![]() | Notice: Please do NOT propose any votes on this page until after discussion (and hopefully one won't be needed then either). Consider the policy trifecta when commenting. |
Please edit the current situation, relevant policies, issue summaries, etc. as this is intended to be a work in progress.
The Bible is often cited on Wikipedia using a variety of methods including the following:
See discussion on TfD listing which inspired this page.
Some pages discussing issues related to Citing the Bible
Currently extensive articles within wikipedia (approximately 520 use the template {{ Bibleverse}} and 210 use its shortened version {{ bibleref}}) use external sources. Trödel and others have concerns that such extensive use of a source that is not compliant with the GFDL is contrary to the Wikipedia's goals.
This template links to the site: http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibref.php which, using parameters, redirects the user to at least three different websites based on the src parameter passed including BibleGateway.com, nccbuscc.org, bible.cc (an advertisement laden wrapper for the BibleBrowser.com site).
The author of the bibref.php code apparently released the code under a free license, he could verify that if he knows about this discussion as he is a wikipedia editor. With this in mind there is the possibility of a compromise where Wikisource is used where it is available and other sites are still used to provide a variety of versions, and hence reduce any concerns that Bible links may not be NPOV.
Currently Wikisource only includes the following versions of the Bible:
See Abigail, David (2 of 5 articles checked - checked articles, 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 26 from What links here)
Some internal links to articles about topics/chapters of the Bible are being changed to external links. See: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Note - some of these are from the consolidation of bible verse articles to topical and chapter articles.
Below is a list of sources
Source | Contact info | Example | Parallel | Translations | Commentaries | Dictionaries | Positives | Negatives |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Biblegateway.com | Feedback link | John 1:5 | (up to 5 versions) | 102 translations, 22 in English | (two commentaries) | (Two name dicts, one Bible dict) |
|
|
Biblos.com
(a.k.a. Biblebrowser) (a.k.a. Bible.cc) |
Contact us | John chapter 1 | John 1:5 | ~125 translations, 21 in English | 11 commentaries | At least two dictionaries, hard to tell |
|
|
BibleStudyTools.com
(formerly bible.crosswalk.com) |
Contact us | John 1:5 | only two versions at once | 37 translations, 26 in English | 12 commentaries | 5 dictionaries |
|
|
Updated: -- Joren ( talk) 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Biblebrowser.com seems to have many different ways to view the same text:
...
Area for research on copyright status, NPOV nature, acceptance of version of specific translations and feasibility of putting them on wikisource.
Version | Abbr | Copyright status | NPOV | Denominations accepting |
Wikisource |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
James VI | KJV | Public Domain [1] | NPOV issues citation needed | Yes | |
New Revised Standard Version | NRSV | Copyright, 1989 permission available [2] |
gender neutral Isaiah 7:14 |
Episcopal Presbyterian Catholic(unofficial) [3] Eastern Orthodox(some) [4] Reform Judaism [5] |
Copyrighted |
Revised Standard Version | RSV | Copyright, 1952 (2nd ed, 1971) [6] |
virgin birth OT Jewish others? |
? | Copyrighted |
American Standard Version | ASV | expired | Jehovah "American" [7] |
? | Yes |
New American Bible [8] | NAB | Copyright, 1991, 1986, 1970 | Catholic translation gender neutral |
American Catholic Church | Copyrighted |
Douai-Rheims Bible | D-R | Public Domain | Catholic translation other? |
Catholic(Challoner version) | Acquirable |
... |
Solution | wikicode | result | No resolver needed [t 1] | Verse ranges [t 2] | Specify translation [t 3] | Parallel [t 4] | Interlinear [t 5] | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bible (existing) | {{bible|john 3:16}} | john 3:16 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
This is the existing Template:Bible, which would be replaced once consensus is reached. |
Bibleref | {{bibleref|John|3:16|9}} | John 3:16 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
External server gives user a list of translation links, which then go to other servers. No-frills list. Does not support spaces in book title - spaces must be taken out, e.g. 1John 3:16 would be {{bibleverse|1John|3:16|9}} |
Bibleverse | {{bibleverse||John|3:16|9}} | John 3:16 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Similar to Bibleref, but works around above-mentioned bug by asking user to specify book number as a parameter(e.g. 1 John 3:16 would be {{bibleverse|1|John|3:16|9}} |
Use biblebrowser | {{futurebibletemplate|john|3|16}} | John 3:16 | Would link to the verse in context | |||||
combination proposal | {{futurebibletemplate|John|3|16}} | John 3:161 | This proposal would link to the verse on wikipedia (if available), the chapter on Wikipedia (if available), or the book of the bible on wikipedia. Using the <ref> citing system - would require the pages to have the <references /> near the bottom - but would allow direct linking to multiple translations in the footnote. :1Bible, John 3:16. KJV, ASV, NIV, NAV | |||||
Biblesource | {{Biblesource|John|3:16}} | John 3:16 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Strictly uses Wikisource translations; possible to customize which book. Limited to displaying the whole chapter the verse is in, but does anchor directly to verse. Does not support limiting range or ranging over multiple chapters. |
Netbible mockup | {{User:Joren/Netbible|John 3:16}} | John 3:16 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Based on the .NET Bible translation, supports KJV and Strong's. |
Netbibleapi mockup | {{User:Joren/Netbibleapi|John 3:16}} | John 3:16 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Same as above, but does not display *anything* except the verse (no interface, no links, etc) |
Bverse | {{Template:Bverse|John|3:16}} | John 3:16 | Does not rely on an external server. Customizable link title. Lots of translations. |
At the top of most geography articles, such as Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, there is a link to an external Wiki that provides links to those coorinates on myriad mapping services. We should create the same kind of page, either on Wikipedia or on an external Wiki, for Bible sources. That way, each article would have no clutter -- just one line -- but clicking on the bible link would provide a comprehensive list of all relevant versions of the Bible. Such a system could easily be adopted for the Talmud and Koran as well. -- M @ r ē ino 20:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Well Trödel, you seem to have the issue pretty thoroughly covered. I don't know what's left to add except maybe a third or fourth website option... I added Crosswalk to the list since it has my favorite translation. As for the others, I prefer both BibleGateway and BibleBrowser to Wikisource (at this point), and the vatican.va link doesn't seem to have anything going for it apart from the status of its domain (Even as a Wesleyan, I can dig the majesty of browsing around the Vatican website.) The LDS link was broken.
