![]() Archives |
---|
I want to inform the community that I have done a GA Reassessment of Isaac and found the article lacking. Not very much will need to be done but enough that I could not keep it GA without some effort. I am notifying all interested projects that I have held this article for one week pending editing. The review can be found here. If you have any questions please feel free to contact my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 23:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to point out, the Children's Bible Story Book article needs ratings from this wikiproject. Ross Rhodes ( T C) Sign! 21:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 22:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I have done the GA Reassessment of Ishmael as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found a few items that concern me about the article. My review can be found here. I have held the article for a week and I am notifying all the interested projects in the hope that work can be done to keep it at GA. Please contact me at my talk page if you have any questions. H1nkles ( talk) 16:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Arlen22 (
talk) 19:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Arlen22
Got it. #~~~~
It will look like this.
Arlen22 (
talk) 20:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
There's a flag saying it needs an expert edit. I have good claim to be an expert on the subject, so i did a pretty complete edit, added a bunch of references, etc. What else should be done (if anything) in order to remove the flag, and hopefully get the article recategorized as past "Start" level?
Thanks!
Sderose ( talk) 03:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Done Arlen22 ( talk) 12:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedians at
Talk:Roman Catholic Church are discussing the merits of changing the article name as such.
Roman Catholic Church →
Catholic
Church. Please share your opinions
there. --
Carlaude
talk 12:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Moved on July 2, 2009 by Shell Kinney
If you do not like the change to the Project please say so. If you do like the changes, please say so also. Arlen22 ( talk) 21:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The old talk page is
here. And is also archived using the normal procedures.
The old project page is
here.
Arlen22 (
talk) 21:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Note that I did not change the Goals. Arlen22 ( talk) 12:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The C grade article, Science and the Bible needs attention. Editors with issues in Talk:Science and the Bible are talking about deletion. J. D. Redding 12:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
We forget this:
Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 13:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Any parties interested in being one of the coordinators of WikiProject Christianity and its various related projects is encouraged to list themselves as a candidate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 2. It would be particularly beneficial if we had individuals from as broad a range of areas of the project as possible, to help ensure that we have people knowledgable about the widest range of content possible. John Carter ( talk) 20:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I am looking for somebody, who can copyedit the article "Codex Vaticanus". Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 11:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
A new article, whose lead says:
"The following charts list all biblical data relevant to the study of its timeline. Gathered from all parts of the bible, the data is presented without interpretation in as convenient a form as possible. Links are provided to articles which provide more in-depth analysis and interpretation. It is my hope that this page can act as a central 'portal' to all areas of biblical study."
Dougweller ( talk) 21:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Bible to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 01:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
What is the proper tense to use for biblical narratives? I want to fix Samson, which switches back and forth between the present (fictional) and the past (historical) in the first paragraph. Esther uses the past tense, while Book of Esther goes with the present. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I want to merge Tattenai and Tatnai, but I'm not sure which spelling to use as the main page. Help? Aristophanes68 ( talk) 04:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone help me? I'm writing on behalf of the Society of Old Testament Study, the main British and Irish academic society for Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament ( [1]). As part of its coming centenary celebrations, the society wants to undertake several projects associated with improving public understanding of the Hebrew Bible. One of these is to be the creation of a separate wiki edited by members of the society, and probably designed with a slightly more specialist readership in mind, but we are also keen to contribute in any way that is useful to the creation and maintenance of the relevant pages on wikipedia. Although it is unlikely that more than a small proportion of the membership will be keen to get involved over the next couple of years, we can offer a considerable amount of expertise across the field. I appreciate that we could simply sign up and get stuck in straightaway, but it would be very helpful for us to know how and where we could be of most use (and how we could best avoid being a nuisance): suggestions would be very welcome, as would names of any editors we should contact directly about this. Stuart Weeks ( talk) 00:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs an article for 'Jahdai'. I dont know enough about it to do it myself. I only know that Jahdai could either be a wife/concubine or conceivably a descendant of Caleb. Lemmiwinks2 ( talk) 19:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I was surprised to find that Tubalcain just leads to a disambig, and that the original scriptural figure doesn't even rate his own article. Granted, his mention in Genesis is brief, but the figure played a substantial role in extra-scriptural beliefs and legends for centuries and centuries. I'm not sure I know enough about the subject, but does anyone else have strong feelings on the issue, have info to contribute, or at least believe that the scriptural (and later somewhat "legendary" in an expanded sense) figure merits an article of his own? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 05:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
How about a standardized way of naming articles for biblical persons. I would suggest 'X, son of Y' [or maybe X (son of Y)]. Lemmiwinks2 ( talk) 01:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
In Germany, there are - since the Middle Ages - Children's Bibles (i.e. books that contain some excerpts from the Bible in easy language and with many illustrations) by many authors, illustrators and publishers. This is described in de:Kinderbibel. In the English Wikipedia I just find The Children's Bible Story Book. Is there really only this one? -- 84.184.26.69 ( talk) 12:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
If you have a moment, please see
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Biblical disambiguators. Thank you!
