![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | A fact from Censorship of the Bible appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 4 April 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article contains a translation of Bibelverbot from de.wikipedia. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Kindly take a look at the Reference section; there are a lot of errors..
Csgir ( talk) 07:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The page name does not sit well with me: according to the Oxford dictionary, censorship is "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."
So I would expect this article to be about banning sentences or phrases. Instead it is about suppression or authorization or destruction of whole publications.
Also, I think the (and this is a wider issue) that "The Bible" is used where sometimes "scriptures" would be better. This is because, especially before the 1600s, (vernacular) scriptures were rarely collected into complete volumes: for example, the Wycliffite scriptures are often just the Gospels, or just the Psalms, or just the Hexeteuch. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 12:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Greetings. I would like to ask what the reference is for the information "During the short period of the Roman Republic in 1849, over 3,600 copies of the New Testament translated into in Italian were printed in Rome. After the revival of the Papal States, the government sealed the New Testaments, which were in the possession of the American ambassador. The police checked daily to see if the seals were still intact. After some time, the government purchased the Bibles in order to burn them gradually." Thank you!! Yetzer.C ( talk) 12:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Epiphyllumlover: there is numerous unsourced paragraphs. I have added a Citation needed template next to some of them. Could you try to source each unsourced paragraph or remove said unsourced paragraphs? Veverve ( talk) 23:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
This article does not really address the fact that different versions of the Bible exist and that a good deal of banning was done of those that included material not considered to be legitimate. The term “apocrypha” is not used in the entire article. Some books, even today, purport to be the “Word of God” but have only tenuous connection to accepted scripture. This seems to come under the vague and insufficient term “translations” here. I would encourage someone better versed in the subject than I to make clear that banning a book calling itself a bible when it isn’t has that as the motivation.
An example might be the inclusion of “Lilith” in certain volumes as Adam’s first wife. No mainstream denomination would accept that and likely would not consider such a book to be a real Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic ( talk • contribs) 12:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
This source quotes the 1234 concile de Tarracon [sic, Tarragone] and the 1246 concile de Béziers. This more recent source states the interdiction of translating the Bible into vernacular was forbidden by the councils of Toulouse and Tarragona, and the synod of Sens (1528) and the French parliament (1543). Does anyone have recent RSs which directly contain those information, to support those claims? Veverve ( talk) 02:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I have removed this sentence, which appears to make no sense: it has no grammatical Subject.
"In the course of a confirmation of the writings in 1215 at Fourth Council of the Lateran's condemnation of the writings of David of Dinant ordered Gregory IX. in 1231, to hand over all the theological books written in Latin to the diocesan bishops."
If anyone can make it a proper sentence with whatever meaning was intended in the source, please go ahead. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 18:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
"The Lateran Council confirmed Benedict XIII's bull Unigenitus dei filius."<ref name="bbkl">
I removed this sentence because 1) the last Lateran Council was 400 years earlier not after, and 2) the Ungenitus it adopted was a different document. See the Note on Unigenitus
Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 14:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
A flaw in the current article is that it mentions starts of censorships, but not when they ended, or how they were implemented, etc. It sometimes does this by implication, by mentioning some other event (e.g. the publication of the Great Bible), but it is not systematic or coherant, I think. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 06:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The article is pretty shoddy, and full of dodgy material, all skewed one way: overstating the nature and extent of biblical restrictions.
There may be more. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 20:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | A fact from Censorship of the Bible appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 4 April 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article contains a translation of Bibelverbot from de.wikipedia. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Kindly take a look at the Reference section; there are a lot of errors..
Csgir ( talk) 07:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The page name does not sit well with me: according to the Oxford dictionary, censorship is "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."
So I would expect this article to be about banning sentences or phrases. Instead it is about suppression or authorization or destruction of whole publications.
Also, I think the (and this is a wider issue) that "The Bible" is used where sometimes "scriptures" would be better. This is because, especially before the 1600s, (vernacular) scriptures were rarely collected into complete volumes: for example, the Wycliffite scriptures are often just the Gospels, or just the Psalms, or just the Hexeteuch. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 12:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Greetings. I would like to ask what the reference is for the information "During the short period of the Roman Republic in 1849, over 3,600 copies of the New Testament translated into in Italian were printed in Rome. After the revival of the Papal States, the government sealed the New Testaments, which were in the possession of the American ambassador. The police checked daily to see if the seals were still intact. After some time, the government purchased the Bibles in order to burn them gradually." Thank you!! Yetzer.C ( talk) 12:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Epiphyllumlover: there is numerous unsourced paragraphs. I have added a Citation needed template next to some of them. Could you try to source each unsourced paragraph or remove said unsourced paragraphs? Veverve ( talk) 23:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
This article does not really address the fact that different versions of the Bible exist and that a good deal of banning was done of those that included material not considered to be legitimate. The term “apocrypha” is not used in the entire article. Some books, even today, purport to be the “Word of God” but have only tenuous connection to accepted scripture. This seems to come under the vague and insufficient term “translations” here. I would encourage someone better versed in the subject than I to make clear that banning a book calling itself a bible when it isn’t has that as the motivation.
An example might be the inclusion of “Lilith” in certain volumes as Adam’s first wife. No mainstream denomination would accept that and likely would not consider such a book to be a real Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic ( talk • contribs) 12:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
This source quotes the 1234 concile de Tarracon [sic, Tarragone] and the 1246 concile de Béziers. This more recent source states the interdiction of translating the Bible into vernacular was forbidden by the councils of Toulouse and Tarragona, and the synod of Sens (1528) and the French parliament (1543). Does anyone have recent RSs which directly contain those information, to support those claims? Veverve ( talk) 02:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I have removed this sentence, which appears to make no sense: it has no grammatical Subject.
"In the course of a confirmation of the writings in 1215 at Fourth Council of the Lateran's condemnation of the writings of David of Dinant ordered Gregory IX. in 1231, to hand over all the theological books written in Latin to the diocesan bishops."
If anyone can make it a proper sentence with whatever meaning was intended in the source, please go ahead. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 18:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
"The Lateran Council confirmed Benedict XIII's bull Unigenitus dei filius."<ref name="bbkl">
I removed this sentence because 1) the last Lateran Council was 400 years earlier not after, and 2) the Ungenitus it adopted was a different document. See the Note on Unigenitus
Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 14:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
A flaw in the current article is that it mentions starts of censorships, but not when they ended, or how they were implemented, etc. It sometimes does this by implication, by mentioning some other event (e.g. the publication of the Great Bible), but it is not systematic or coherant, I think. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 06:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The article is pretty shoddy, and full of dodgy material, all skewed one way: overstating the nature and extent of biblical restrictions.
There may be more. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 20:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)