To me a quality, educational, link is more important than ceding to the GFDL fanatics. Out of those two, then, it's about 50-50 for me. Browser definitely has a lot more going on at once... Gateway gives a cleaner first impression, and yet has most of the same info available. (From a pragmatic point of view, the trimmed down Gateway site will use significantly less server CPU cycles, and anything linked from wikipedia is going to have quite a bit of traffic. My personal site is linked from the Raw Toonage article because of a little research I did on Badly Animated Man... that linked page is consistently one of the most visited pages on my site just from random wikipedians stumbling upon the obscurest of articles.)
In depth feature comparison:
(Are these all free translations? For copyrighted translations, BibleBrowser transfers to Biblegateway.com for NIV etc, or to Crosswalk.com as noted above DLH 13:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC))
Well, it's no easy decision. I think my vote is for BibleBrowser... lots of educational verse-related info right as you click the link... although it doesn't do anything for the copyright concern. David Bergan 07:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think we should be linking to a free source whenever possible, so the Wikisource option looks the best to me. However, if you look at the source it only shows you the King James Version. Surely there are other free versions out there, to compare and contrast. For now, if we link to that project, and if it requires a citation to a nonfree translation of the bible (such as a certain way of interpreting a verse), then that needs to be dealt with. Can we include other versions in Wikisource? Perhaps we could transitionally link to Wikisource for regular bible references, but work on the Wikisource:Bible project to include other free versions of the book, and to link appropriately to resources when necessary for an article? (say, for example, Church A only believes in Translation A of the bible, when citing the bible in articles about them, it would be best to link to that translation of the book.). Anyways, just my two cents. -
Superbeatles
15:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll sum up what I said before. Citing a bible verse is no different from citing any other source. We don't tell editors that they can't cite the New York Times or Washington Post or AP or Reuters because there are other open source news outlets. I see no conflict of interest at all in linking to another site when it comes to bible verses. The fact of the matter is that there are a number of well researched, professional bible translations that are copyright protected. If we make a rule against citing these translations, we are basically saying the best, scholarly sources are unavailable. This makes no sense to me. Because wikipedia is not a primary source, we will never come across an instance where a bible verse is quoted to an extent where it violates fair use. Same thing with any other book. We don't forbid users not to cite Lord of the Rings because it isn't GFDL. We don't favor a particular translation of Plato because of licensing issues. Wikisource and wikipedia are two different things. Just because they share the same prefix does not mean we are forced to use wikisource before we go to outside sources.-- Andrew c 17:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the best way to do it is to use the Bibleverse template, but prevent the template from linking directly to a version unless one is given. I.e. if its not a particular version that is being cited but just a passage, then it shouldn't go to a "default" version, but somewhere you can choose a version (in the same way that the ISBN thing doesn't go straight to amazon.com but to a list of alternatives). I value the Bibleverse template, or at least the site it links to (which is run by User:Jnothman), because it does truly provide a list of online sources for each version, and Jnothman seems amicable enough to add new versions as requested.
Linking to BibleGateway means that only conservative protestant translations are available. The NRSV which is officially accepted by a number of major denominations, and the NAB which is the main catholic translation, are not available at all on BibleGateway. Jnothman's link thing (which can be accessed directly via this external link, or indirectly via template:Bibleverse) not only provides the translations used by BibleGateway (in fact it links to BibleGateway for most of these translations), but additionally links to the NAB and NRSV. Therefore I think it counts as superior to a direct BibleGateway link, since it affords a much wider choice of versions.
However, if we are to have a "default" version, I think the most neutral version should be chosen. Currently the Bibleverse template "default" version is the NIV, which is probably the most neutral out of those at BibleGateway. However, now that Jnothman has kindly added the NAB and NRSv, I think that the "default" should be the NRSV, since this has the most official consensus amongst major Christian groups ( Presbyterian Church (USA), Anglicanism, semi-official in Roman Catholicism (it is used outside of services), some dioceses of Eastern Orthodox (its borderline in many), and Reform Judaism (as far as the Old Testament goes)), as well as support from secular textual scholars. 20:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Ps - the current template can cope with 1_Corinthians (use an underscore instead of a space) correctly. Clinkophonist 20:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The "maps" solution is interesting, but probably too much. If reading an article about, say, the Apostle's Creed, and I come across a verse that is referenced, in one click I want to read the verse... not click to get a spread of external links and then pick one of those to get to the verse. Sure I want all the tools at hand once I read the verse, and then get intrigued into further research (ie Deuteronomy 23:1), but I think it's an unnecessary waste of server CPU cycles and bandwidth (and users' time) to have a 2-click solution.
I like the "biblebrowser" solution the best. For verses that have an article in wikipedia, I think something like the combination proposal is better... better yet if you could make the superscript link go directly to BibleBrowser rather than the 2-click note and then link solution. We could make another brand new template for these kinds of articles.