—
V = I * R (
talk to Ω) 07:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
If you like to keep track of changes to bible related articles but dont want to add hundreds of links to your watchlist then try this instead: Changes_related_to_"Timeline of the Bible" Lemmiwinks2 ( talk) 21:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 2#Category:Members_of_the_Society_for_Biblical_Studies_in_India. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see:: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahweh and Allah. Borock ( talk) 07:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Going through the directory of WikiProjects, I noticed that there are 2 categories which mention this project, but both instances say the project's main listing is under a "Language and linguistics" category which does not exist. So my question to your project is, which category do you wish to have your primary listing under?
Philosophy and religion or
Language and literature?
-
Garrett W. {
☎
✍} 07:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
A search for sources with which to improve the page Text types turned up a number of books using the phrase to describe (I think) a sorting or selecting among various manuscripts, especially of the New Testament (e.g. Hartin and Petzer 1991 Text and Interpretation, Erickson 2005 A Beginner's Guide to New Testament Exegesis). Is "text-types" in fact a term of art in Biblical interpretation? If so, could some knowledgeable person comment at Talk:Text types?
In linguistics and philology, particularly historical linguistics and corpus linguistics, "text type" used more or less synonymously with genre. Text types as it is currently written cites only a single source, which appears to be a textbook for a composition course. This suggests that the page will require an entire re-write, ideally into two pages - one treating the linguistic/ philological sense of the word, and one treating the Biblical scholarship sense. Cnilep ( talk) 15:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Cnilep, the term "text type" is used differently in New Testament textual criticism. As someone who has worked a lot in this particular sub-field, I can say that the term is frequently misunderstood even among those who are specialists in the New Testament. This misunderstanding is also evident when one reads, e.g., the sub-section in the New Testament article on "early manuscripts". Readings that are frequently found together in certain witnesses that are likely related "genealogically" allow one to group these sets of readings into "text types". Though such grouping is a construct that we create, it is based on evidence found in the textual witnesses (both manuscripts and citations). Some such groups become fairly distinguishable *by* the fourth century. One cannot, however, really talk about "text types" (much) before the fourth century. Terms like "(early) mixed text" and "proto-Alexandrian" are really anachronistic attempts to describe earlier texts using later categories. Moreover, all "text types" are ultimately products of older forms of the text. What's far more important than "text type" is an assessment of the individual readings: when, how, and why they arose--which then allows one to see which is the oldest recoverable reading. 91.46.191.162 ( talk) 12:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>> Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Archive 4/Unreferenced BLPs<<<
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you.
here Thank you For you time Weaponbb7 ( talk) 18:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if someone would look at this and see if the sections on ancient astronomy and on angels are both relevant. A Google search on biblical cosmology doesn't turn up much when you add the words angels or cherubim, for instance. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 08:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Template:Bibleref2c seems to me to have been broken, but I'm no expert. I have reverted for now, but if anybody can determine what the last editor was trying to achieve and what the problem was perhaps you could have a look. William Avery ( talk) 11:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
is this suppose to be the pastor pay. I hear teaching of give 2.50 cents per hundred dollars 2 the pastor on top of tithes can someone share some light on this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.34.38 ( talk) 01:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Please can someone check the 'semiprotected edit request' Talk:David#Edit_request which I was unable to perform myself, as it needs someone with some knowledge of the Bible. Thanks, Chzz ► 06:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The whole thing, including 'meanings' of names, seems to be sourced from a single 19th century work. Some of the 'meanings' are quite dodgy. In addition, we already have the articles List of major Biblical figures, List of minor Biblical figures and List of Biblical places. I and another on the talk page thought the best thing to do would be to remove the meanings and treat it as an index, which could then be used to help populate the other existing list articles. Each entry could then be given a good link, and the linked article could give a proper discussion of proposed derivations for that name. We started this process.
