This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
assess and improve articles to
good and
1.0 standards, or visit the
wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Biblical canon is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the
Catholic Church. For more information, visit the
project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Text and/or other creative content from
Luther's canon was copied or moved into
Biblical canon with
this edit. The former page's
history now serves to
provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
The two tables are mostly unsourced
The two tables are mostly unsourced. I think it is better to have no information than unsourced or poorly sourced information,
WP:V. Thus, what is unsource in those two tables should either be sourced, let us say within 3 months, or be deleted.
Veverve (
talk) 20:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I have removed what was unsourced. I suggest that if one adds columns, it be done as follow: adding all the references to a group's specific canon in one single note that is put next to the group's name (e.g., "YYYYY Church"[1]).
You eliminated some things that you shouldn't have, Eastern Orthodox tradition and Oriental Orthodox tradition are different, they are not the same. You only left the Eastern Orthodox tradition while you eliminated the Oriental Orthodox tradition. I want to think that for you both are the same.
Rafaelosornio (
talk) 22:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)reply
No, they are not the same and I am aware of it. As I have explained above, the problem was the sheer lack of sources for those claims.
Veverve (
talk) 04:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)reply
How should each table be formatted?
I recently started to learn how the Bible is divided in different...I don't know, parts, sub parts, sub sub parts? So far, my favorite explanation is here.
https://menorah-bible.jimdofree.com/english/structure-of-the-bible/ I wonder if the tables here in this article could be more like the tables in the linked page. I've been learning about formatting on Wikipedia, but I can't figure out just how to do this. I also think the tables should be sortable.
2600:4040:5556:D100:B971:B4CB:BE3F:CCCE (
talk) 03:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Old Testament Chart??
What the hell happened to the Old Testament chart that showed the difference of canon between the various churches under different denominations? Now all is left is the tewahedo canon and Roman Catholic canon?
142.181.49.145 (
talk) 03:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)reply
As far as I'm aware, the other denominations were removed for being "unsourced", however I think adding sources would be a better course of action than deleting hours of information gathering and replacing it with two canons that no almost one is comparing.
WikiWilliard (
talk) 04:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I think adding sources would be a better course of action: feel free to add sourced information (
WP:BURDEN). than deleting hours of information:
WP:CHEWINGGUM.
Veverve (
talk) 05:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Although I understand the that this is perhaps not how you view it, having a simple marker that a section is unsourced is better than making an entire section almost entirely useless, but sourced. Casual readers may not care that information is unsourced, however readers who might are capable of finding sources, and perhaps adding to the article. Most Wikipedia articles are largely unsourced, or have unsourced sections, that doesn't mean they need to be deleted altogether; just that sources should be added in the foreseeable future. Adding sources for this, I daresay, would be easier if the information was already there. Rather than someone less familiar with Wikipedia's editing software having to create a new row, they could instead read a how-to and add easy-to-find sources such as the NIV Bible or the NRSV.
WikiWilliard (
talk) 14:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Casual readers may not care that information is unsourced: but one of WP's pilar is
WP:V, and we must follow WP's guidelines on what an encyclopedia is. As for the rest, if people could source information like those, I dare to think they would have done it during the years this unsourced content was present on WP articles. See also
User:Edward-Woodrow/Unsourced content should be deleted.
Veverve (
talk) 16:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks wikiWilliard for the archived link. I use that chart constantly. Veverve, that deletion is criminal. The answer is to add citations, not delete good information. Had I known someone like you would make such a change I would have put in some hours to cite things. But as it stands, I don't have the coding aptitude to undo it.
74.193.27.97 (
talk) 19:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I use that chart constantly: if you are using unsourced information
from Wikipedia, this is your choice.
that deletion is criminal: this is veering very close to a
WP:PA, please stop at once. This deletion was furthermore perfectly legitimate, see
WP:BURDEN.
I would have put in some hours to cite things. But as it stands, I don't have the coding aptitude to undo it: see
Help:Referencing for beginners if you want to try yourself at the task.
Veverve (
talk) 19:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)reply
This is not
WP:PA, it was not a personal attack. The statement was criticizing your edit, not you personally. Stating the username of the single account responsible for the edit is not a personal attack.
WikiWilliard (
talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you so much for this! I've been hoping there was an archived version ever since the edit was made. The deletion made me very sad and removed a number of things that I used on almost a daily basis.
166.181.81.73 (
talk) 07:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Books of Enoch in the chart
It seems that all 3 Books of Enoch are listed as canon for the Ethiopian Orthodox bible but from as far as I can tell, only the first book of Enoch is canon. Should 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch be removed or is there a source I am missing that claims that the latter 2 books are canon. As well, there are question marks next to both books with no citation, so it just leaves the chart in a very weird spot.
Bus1226 (
talk) 18:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)reply
To my knowledge, 2 and 3 Enoch only survive in Old Slavonic and Hebrew, respectively. This makes their inclusion in Ethiopian canon extremely unlikely.