Concerning the comment that the book has to be lowercase, it wouldn't be hard to write up a php script to normalize verse idiosynchronies... so that it automatically lowercases the book, interprets en- and emdashes correctly, puts (or deletes) the space between 1 Corinthians, etc. I could jimmy up a bibleversecleanup.php and put that on wikipedia.org so that the template calls bibleversecleanup.php, and then it immediately cleans the format and redirects to the proper BibleBrowser verse. It's the same process of the current template, just that his php script ( view source) is hosted at http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/ instead of wikipedia.org... and I think he tried to get it posted on these servers, but no one gave him the permission needed. Actually, now that I look at his script more carefully, it's very well thought-out, and covers quite a bit. It does all kinds of input correction like I was talking about. The only change we may need to make is to ask him to make BibleBrowser the default except when a requested translation isn't on their site, then it would make BibleGateway #2 tier, and Crosswalk #3, etc.
Even though there has been a lot of discussion, that doesn't mean that the solution has to be equally immense. Tweaking a couple lines of his code is probably all we need to do. (And then we could also host his on wikipedia servers, which I'm sure php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au would appreciate!) David Bergan 21:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
My thoughts:
There is one big issue with Biblebrowser that I noticed. Their hit counter says that they have had 366,625 total hits. This version [9] from archive.org says that their hit counter started July 10, 2004. So in two years, they have had 366,625 hits, or, something on the order of 500 hits/day. If every single one of our Bible references links to them, I think we would easily give them in excess of 500 hits per day ... we would more than double their traffic. Dumping tons of traffic on someone is not a very nice thing to do if they are a free resource. If the template is used widely enough, it could even bring down their server. If they are going to be used, someone needs to at least ask their permission.
I would go out on a limb and assume that this isn't as big of an issue with biblegateway.com. Their alexa rating is 1648, so the traffic Wikipedia would add probably isn't as big of a deal. (It's still a good idea to ask, though.)
That said, I by far prefer BibleBrowser's layout. It avoids POV issues of what translation are we linking to. You know that if we link to just the KJV or just (anything non-KJV), then the KJV-onlyists or the anti-KJV crowd will get upset. Biblebrowser is great because it shows a diversity. I also really like the idea of expanding the list in the <references /> area.
I don't like using the maps solution particularly. If we can't show the full text of every translation (something that would be useful but can't be done because of copyright), then we're making someone click twice to see the actual text. That's annoying. The biggest thing I DON'T like about the current system is that it introduces an intermediate step in the process. I don't like that in principle - it would be too easy for someone to put malicious code in there and we would be feeding them thousands of customers for whatever they are selling.
BigDT 01:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Strongly recommend keeping a very simple one click that takes you straight to viewing the text. Provide for a one time selection of the preferred site, language, version, (& display language.)
Excellent discussion of issues above. Biblegateway appears to have much more extensive selections on languages than previously noted. e.g., 25 languages, 70 versions. It also has added English or Spanish display option. See my additions above. The BibleBrowser is handy to compare parallel versions etc. However appears to only handle free versions. For copyrighted versions BibleBrowser transfers you to BibleGateway or Crosswalk (as noted). My preference is to use BibleGateway for clean efficient use. Others may prefer BibleBrowser or Crosswalk etc. Access to all should be provided.
Each organization has its own funding mechanism. Some by donation, some by advertising sales, some by licensing. While it is handy to offer free versions, it would be an a priori imposition restricting users to certain funding modes, to insist on free only. Compare Linux vs Microsoft. etc. It is more important to offer all options and let the user select with the least hassel and clicks. Wikipedia does not have the mission of translating Bibles. Thus please link to all avaliable resources from organizations with that mission. DLH 13:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
From Alexa.com
Give users the option first time to select. From these stats, my vote is to show BibleGateway as default as being able to clearly handle the traffic, and 3-4 times more popular than Crosswalk. Directing default Wiki traffic to BibleBrowser with 40 times lower traffic could cause major server throughput problems. DLH 13:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I created the script that runs bibleverse for Wikipedia in early 2005 to solve a number of problems, among them:
Now, biblebrowser is pretty comprehensive at collecting together a number of freely available sources. There are, though, some important translations that are not included because they are available on the web only in Copyrighted forms. In particular, the only Jewish translation provided is the JPS1917 edition which, as discussed in the Jewish Publication Society of America Version article, is barely supported any longer within the Jewish community and is only popular online. The more current JPS edition is highly used within non-Orthodox circles (but is only available online in a Copyrighted and structurally limited form of the pentateuch [10]), and Orthodox communities use a number of variations including the Judaica Press Complete Tanach [11] available online only Copyrighted from Chabad.org; also the Artscroll Stone Edition, which is unavailable online, etc. Furthermore, many citations are made relevant only when the source provides an additional well-known commentary (the JPCT includes that of Rashi, for instance). Reference to such commentary should, where possible take the same form of link as other bible references for the sake of uniformity, and so that when WikiSource gets up to scratch, including commentaries, it will be easy to change to using it if everything has been making use of the same template. Biblebrowser also completely excludes the deuterocanonical material in the Orthodox and Catholic bibles. While GPL is important, it is not as important as NPOV and actually giving the information required- and the ability to change it when we need to, which my script and template provide for.
Finally, biblebrowser is simply too cluttered for the non-experienced user.
Now: I am willing to do three significant things, with the result that bibleverse in its current form will be retained-
Comments?
jnothman talk 04:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for your comments on Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible, for the work you did on the PHP and the bibleverse template, and especially for your willingness to donate the work under the GPL. Just wanted to clarify that my concerns on the template were initiated by some replacements on pages I watch of internal links to articles about a chapter of the bible to external links. And at this point, I think the purpose of the discussion (or at least my purpose in starting the page) is not to get rid of {{ bibleverse}} but to modify it so that it produces a result that better meets the NPOV needs of wikipedia (while favoring GFDL sources where possible).