A third contributor then reverted all the removal we had done, and claimed on the talk page that the 'meanings' were sourced from several places. The support for this was a website which provides links to other sources, even though the actual 'meanings' used in the article all come from the one 19th century source. The second contributor put a PROD on the article, and this was removed.
I really feel we could do with a few more eyes on this, preferably people who have some idea of how this fits in the other articles on this topic on Wikipedia. My own position (as I have said on the relevant talk page) is that reproducing 19th century sources in their entirety is what Wikisource is for, and that even if we did that here, the article should be renamed and rewritten to make it clear that this is not an overview of modern views on what these names mean.
Please join us on the article talk page, even if it's to disagree with me. 86.179.147.79 ( talk) 20:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
¶ I added the Hebrew spelling of the name to the article on SERAH. I felt it was important; apparently the same name appears in narratives some 300 years apart and there is considerable legend to the effect that it is the same person, impossibly long-lived, but there was a slight difference in the writing of the name, which I thought was worth bringing up.
Sussmanbern (
talk) 22:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
According to modern scholars, the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC. I would argue that this is a relevant information to put in the introduction of the article, but another user thinks otherwise. The "third opinion" agreed with my position, but the other user still opposes to this settlement.
Those who would be so kind to give their informed opinion are invited at Talk:Book of Daniel#Date of composition in introduction. Thanks -- TakenakaN ( talk) 15:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing debate regarding Parable of the Good Samaritan#Historical reliability which would benefit from additional input. Issues which are involved include (1) whether Wikipedia should provide concise definitions containing only relevant information, or whether articles should be more detailed; (2) how WP:NPOV should be implemented in practice; (3) whether the section accurately represents the opinions of one scholar (Bernard Brandon Scott); and (4) the best structure for the article. -- Radagast 3 ( talk) 01:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to bring your attention to an ongoing discussion here. Please chime in. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see my proposal here and comment/vote. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to understand how Wikipedia works, without disrupting anything or stepping on any one’s toes. My revisions on several pages have been removed and I am confused by these edits because I was not trying to self promote with my additions. Rather, I was adding a link to the Jewish Publication Society (JPS), the oldest Jewish publishing company in the United States and the authoritative English translation of the Jewish Bible. JPS has created a product called the Tagged Tanakh, which contains an online version of its most recent Bible translation.
You removed my links to the Tagged Tanakh, but Mechon Mamre, Bible Gateway, and the University of Michigan all have links in similar formats on Wikiperida pages related to the Bible. Please explain to me why these organizations are allowed to post and I am not. Additionally, I find it a little bothersome that Christian versions of the Bible (ie Bible Gateway and University of Michigan) are adding links to Jewish Wikipedia pages such as Torah and the Book of Genesis. Please advise me on the next step that I should take. Thank you, and I Look forward to hearing from you soon. Rrstern25 ( talk) 14:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
A Bible quote was included by the previous editor to the article: I cleaned it up and improved its presentation, but I'm unsure if it really belongs there...? Raymie Humbert ( t • c) 02:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
A discussion on Aorist has taken place on whether the article should remain essentially as-is, or should be rewritten the replace Greek-related grammatical terms like "aorist" by other terms. Input would be greatly appreciated at Talk:Aorist#RfC. -- Radagast 3 ( talk) 00:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (3rd nomination) Sumbuddi ( talk) 23:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Bible articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing,
Adullam, has been proposed for a
merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going
here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
Sreifa (
talk) 15:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
A quick reminder to members of this WikiProject: WP:NFCC#1 states that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Although the non-free content criteria are most commonly applied to images, they do apply to copyrighted text as well. Since there are a number of public-domain translations of the Bible available (e.g. KJV, ASV, WEB), this means that unless there is a specific reason why a copyrighted Bible translation must be used in a given article (e.g. to compare how different versions translate a particular passage), the use of quotes from copyrighted Bible translations (such as the RSV and the NIV) in articles is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Please use public domain translations instead. Thanks! —Angr ( talk) 15:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I see that User:Angr has put an indefinite block on User:Radagast3 over this issue. This appears to me to be a totally inappropriate use of admin privileges. St Anselm ( talk) 21:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Please read MoonriddenGirl's comments on the copyvio issue at WP:ANI. She's one of our experts. Dougweller ( talk) 14:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Radagast3 only asked me to "reach a consensus on the issue here" after he had repeatedly reverted my removal of the copyrighted text. The only issue that needs to be discussed on this page is which PD translation we want to use. The use of any copyrighted translation for simple quotation