91.189.246.31 (
talk) 22:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Myfishes:your recent edit has left the article with three undefined footnote errors for the names "Luther", "GrOrthodox", and "Sheba". Are you able to resolve these? --
Mikeblas (
talk) 23:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
assess and improve articles to
good and
1.0 standards, or visit the
wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Biblical canon is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the
Catholic Church. For more information, visit the
project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Text and/or other creative content from
Luther's canon was copied or moved into
Biblical canon with
this edit. The former page's
history now serves to
provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
The two tables are mostly unsourced
The two tables are mostly unsourced. I think it is better to have no information than unsourced or poorly sourced information,
WP:V. Thus, what is unsource in those two tables should either be sourced, let us say within 3 months, or be deleted.
Veverve (
talk) 20:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I have removed what was unsourced. I suggest that if one adds columns, it be done as follow: adding all the references to a group's specific canon in one single note that is put next to the group's name (e.g., "YYYYY Church"[1]).
You eliminated some things that you shouldn't have, Eastern Orthodox tradition and Oriental Orthodox tradition are different, they are not the same. You only left the Eastern Orthodox tradition while you eliminated the Oriental Orthodox tradition. I want to think that for you both are the same.
Rafaelosornio (
talk) 22:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)reply
No, they are not the same and I am aware of it. As I have explained above, the problem was the sheer lack of sources for those claims.
Veverve (
talk) 04:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)reply
How should each table be formatted?
I recently started to learn how the Bible is divided in different...I don't know, parts, sub parts, sub sub parts? So far, my favorite explanation is here.
https://menorah-bible.jimdofree.com/english/structure-of-the-bible/ I wonder if the tables here in this article could be more like the tables in the linked page. I've been learning about formatting on Wikipedia, but I can't figure out just how to do this. I also think the tables should be sortable.
2600:4040:5556:D100:B971:B4CB:BE3F:CCCE (
talk) 03:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Old Testament Chart??
What the hell happened to the Old Testament chart that showed the difference of canon between the various churches under different denominations? Now all is left is the tewahedo canon and Roman Catholic canon?
142.181.49.145 (
talk) 03:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)reply
As far as I'm aware, the other denominations were removed for being "unsourced", however I think adding sources would be a better course of action than deleting hours of information gathering and replacing it with two canons that no almost one is comparing.
WikiWilliard (
talk) 04:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I think adding sources would be a better course of action: feel free to add sourced information (
WP:BURDEN). than deleting hours of information:
WP:CHEWINGGUM.
Veverve (
talk) 05:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Although I understand the that this is perhaps not how you view it, having a simple marker that a section is unsourced is better than making an entire section almost entirely useless, but sourced. Casual readers may not care that information is unsourced, however readers who might are capable of finding sources, and perhaps adding to the article. Most Wikipedia articles are largely unsourced, or have unsourced sections, that doesn't mean they need to be deleted altogether; just that sources should be added in the foreseeable future. Adding sources for this, I daresay, would be easier if the information was already there. Rather than someone less familiar with Wikipedia's editing software having to create a new row, they could instead read a how-to and add easy-to-find sources such as the NIV Bible or the NRSV.
WikiWilliard (
talk) 14:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Casual readers may not care that information is unsourced: but one of WP's pilar is
WP:V, and we must follow WP's guidelines on what an encyclopedia is. As for the rest, if people could source information like those, I dare to think they would have done it during the years this unsourced content was present on WP articles. See also
User:Edward-Woodrow/Unsourced content should be deleted.
Veverve (
talk) 16:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks wikiWilliard for the archived link. I use that chart constantly. Veverve, that deletion is criminal. The answer is to add citations, not delete good information. Had I known someone like you would make such a change I would have put in some hours to cite things. But as it stands, I don't have the coding aptitude to undo it.
74.193.27.97 (
talk) 19:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I use that chart constantly: if you are using unsourced information
from Wikipedia, this is your choice.
that deletion is criminal: this is veering very close to a
WP:PA, please stop at once. This deletion was furthermore perfectly legitimate, see
WP:BURDEN.
I would have put in some hours to cite things. But as it stands, I don't have the coding aptitude to undo it: see
Help:Referencing for beginners if you want to try yourself at the task.
Veverve (
talk) 19:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)reply
This is not
WP:PA, it was not a personal attack. The statement was criticizing your edit, not you personally. Stating the username of the single account responsible for the edit is not a personal attack.
WikiWilliard (
talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you so much for this! I've been hoping there was an archived version ever since the edit was made. The deletion made me very sad and removed a number of things that I used on almost a daily basis.
166.181.81.73 (
talk) 07:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Books of Enoch in the chart
It seems that all 3 Books of Enoch are listed as canon for the Ethiopian Orthodox bible but from as far as I can tell, only the first book of Enoch is canon. Should 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch be removed or is there a source I am missing that claims that the latter 2 books are canon. As well, there are question marks next to both books with no citation, so it just leaves the chart in a very weird spot.
Bus1226 (
talk) 18:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)reply
To my knowledge, 2 and 3 Enoch only survive in Old Slavonic and Hebrew, respectively. This makes their inclusion in Ethiopian canon extremely unlikely.
91.189.246.31 (
talk) 22:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Myfishes:your recent edit has left the article with three undefined footnote errors for the names "Luther", "GrOrthodox", and "Sheba". Are you able to resolve these? --
Mikeblas (
talk) 23:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)reply