I like your suggestions - though as a result of my review of stuff I am liking biblebrowser better, even with its cluttered design (for the non-initiate). There has been some concerns about how many hits adding link from wikipedia will add to the websites under discussion. Do you have any statistics on how many hits your redirect at *.edu.au is getting?
Finally - not knowing much about PHP or how it interacts with wikipedia. Is it possible to have something like the ISBN thing - where when you click on the link it takes to a page with links to different sources - similar to the combination proposal - and allow one to skip to a specific source based on a user setting in their .js or .css file. Someone suggested this - and it seems like a pretty good idea to me. Trödel 17:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I would've preferred, I think, if discussion was kept on the page or on the talk page of Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible, but I'll reply here anyway.
Usually if there is a Wikipedia article on the site being linked to it should definitely be used. I don't know that the templates we use can change that much.
I have no statistics on bibref.php use. I don't administrate the web server- it is provided by my university, and the script is open source so evidently has no counter.
Biblebrowser, as I pointed out has two main problems:
An additional problem is that it gives no licensing and so potentially their product IS copyright.
What I was suggesting was to implement essentially the same as what you suggested regarding ISBNs, but not as part of the Wikipedia source code, instead on a tools server. You're right, the advantage is that the bypass system can be made as a User Script if it's on Wikipedia. The problem is that it's harder to include and make modifications if it's internalised as a MediaWiki extension. That shouldn't be a big problem, so yes, it's probably something we should consider.
A further problem is that it's English-specific (not in terms of its sources, but in terms of the current interface) and so will need some redesign if it is to more universally be incorporated.
An issue that makes this different to that with ISBN is that there has to be a little more discretion involved in user preferences, because users may want different sources for different collections of books. For instance, I would rather the Mechon Mamre parallel Hebrew-English version of "Old Testament" books, another source for NT and possibly another for the deuterocanonical. So the user JavaScripting will have to take a different approach: indeed, the current ISBN solution is a hack.
If you wish to transfer this conversation to the page I think it should be on, you're welcome to do so.
jnothman talk 15:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't question that it's a well-written script ... I'm just asking what it is used for that just a normal template can't do. BigDT 14:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
{{ #switch: {{{BibleVersion}}} | KingJames = [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search={{{Book}}}%20{{{Chapter}}}:{{{Verse}}}&version=9] | NIV = [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search={{{Book}}}%20{{{Chapter}}}:{{{Verse}}}&version=31] | ApocKJV = [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Kjv{{{Book}}}.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part={{{Chapter}}}&division=div1] }}
What about this:
{{ #switch: {{{BibleVersion}}} | KingJames = [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search={{{Book}}}%20{{{Chapter}}}:{{{Verse}}}&version=9] | NIV = [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search={{{Book}}}%20{{{Chapter}}}:{{{Verse}}}&version=31] | ApocKJV = [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Kjv{{ #switch: {{{Book}}} | Tobit = Tbt | 1 Maccabees = 1Mcb | 2 Maccabees = 2Mcb | etc }}.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part={{{Chapter}}}&division=div1] }}
(I'm using that as an example - I don't know what the UVA site calls its books.) It could also allow the source to be specified:
{{ #switch: {{{Source}}} | BibleGateWay {{ #switch: {{{BibleVersion}}} | KingJames = [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search={{{Book}}}%20{{{Chapter}}}:{{{Verse}}}&version=9] | NIV = [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search={{{Book}}}%20{{{Chapter}}}:{{{Verse}}}&version=31] }} | BibleBrowser (add code here) | WikiSource (add code here) | UVA (add code here) | Default {{ #switch: {{{BibleVersion}}} | KingJames = [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search={{{Book}}}%20{{{Chapter}}}:{{{Verse}}}&version=9] | NIV = [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search={{{Book}}}%20{{{Chapter}}}:{{{Verse}}}&version=31] | ApocKJV = [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Kjv{{ #switch: {{{Book}}} | Tobit = Tbt | 1 Maccabees = 1Mcb | 2 Maccabees = 2Mcb | etc }}.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part={{{Chapter}}}&division=div1] }} }}
BigDT 03:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Since both edits in the last year were typo fixes, should I assume this issue is dead? I don't see any resolution, so I'm not sure why the discussion stopped.
Is it too late to consider another source? I'm personally fond of The Blue Letter Bible, as it has a wide selection of translations and commentaries. It also gives one-click access to compare about a dozen versions of individual verses. I'm not sure how easy it is to link in from the outside, however. If there is any interest, I or someone else could check on that. Mdotley 18:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The NET Bible, a Wikipedia-like, collaborative Internet Bible with extensive footnotes and numerous supporters [12] has a ready-made solution to our woes:
As the Wikipedia page for this Bible states,
The translation is most notable for an immense number of lengthy footnotes (which often explain its textual translation decision), its open translation process, its availability on the Internet (both during its beta process and in its final form), and its open copyright permitting free downloads and use for ministry purposes.
Naturally, the best Bible citation technology for Wikipedia to use will be a Bible that is co-adapted with the Internet itself. Here is the preface for this Bible so you can see for yourself how this Bible is ideally suited for Wikipedia's purposes [14].
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr magnolias ( talk • contribs) 06:02, 17 February 2010
- " I would be happy to campaign for including some default way to link to this - but only if it follows a less abusive copyright policy."
- "By making permissions easier, it becomes far easier to post, share, and publish works which quote the Bible.
- It should be easy to say “yes” to all requests to quote and use the NET Bible (both charitable and commercial use).
- The “yes” should be automatic for the vast majority of requests,...Let us know how we can better serve your needs."