purposes (e.g. "The text of the parable is as follows:") is prohibited by WP:NFCC and Foundation policy, which does not only apply to media files (although they're what's at issue probably 95% of the time). As for which translation to use, I would point out that since the WEB is public domain, we are free to alter it and to use it without attribution. That means if we want to write "leaven" and the WEB says "yeast" (or whatever), we can just change it. —Angr ( talk) 19:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Ormulum for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 ( talk) 21:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Anyone interested in fixing this today? Most of it is from [2] (the book itself), [3] and various faq pages here [4]. Some editor even didn't notice or care abouta adding "Most of these queries came from our (tyndale house) own editors ". If no one else is interested I'll have to stub it. Dougweller ( talk) 08:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I am currently trying to get together some lists of articles relevant to each Christianity-related portal which could be used, at least potentially, to help bring all the extant portals up to Featured Portal status. The current, admittedly incomplete, list of articles, images, etc., relevant to each portal can be found at User:John Carter/Christianity portals. I also think that, at least in theory, we would probably best use a single article only in a single portal, and that we probably have enough articles to do that, although there might be a few exceptions. I would welcome input from anyone on the associated talk page regarding which articles and other materials they would like to see associated with which portal(s), any suggestions for additional portals or changes to existing portals, etc. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 15:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bible study (Christian). Jaque Hammer ( talk) 14:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Bible#Merging, and Migrating template usage to Biblesource. Hopefully we can reduce the proliferation of templates, at least a little. Thanks. -- Quiddity ( talk) 22:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed that on articles like Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, and Gospel of John, some editors are pushing a POV. They define a set universe of "mainstream scholarship" and used that to define what the "scholarly consensus" is. No evidence is ever given that this is what the "mainstream" is, it is just assumed and requests for evidence are ignored. Not only that, but this fake-mainstream is even often described as the "consensus". This universe just so happens to include and be personified by skeptics and atheists like Bart Ehrman or the ultra-controversial Jesus Seminar. Actually Ehrman and Jesus Seminar members are often the most heavily cited sources. Any scholars who deviate from this view are labeled "fringe" and their views dismissed. Most scholars actually deviate from what is defined by certain editors as "mainstream", but this nice little definition allows the majority to be dismissed as "fringe". Evidence that these people represent the "mainstream" is never given, editors just demand that one accepts it because "that's what everyone knows". With this, direct quoted evidence that they don't represent the mainstream is dismissed and never taken seriously. If they make claims that are well cited, these claims are deleted outright for no reason other than they don't fit in with this artificially defined universe of what is "mainstream". Wikipedia is ruled by what the majority of editors on a given article think about a topic, not what the "correct" or "mainstream" view is. These edits don't represent the "mainstream" view, but a heavily skewed POV. As such, these articles are badly biased on certain points, especially authorship.
I would like some non-involved editors to take a look at these pages and the talk pages to see what they think. RomanHistorian ( talk) 20:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick ( talk) 20:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:ANI#Is wikipedia policy to confirm that the Bible is a story book?. Please see Solomon's temple for more background. -- Avi ( talk) 13:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
We are currently discussing ways to improve these articles. Your input would be appreciated. Please see the discussions in Talk:Book of Daniel and Talk:Son of perdition. Elizium23 ( talk) 21:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Tahash ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm hoping to get some additional eyes on the Tahash article. This is a very long article on what seems to be a rather niche topic with very poor referencing. There is an ongoing dispute as to how, if at all, the article should be shortened. Any involvement would be greatly appreciated! —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 18:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
A TFD has ben opened on Template:Religious text primary. The TfD was opened on 2 December; so is due to close in two days time. Additional perspectives and the widest input would probably be useful. Jheald ( talk) 23:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at Patriarchs (Bible) a recent change Patriarchs_(Bible)&direction=next&oldid=404377992 deleted the substantial content and left a bare new structure which seemed to me problematic. I have tried to restore the old content while keeping some of the new material and empty structure but don't feel competant to do much on it. Best wishes ( Msrasnw ( talk) 14:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC))
We have several articles on this 'lost book' and its variations, and a number of links using it as a source. I've raised the issue of sorting this out at WP:FTN#The book of Jasher, maybe the wrong place to start but there you are and now I'm notifying relevant projects. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Some more knowledgeable eyes would be useful at Ritual decalogue where a slow editor war has been brewing over the lead. The discussion on the talk page seems deadlocked between the same three editors. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 21:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome.
