit] An actual merger would counter Wikipedia:Article size

[edit] Merge attempts involve deleting the vast bulk of the content

[edit] Template

[edit] The KJV is dodgy in light of modern scholarship

[edit] The NRSV is one of the most neutral and most academically supported

[edit] Volume of scripture

[edit] Scriptural commentary articles by SimonP

[edit] Consensus of the community

[edit] Consensus of the community 2

[edit] SimonP ignored community consensus

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Proposed remedies

[edit] Template

[edit] -Ril- banned for 1 year