![]() | Notice: Please do NOT propose any votes on this page until after discussion (and hopefully one won't be needed then either). Consider the policy trifecta when commenting. |
Please edit the current situation, relevant policies, issue summaries, etc. as this is intended to be a work in progress.
The Bible is often cited on Wikipedia using a variety of methods including the following:
See discussion on TfD listing which inspired this page.
Some pages discussing issues related to Citing the Bible
Currently extensive articles within wikipedia (approximately 520 use the template {{ Bibleverse}} and 210 use its shortened version {{ bibleref}}) use external sources. Trödel and others have concerns that such extensive use of a source that is not compliant with the GFDL is contrary to the Wikipedia's goals.
This template links to the site: http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibref.php which, using parameters, redirects the user to at least three different websites based on the src parameter passed including BibleGateway.com, nccbuscc.org, bible.cc (an advertisement laden wrapper for the BibleBrowser.com site).
The author of the bibref.php code apparently released the code under a free license, he could verify that if he knows about this discussion as he is a wikipedia editor. With this in mind there is the possibility of a compromise where Wikisource is used where it is available and other sites are still used to provide a variety of versions, and hence reduce any concerns that Bible links may not be NPOV.
Currently Wikisource only includes the following versions of the Bible:
See Abigail, David (2 of 5 articles checked - checked articles, 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 26 from What links here)
Some internal links to articles about topics/chapters of the Bible are being changed to external links. See: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Note - some of these are from the consolidation of bible verse articles to topical and chapter articles.
Below is a list of sources
Source | Contact info | Example | Parallel | Translations | Commentaries | Dictionaries | Positives | Negatives |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Biblegateway.com | Feedback link | John 1:5 | (up to 5 versions) | 102 translations, 22 in English | (two commentaries) | (Two name dicts, one Bible dict) |
|
|
Biblos.com
(a.k.a. Biblebrowser) (a.k.a. Bible.cc) |
Contact us | John chapter 1 | John 1:5 | ~125 translations, 21 in English | 11 commentaries | At least two dictionaries, hard to tell |
|
|
BibleStudyTools.com
(formerly bible.crosswalk.com) |
Contact us | John 1:5 | only two versions at once | 37 translations, 26 in English | 12 commentaries | 5 dictionaries |
|
|
Updated: -- Joren ( talk) 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Biblebrowser.com seems to have many different ways to view the same text:
...
Area for research on copyright status, NPOV nature, acceptance of version of specific translations and feasibility of putting them on wikisource.
Version | Abbr | Copyright status | NPOV | Denominations accepting |
Wikisource |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
James VI | KJV | Public Domain [1] | NPOV issues citation needed | Yes | |
New Revised Standard Version | NRSV | Copyright, 1989 permission available [2] |
gender neutral Isaiah 7:14 |
Episcopal Presbyterian Catholic(unofficial) [3] Eastern Orthodox(some) [4] Reform Judaism [5] |
Copyrighted |
Revised Standard Version | RSV | Copyright, 1952 (2nd ed, 1971) [6] |
virgin birth OT Jewish others? |
? | Copyrighted |
American Standard Version | ASV | expired | Jehovah "American" [7] |
? | Yes |
New American Bible [8] | NAB | Copyright, 1991, 1986, 1970 | Catholic translation gender neutral |
American Catholic Church | Copyrighted |
Douai-Rheims Bible | D-R | Public Domain | Catholic translation other? |
Catholic(Challoner version) | Acquirable |
... |
Solution | wikicode | result | No resolver needed [t 1] | Verse ranges [t 2] | Specify translation [t 3] | Parallel [t 4] | Interlinear [t 5] | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bible (existing) | {{bible|john 3:16}} | john 3:16 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
This is the existing Template:Bible, which would be replaced once consensus is reached. |
Bibleref | {{bibleref|John|3:16|9}} | John 3:16 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
External server gives user a list of translation links, which then go to other servers. No-frills list. Does not support spaces in book title - spaces must be taken out, e.g. 1John 3:16 would be {{bibleverse|1John|3:16|9}} |
Bibleverse | {{bibleverse||John|3:16|9}} | John 3:16 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Similar to Bibleref, but works around above-mentioned bug by asking user to specify book number as a parameter(e.g. 1 John 3:16 would be {{bibleverse|1|John|3:16|9}} |
Use biblebrowser | {{futurebibletemplate|john|3|16}} | John 3:16 | Would link to the verse in context | |||||
combination proposal | {{futurebibletemplate|John|3|16}} | John 3:161 | This proposal would link to the verse on wikipedia (if available), the chapter on Wikipedia (if available), or the book of the bible on wikipedia. Using the <ref> citing system - would require the pages to have the <references /> near the bottom - but would allow direct linking to multiple translations in the footnote. :1Bible, John 3:16. KJV, ASV, NIV, NAV | |||||
Biblesource | {{Biblesource|John|3:16}} | John 3:16 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Strictly uses Wikisource translations; possible to customize which book. Limited to displaying the whole chapter the verse is in, but does anchor directly to verse. Does not support limiting range or ranging over multiple chapters. |
Netbible mockup | {{User:Joren/Netbible|John 3:16}} | John 3:16 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Based on the .NET Bible translation, supports KJV and Strong's. |
Netbibleapi mockup | {{User:Joren/Netbibleapi|John 3:16}} | John 3:16 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Same as above, but does not display *anything* except the verse (no interface, no links, etc) |
Bverse | {{Template:Bverse|John|3:16}} | John 3:16 | Does not rely on an external server. Customizable link title. Lots of translations. |
At the top of most geography articles, such as Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, there is a link to an external Wiki that provides links to those coorinates on myriad mapping services. We should create the same kind of page, either on Wikipedia or on an external Wiki, for Bible sources. That way, each article would have no clutter -- just one line -- but clicking on the bible link would provide a comprehensive list of all relevant versions of the Bible. Such a system could easily be adopted for the Talmud and Koran as well. -- M @ r ē ino 20:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Well Trödel, you seem to have the issue pretty thoroughly covered. I don't know what's left to add except maybe a third or fourth website option... I added Crosswalk to the list since it has my favorite translation. As for the others, I prefer both BibleGateway and BibleBrowser to Wikisource (at this point), and the vatican.va link doesn't seem to have anything going for it apart from the status of its domain (Even as a Wesleyan, I can dig the majesty of browsing around the Vatican website.) The LDS link was broken.