John Carter (
talk)
Automated message by
Project Messenger Bot from
John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011
This may seem a strange question. When I was in college, lo those many years ago, I took a class with the head of the (secular) school religion department in which he said the Bible he used was the Jerusalem Bible. But there are the matters of the various commentaries. Some of these are contained within the specific version of the Bible or an obviously related commentary, some are not. There do seem to however seem to be several which are widely used based on what I've seen. I note, for instance, that those who hold with Biblical inerrancy (I don't) don't use the same commentaries/commented editions I would (I tend to favor the JB above myself). This is fine, and I have no problems with it, but I do think that it may well be to all of our advantage if we could figure out which commentaries/Bibles are used most frequently by such different strands of Christianity in particular - I am not that familiar with Judaism, and don't know if the same variation occurs between the various Jewish groups, or even Islamic or others. However, I do think that the articles would in general probably be easiest to promote if we had some sort of list of the most frequently used commentaries, and any major disparate groupings, so that, in those cases where there are significant disagreements in thinking, we would be able to know which sources to consult to provide information on the interpretations of the major extant belief groups.
I hope the above makes some degree of sense. In any event, if anyone knows of commetaries or editions which are most frequently used by fundamentalist, inerrancy, moderate, "scientific", or other major groupings, it might be useful in at least some cases to other editors to have them pointed out. Given the staggering number of commentaries out there, having some sort of "quick-list" of most frequently used commentaries would probably be useful. John Carter ( talk) 17:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The article Jerusalem during the Second Temple period was recently renamed to Jerusalem during the Persian, Hellenic and early Roman Periods. There is an ongoing discussion regarding the proposal to rename it back to the original title. This article is listed as part of this WikiProject, and comments may be left at Talk:Jerusalem during the Persian, Hellenic and early Roman Periods#Requested move. • Astynax talk 19:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I made some timelines graphically depicting the ages of the biblical patriarchs from the creation to Abraham. Abyssal ( talk) 23:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
All sources
|
---|
![]() |
MT
|
---|
![]() |
SP
|
---|
![]() |
LXX
|
---|
![]() |
I think that the relevance of this term for the discussion of biblical texts should be explained, and examplified; c.f. its talk page. (Perhaps articles on some other terms should be revised in similar manners, too.) JoergenB ( talk) 22:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC).
I am not a formal member of this WikiProject, but I hope you will not object if I request something. If one types in The Revelation of St. John the Divine, one will get red wikilinks. Can some please change this so that typing this will get a redirect to Book of Revelation? Thank you if you would look into this, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 19:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
This probably isn't needed, but just in case anyone is particularly well-versed in academic sources for the Exodus period (which I'm not) they may be interested in some of the discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism regarding the Jewish priesthood template. In particular I'd like to know what the correct academic English would be for the plate on the High Priest's turban. Also what modern study on the etymology of herem is. Cheers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I would welcome opinions re merger Elias with Elijah, please add your contribution here. Andreas (T) 18:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I wonder whether any one in this WikiProject group would help out with something? There are several articles in Wikipedia on Bible translations. One of these has sub-heading such as "Translations of the Bible into Wikipedia" and then says "Main article - translations of the Bible into Xhosa" but that is in red letters, showing that there is no such article in Wikipedia. In fact, the article is peppered with "Main article" - only to be followed by a red wiki-link! Could some one please remove these? Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The precise article I was thinking of is available at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_by_language
If you look there, you will see numerous places where "Main article" is followed by a red wiki-link. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Not sure I'm at the correct place to ask, but anyway: I've noticed that while in some languages there are articles on Books of Samuel, Books of Kings and Books of Chronicles (1 & 2 in a single article), in other languages these are separated into eg es:I Crónicas (with iwiki links to the 'overall' pages in en-wiki &C) and es:II Crónicas (with iwiki links only among themselves). Should these latter be also linked to 2 Samuel &c, even though the page is a redir, or would that be against some policy related to redirect pages? -- Thrissel ( talk) 15:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Your current Hussite Bible page makes it sound as though Hungarians created it... Please note that the name is derived from Jan Hus, who was a Moravian/Slav, a totally different language. Jan Hus I think tried to translate the Latin text into Czech, Moravian and Slovak languages, he had some disagreements with the Roman Catholic organization, and was burned at stake in 1415. The two Hangarians Tamás Pécsi and Bálint Újlaki came afterwards, so you need to fill in the first creation before you go and describe its subsequent use. Good luck in your research, and much needed upgrade of your article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussite_Bible. Kind regards, Tibor Schimek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.135.50 ( talk) 06:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Is it synthesis or POV to present Bible verses prohibiting witchcraft and sorcery in an article which presents Religious debates over the Harry Potter series? Please see Talk:Religious debates over the Harry Potter series#Biblical prohibitions against witchcraft. Elizium23 ( talk) 08:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, should this article be deleted? My concern is related to NPOV tag, however if its not going to be linked to, might as well remove it. - Roy Boy 02:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Books of the Old Testament requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>
).
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.
As per discussions in 2008 that agreed too many templates were in use on the articles about individual Books of the Bible, and since another cleaner template exists (and is in use to replace it), I have proposed speedy deletion of Template:Books of the Old Testament, whose content exists in the Template:Books of the Bible at the bottom of every such page. This will remove the clunky, old, intrusive series template, but will leave in a template with the same set of links. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 05:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I have been working on the Parashah article for several years (about space divisions in the masoretic text of the Bible). It is now way beyond "start" class, so I raised the quality rating to "B". However, it would be good to have other people look at it too and give their feedback. Please comment on the talk page there about the quality rating and what else needs to be done to improve the article. Thanks, Dovi ( talk) 12:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Template:Books of the Old Testament has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
EncycloPetey (
talk) 18:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Ammon was recently tagged with Template:unreliable sources. As both the topic and the sources are biblical, I think this could be rebutted by a subject matter expert to assert that the Bible and secondary sources on the Bible are reliable with respect to a biblical topic. patsw ( talk) 14:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I have recently reviewed the Jesus Seminar article, and, as is I think visible from the article and talk page, think that there are some serious concerns regarding it. It may be, I don't know, that articles on other topics relating to the historicity of Jesus might be, perhaps, more frequently edited by individuals who have a specific interest in the group rather than the broader group of editors. Certainly, I have found that most of the discussion on Christianity WikiProject pages relates to specific groups and beliefs, rather than modern academic opinions. Anyway, I would welcome any input on the article, and believe, perhaps, it might be valuable if related articles got a bit more attention from possibly a broader group of editors as well. John Carter ( talk) 21:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Already posted this note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity. Please see Talk:Gospel. Fine to link to peripheral material articles and deal with theories at length there, but basic "Gospel" article needs to be kept mainstream. In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Editors at Christianity and homosexuality are considering this question. You can be a part of this exciting and invigorating discussion here. – Lionel ( talk) 04:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed that other large projects, such as WP:India, have newsletters. I think a newsletter could help improve the project. Who is interested in contributing to it? I look forward to your comments. With regards, Anupam Talk 17:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed that on various articles, like the exodus, a small group of editors consistently enforces a minority hyper-skeptical POV. The problem routinely seems to be that the same small group of 2 or 3 editors work together somehow, while the editors trying to bring back the majority scholarly viewpoint come one at a time, and so are usually outnumbered. If anyone wants to work with me to bring some balance back to these articles, let me know. Quarkgluonsoup ( talk) 15:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
If this group truly desires to improve the articles on the Judeo/Christian bible, how about trying a little objectivity and fairness? Biblical apologetics are in no way to be considered academic. Just a thought... Manson 23:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 ( talk • contribs)
There are discussion underway at the talk pages of Books of Chronicles, Books of Kings, and Books of Samuel as to whether or not to move those pages to article titles reflecting the singular nature of each of the works in the Masoretic text, rather than the current Septuagint-based titles. The input of any interested editor would be greatly appreciated. Evanh2008 ( talk) ( contribs) 05:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The Bible Wikipedia page seems (unless I've missed something) to treat The Bible as the text itself, rather than the physical book/CD-Rom or whatever the words are contained in. I cannot find anything on Wikipedia regarding Bibles as printed medium. Are there any pages. To assist in understanding what I am on about if I'm not being clear: I wrote the article Bible case and wanted to add a mention of it onto The Bible page. However there is no relevant section to add it to. Likewise things like different sizes of physical bibles, the medium on which they appear, bible boxes and the like. Am I missing something? Thanks in advance for any response! Cls14 ( talk) 16:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Since this concerns the wider Christianity Project, I have raised my concern on its talk-page and this is just a note to advise that the subject is up for discussion. Jpacobb ( talk) 19:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Which articles are appropriate places in which to mention
The Divine Name King James Bible?