To me a quality, educational, link is more important than ceding to the GFDL fanatics. Out of those two, then, it's about 50-50 for me. Browser definitely has a lot more going on at once... Gateway gives a cleaner first impression, and yet has most of the same info available. (From a pragmatic point of view, the trimmed down Gateway site will use significantly less server CPU cycles, and anything linked from wikipedia is going to have quite a bit of traffic. My personal site is linked from the Raw Toonage article because of a little research I did on Badly Animated Man... that linked page is consistently one of the most visited pages on my site just from random wikipedians stumbling upon the obscurest of articles.)
In depth feature comparison:
(Are these all free translations? For copyrighted translations, BibleBrowser transfers to Biblegateway.com for NIV etc, or to Crosswalk.com as noted above DLH 13:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC))
Well, it's no easy decision. I think my vote is for BibleBrowser... lots of educational verse-related info right as you click the link... although it doesn't do anything for the copyright concern. David Bergan 07:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think we should be linking to a free source whenever possible, so the Wikisource option looks the best to me. However, if you look at the source it only shows you the King James Version. Surely there are other free versions out there, to compare and contrast. For now, if we link to that project, and if it requires a citation to a nonfree translation of the bible (such as a certain way of interpreting a verse), then that needs to be dealt with. Can we include other versions in Wikisource? Perhaps we could transitionally link to Wikisource for regular bible references, but work on the Wikisource:Bible project to include other free versions of the book, and to link appropriately to resources when necessary for an article? (say, for example, Church A only believes in Translation A of the bible, when citing the bible in articles about them, it would be best to link to that translation of the book.). Anyways, just my two cents. -
Superbeatles
15:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll sum up what I said before. Citing a bible verse is no different from citing any other source. We don't tell editors that they can't cite the New York Times or Washington Post or AP or Reuters because there are other open source news outlets. I see no conflict of interest at all in linking to another site when it comes to bible verses. The fact of the matter is that there are a number of well researched, professional bible translations that are copyright protected. If we make a rule against citing these translations, we are basically saying the best, scholarly sources are unavailable. This makes no sense to me. Because wikipedia is not a primary source, we will never come across an instance where a bible verse is quoted to an extent where it violates fair use. Same thing with any other book. We don't forbid users not to cite Lord of the Rings because it isn't GFDL. We don't favor a particular translation of Plato because of licensing issues. Wikisource and wikipedia are two different things. Just because they share the same prefix does not mean we are forced to use wikisource before we go to outside sources.-- Andrew c 17:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the best way to do it is to use the Bibleverse template, but prevent the template from linking directly to a version unless one is given. I.e. if its not a particular version that is being cited but just a passage, then it shouldn't go to a "default" version, but somewhere you can choose a version (in the same way that the ISBN thing doesn't go straight to amazon.com but to a list of alternatives). I value the Bibleverse template, or at least the site it links to (which is run by User:Jnothman), because it does truly provide a list of online sources for each version, and Jnothman seems amicable enough to add new versions as requested.
Linking to BibleGateway means that only conservative protestant translations are available. The NRSV which is officially accepted by a number of major denominations, and the NAB which is the main catholic translation, are not available at all on BibleGateway. Jnothman's link thing (which can be accessed directly via this external link, or indirectly via template:Bibleverse) not only provides the translations used by BibleGateway (in fact it links to BibleGateway for most of these translations), but additionally links to the NAB and NRSV. Therefore I think it counts as superior to a direct BibleGateway link, since it affords a much wider choice of versions.
However, if we are to have a "default" version, I think the most neutral version should be chosen. Currently the Bibleverse template "default" version is the NIV, which is probably the most neutral out of those at BibleGateway. However, now that Jnothman has kindly added the NAB and NRSv, I think that the "default" should be the NRSV, since this has the most official consensus amongst major Christian groups ( Presbyterian Church (USA), Anglicanism, semi-official in Roman Catholicism (it is used outside of services), some dioceses of Eastern Orthodox (its borderline in many), and Reform Judaism (as far as the Old Testament goes)), as well as support from secular textual scholars. 20:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Ps - the current template can cope with 1_Corinthians (use an underscore instead of a space) correctly. Clinkophonist 20:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The "maps" solution is interesting, but probably too much. If reading an article about, say, the Apostle's Creed, and I come across a verse that is referenced, in one click I want to read the verse... not click to get a spread of external links and then pick one of those to get to the verse. Sure I want all the tools at hand once I read the verse, and then get intrigued into further research (ie Deuteronomy 23:1), but I think it's an unnecessary waste of server CPU cycles and bandwidth (and users' time) to have a 2-click solution.
I like the "biblebrowser" solution the best. For verses that have an article in wikipedia, I think something like the combination proposal is better... better yet if you could make the superscript link go directly to BibleBrowser rather than the 2-click note and then link solution. We could make another brand new template for these kinds of articles.