I
mentioned it in "
Tetragrammaton" at 20:06, 1 July 2012, but my addition was reverted in the next revision.
—
Wavelength (
talk) 00:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Some users, or at least one, actively inserts the Arabic versions for Biblical persons (Moses, David, Jesus etc.) into the lead of each article. I don't really see this as relevant or accurate. Of course these religious figures are of importance in most languages, but the lead would look very silly indeed if we added the different versions of their names in each language. I would argue that the only relevant languages are English (as this is the English Wikipedia) and the language of the person in question, as is standard procedure with biographies. So for Moses, Davic etc., we of course use the English version of their names, and provide the Hebrew version as there Biblical figures were Hebrews. While they are important in the religions of Arabs, Lithuanians, Finns, Italians and many others, I don't see that as enough reason to include their names in Arabic, Lithuania, Finnish, Italian and so on. This is already being discussed under the article on King David, but as it concerns multiple Bible-related article, this is probably the right forum to discuss it. Jeppiz ( talk) 09:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
"'While they are important in the religions of Arabs, Lithuanians, Finns, Italians and many others", that doesn't makes any sense; Arabs, Lithuanians, Finns and Italians are not ethno-religious groups. And the Arabic version is necessary because they are also figures mentioned in the Quran and also in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, scriptures of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (both are written in Arabic), you are forgetting that David is not only a prophet in Christianity and Judaism but also in many other religions(like Samaritanism, Yazidi, Druzes, Mandeans to start with) and did you know that some people don't even believe in prophets and God? This is an encyclopedia, not an online Bible, we are required to give the views of others and not to hold a monopoly to the truth. "but as it concerns multiple Bible-related article, this is probably the right forum to discuss it", again let me tell you that they are not only figures mentioned in the Bible, please be nuanced. Runehelmet ( talk) 14:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
There is currently discussion taking place at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha) regarding material to be included in wikipedia regarding this reading, as well as the others. Input is more than welcome. John Carter ( talk) 15:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Discussion on name of Genesis creation narrative article at Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Requested move. -- 203.171.196.112 ( talk) 06:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
In fact I am amazed that a year and half ago has been removed. See this discussion: Section "popolare culture". -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 22:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
At the momentt Isaac is GA status, but changes in Isaac#Christian views (the major change was made with the edit summary "Christian View expanded based solely on Scripture and knowledge of "types and shadows" of Christianity.") mean it no longer meets criteria 2 of Wikipedia:Good article criteria and I will probably ask for it to be reassessed if this isn't fixed. Another editor tagged the section.