Concerning the comment that the book has to be lowercase, it wouldn't be hard to write up a php script to normalize verse idiosynchronies... so that it automatically lowercases the book, interprets en- and emdashes correctly, puts (or deletes) the space between 1 Corinthians, etc. I could jimmy up a bibleversecleanup.php and put that on wikipedia.org so that the template calls bibleversecleanup.php, and then it immediately cleans the format and redirects to the proper BibleBrowser verse. It's the same process of the current template, just that his php script ( view source) is hosted at http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/ instead of wikipedia.org... and I think he tried to get it posted on these servers, but no one gave him the permission needed. Actually, now that I look at his script more carefully, it's very well thought-out, and covers quite a bit. It does all kinds of input correction like I was talking about. The only change we may need to make is to ask him to make BibleBrowser the default except when a requested translation isn't on their site, then it would make BibleGateway #2 tier, and Crosswalk #3, etc.
Even though there has been a lot of discussion, that doesn't mean that the solution has to be equally immense. Tweaking a couple lines of his code is probably all we need to do. (And then we could also host his on wikipedia servers, which I'm sure php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au would appreciate!) David Bergan 21:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
My thoughts:
There is one big issue with Biblebrowser that I noticed. Their hit counter says that they have had 366,625 total hits. This version [9] from archive.org says that their hit counter started July 10, 2004. So in two years, they have had 366,625 hits, or, something on the order of 500 hits/day. If every single one of our Bible references links to them, I think we would easily give them in excess of 500 hits per day ... we would more than double their traffic. Dumping tons of traffic on someone is not a very nice thing to do if they are a free resource. If the template is used widely enough, it could even bring down their server. If they are going to be used, someone needs to at least ask their permission.
I would go out on a limb and assume that this isn't as big of an issue with biblegateway.com. Their alexa rating is 1648, so the traffic Wikipedia would add probably isn't as big of a deal. (It's still a good idea to ask, though.)
That said, I by far prefer BibleBrowser's layout. It avoids POV issues of what translation are we linking to. You know that if we link to just the KJV or just (anything non-KJV), then the KJV-onlyists or the anti-KJV crowd will get upset. Biblebrowser is great because it shows a diversity. I also really like the idea of expanding the list in the <references /> area.
I don't like using the maps solution particularly. If we can't show the full text of every translation (something that would be useful but can't be done because of copyright), then we're making someone click twice to see the actual text. That's annoying. The biggest thing I DON'T like about the current system is that it introduces an intermediate step in the process. I don't like that in principle - it would be too easy for someone to put malicious code in there and we would be feeding them thousands of customers for whatever they are selling.
BigDT 01:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Strongly recommend keeping a very simple one click that takes you straight to viewing the text. Provide for a one time selection of the preferred site, language, version, (& display language.)
Excellent discussion of issues above. Biblegateway appears to have much more extensive selections on languages than previously noted. e.g., 25 languages, 70 versions. It also has added English or Spanish display option. See my additions above. The BibleBrowser is handy to compare parallel versions etc. However appears to only handle free versions. For copyrighted versions BibleBrowser transfers you to BibleGateway or Crosswalk (as noted). My preference is to use BibleGateway for clean efficient use. Others may prefer BibleBrowser or Crosswalk etc. Access to all should be provided.
Each organization has its own funding mechanism. Some by donation, some by advertising sales, some by licensing. While it is handy to offer free versions, it would be an a priori imposition restricting users to certain funding modes, to insist on free only. Compare Linux vs Microsoft. etc. It is more important to offer all options and let the user select with the least hassel and clicks. Wikipedia does not have the mission of translating Bibles. Thus please link to all avaliable resources from organizations with that mission. DLH 13:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
From Alexa.com
Give users the option first time to select. From these stats, my vote is to show BibleGateway as default as being able to clearly handle the traffic, and 3-4 times more popular than Crosswalk. Directing default Wiki traffic to BibleBrowser with 40 times lower traffic could cause major server throughput problems. DLH 13:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I created the script that runs bibleverse for Wikipedia in early 2005 to solve a number of problems, among them:
Now, biblebrowser is pretty comprehensive at collecting together a number of freely available sources. There are, though, some important translations that are not included because they are available on the web only in Copyrighted forms. In particular, the only Jewish translation provided is the JPS1917 edition which, as discussed in the Jewish Publication Society of America Version article, is barely supported any longer within the Jewish community and is only popular online. The more current JPS edition is highly used within non-Orthodox circles (but is only available online in a Copyrighted and structurally limited form of the pentateuch [10]), and Orthodox communities use a number of variations including the Judaica Press Complete Tanach [11] available online only Copyrighted from Chabad.org; also the Artscroll Stone Edition, which is unavailable online, etc. Furthermore, many citations are made relevant only when the source provides an additional well-known commentary (the JPCT includes that of Rashi, for instance). Reference to such commentary should, where possible take the same form of link as other bible references for the sake of uniformity, and so that when WikiSource gets up to scratch, including commentaries, it will be easy to change to using it if everything has been making use of the same template. Biblebrowser also completely excludes the deuterocanonical material in the Orthodox and Catholic bibles. While GPL is important, it is not as important as NPOV and actually giving the information required- and the ability to change it when we need to, which my script and template provide for.
Finally, biblebrowser is simply too cluttered for the non-experienced user.
Now: I am willing to do three significant things, with the result that bibleverse in its current form will be retained-
Comments?
jnothman talk 04:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for your comments on Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible, for the work you did on the PHP and the bibleverse template, and especially for your willingness to donate the work under the GPL. Just wanted to clarify that my concerns on the template were initiated by some replacements on pages I watch of internal links to articles about a chapter of the bible to external links. And at this point, I think the purpose of the discussion (or at least my purpose in starting the page) is not to get rid of {{ bibleverse}} but to modify it so that it produces a result that better meets the NPOV needs of wikipedia (while favoring GFDL sources where possible).
I like your suggestions - though as a result of my review of stuff I am liking biblebrowser better, even with its cluttered design (for the non-initiate). There has been some concerns about how many hits adding link from wikipedia will add to the websites under discussion. Do you have any statistics on how many hits your redirect at *.edu.au is getting?
Finally - not knowing much about PHP or how it interacts with wikipedia. Is it possible to have something like the ISBN thing - where when you click on the link it takes to a page with links to different sources - similar to the combination proposal - and allow one to skip to a specific source based on a user setting in their .js or .css file. Someone suggested this - and it seems like a pretty good idea to me. Trödel 17:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I would've preferred, I think, if discussion was kept on the page or on the talk page of Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible, but I'll reply here anyway.
Usually if there is a Wikipedia article on the site being linked to it should definitely be used. I don't know that the templates we use can change that much.
I have no statistics on bibref.php use. I don't administrate the web server- it is provided by my university, and the script is open source so evidently has no counter.
Biblebrowser, as I pointed out has two main problems:
An additional problem is that it gives no licensing and so potentially their product IS copyright.
What I was suggesting was to implement essentially the same as what you suggested regarding ISBNs, but not as part of the Wikipedia source code, instead on a tools server. You're right, the advantage is that the bypass system can be made as a User Script if it's on Wikipedia. The problem is that it's harder to include and make modifications if it's internalised as a MediaWiki extension. That shouldn't be a big problem, so yes, it's probably something we should consider.
A further problem is that it's English-specific (not in terms of its sources, but in terms of the current interface) and so will need some redesign if it is to more universally be incorporated.
An issue that makes this different to that with ISBN is that there has to be a little more discretion involved in user preferences, because users may want different sources for different collections of books. For instance, I would rather the Mechon Mamre parallel Hebrew-English version of "Old Testament" books, another source for NT and possibly another for the deuterocanonical. So the user JavaScripting will have to take a different approach: indeed, the current ISBN solution is a hack.
If you wish to transfer this conversation to the page I think it should be on, you're welcome to do so.
jnothman talk 15:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't question that it's a well-written script ... I'm just asking what it is used for that just a normal template can't do. BigDT 14:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
{{ #switch: {{{BibleVersion}}} | KingJames = [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search={{{Book}}}%20{{{Chapter}}}:{{{Verse}}}&version=9] | NIV = [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search={{{Book}}}%20{{{Chapter}}}:{{{Verse}}}&version=31] | ApocKJV = [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Kjv{{{Book}}}.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part={{{Chapter}}}&division=div1] }}
What about this:
{{ #switch: {{{BibleVersion}}} | KingJames = [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search={{{Book}}}%20{{{Chapter}}}:{{{Verse}}}&version=9] | NIV = [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search={{{Book}}}%20{{{Chapter}}}:{{{Verse}}}&version=31] | ApocKJV = [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Kjv{{ #switch: {{{Book}}} | Tobit = Tbt | 1 Maccabees = 1Mcb | 2 Maccabees = 2Mcb | etc }}.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part={{{Chapter}}}&division=div1] }}
(I'm using that as an example - I don't know what the UVA site calls its books.) It could also allow the source to be specified:
{{ #switch: {{{Source}}} | BibleGateWay {{ #switch: {{{BibleVersion}}} | KingJames = [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search={{{Book}}}%20{{{Chapter}}}:{{{Verse}}}&version=9] | NIV = [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search={{{Book}}}%20{{{Chapter}}}:{{{Verse}}}&version=31] }} | BibleBrowser (add code here) | WikiSource (add code here) | UVA (add code here) | Default {{ #switch: {{{BibleVersion}}} | KingJames = [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search={{{Book}}}%20{{{Chapter}}}:{{{Verse}}}&version=9] | NIV = [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search={{{Book}}}%20{{{Chapter}}}:{{{Verse}}}&version=31] | ApocKJV = [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Kjv{{ #switch: {{{Book}}} | Tobit = Tbt | 1 Maccabees = 1Mcb | 2 Maccabees = 2Mcb | etc }}.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part={{{Chapter}}}&division=div1] }} }}
BigDT 03:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Since both edits in the last year were typo fixes, should I assume this issue is dead? I don't see any resolution, so I'm not sure why the discussion stopped.
Is it too late to consider another source? I'm personally fond of The Blue Letter Bible, as it has a wide selection of translations and commentaries. It also gives one-click access to compare about a dozen versions of individual verses. I'm not sure how easy it is to link in from the outside, however. If there is any interest, I or someone else could check on that. Mdotley 18:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The NET Bible, a Wikipedia-like, collaborative Internet Bible with extensive footnotes and numerous supporters [12] has a ready-made solution to our woes:
As the Wikipedia page for this Bible states,
The translation is most notable for an immense number of lengthy footnotes (which often explain its textual translation decision), its open translation process, its availability on the Internet (both during its beta process and in its final form), and its open copyright permitting free downloads and use for ministry purposes.
Naturally, the best Bible citation technology for Wikipedia to use will be a Bible that is co-adapted with the Internet itself. Here is the preface for this Bible so you can see for yourself how this Bible is ideally suited for Wikipedia's purposes [14].
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr magnolias ( talk • contribs) 06:02, 17 February 2010
- " I would be happy to campaign for including some default way to link to this - but only if it follows a less abusive copyright policy."
- "By making permissions easier, it becomes far easier to post, share, and publish works which quote the Bible.
- It should be easy to say “yes” to all requests to quote and use the NET Bible (both charitable and commercial use).
- The “yes” should be automatic for the vast majority of requests,...Let us know how we can better serve your needs."