Ishmael I'm not sure about. I removed some OR by the same editor, but I'd like someone with more knowledge to take a look at the changes. [5] Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 08:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I would like some input on a proposed merge between Trachonitis and Lajat. Another editor thinks that these may be the same place. Please comment at Talk:Trachonitis#Merge proposal Ego White Tray ( talk) 02:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
We have an issue with Bible disambiguation pages that needs to be addressed. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Bible disambiguations. Note that this is not the same topic that was discussed at Wikiproject Religion three years ago. Ego White Tray ( talk) 14:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I have found the bible links on Wikisource very easy to use. But look at this. They need watching, and I am not sure if people do. I know that is officially not an English Wiki issue, but if some of you want to watch that with a Wikisource account it may help. I am not that active on these things, but thought I would suggest it here. There are not that many pages, i.e. one page for each NT book. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 00:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I am starting a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Encyclopedic articles which lists those topics which are covered by separate articles in other highly regarded print reference works on the Bible. It should be noted that those works are however about the Bible itself, not about the religious groups which hold the Bible in esteem, and as such it contains only topics which seem to relate in a fairly significant way to the Bible in some way. I think it might serve as a good basis for determining what articles here should exist, and perhaps provide some indication as to what other reference works say on some of the topics we are covering here. I will try to go through the Anchor Bible Dictionary and add the articles included in it as well in the near future, more or less following the format of the current list. John Carter ( talk) 23:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#the God of Israel or the god of Israel as to whether to use a capital "G" in the phrase "god of Israel". St Anselm ( talk) 00:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
For your information, there is a new proposal to move Genesis creation narrative to Genesis creation myth. See Talk:Genesis creation narrative#New proposal. St Anselm ( talk) 21:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Currently all members of Template:Ten Commandments, below, appear to have titles from the NIV, except for Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain (though the template displays with the modern translation). It seems to me that the KJV names are more widely used, but I don't know if that satisfies WP:COMMONNAME, which specifies common in reliable sources, not popular usage. Perhaps the best way forward is to rename to the Bible reference, but then they are repeated in two places in the Bible, so that might be restricting the scope of each article. Using the numbers won't work, because there are three numbering schemes, two of which are widely used, and I don't think you could argue one is primary. Basically I don't know what to do, so I thought I'd just ask what other folks thought.
-- JFH ( talk) 16:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
( Discuss) – Decalogue → Decalogue (disambiguation) – Ten Commandments is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Decalogue should redirect there. JFH ( talk) 17:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)-- JFH ( talk) 00:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Should there be a wikiproject Quran? What about a wikiproject Vedas ? Pass a Method talk 12:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to post a note of congratulations to User:Cerebellum for bringing Third Epistle of John up to GA quality--so far as I can tell from the project's listings, it's the first book of the Bible to reach this milestone on Wikipedia. Hopefully it can be the start of a trend! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 00:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Authorized_King_James_Version#Requested_move Mangoe ( talk) 01:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
We have received an e-mail at OTRS with respect to the image in this article:
Your illustration of the 10th century Ramsey Psalter on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey_Psalter is not the 10th century Ramsey Psalter. I don’t know what it is, but it’s not 10th century. There seems to be an early 14th century Ramsey Psalter (c1310) at the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York; perhaps that’s what you’ve got.
Here is an image of the 10th century Ramsey Psalter from the British Library – the fifth manuscript down: http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/TourIntro2.asp
I would appreciate someone looking into this and changing the image if necessary. Thanks.-- ukexpat ( talk) 14:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
That would also require current article Apocrypha to be renamed: (to what? perhaps Non-biblical apocrypha?)
WP:TITLE#Deciding on an article title gives five criteria for good article names, the first two being Recognizability and Naturalness. I went to Apocrypha myself recently, expecting to find something more like what I now find is in Biblical apocrypha. On Apocrypha's talk page, I found a couple of edits from readers who apparently made the same mistake, left comments about the need for improvement, and no indication that they ever got further. So there's an indication that Recognizability and Naturalness favor the idea of renaming. The next criterion is Precision, which argues for leaving the titles alone, but it conflicts with Conciseness which argues for renaming if you accept the Recognizability and Naturalness points. The last criterion is Consistency, which seems fairly neutral here. Or so I see it all, but I've only been a Wikipedia editor for a couple of weeks.
One more thing: the term "Apocrypha" has a very large currency within the context of the Christian religion and the Bible, along with biblical canon. That context is also one where discussions of considerable vigor have been taking place for around 500 years. I'm guessing that there is no other context that has a similar vitality, especially within the group "readers of English" (our constituency). I think the prominence of the topic argues for renaming.
I hope my initial view is clear, but the proposal only makes sense if enough others look at it that way too. So I thought it might be useful to consider and wanted to put the idea forward.
I've also raised the question at the Project Christianity Notice Board, but asked for discussion to take place here. Evenssteven ( talk) 15:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm yielding the article rename suggestion to the solid points in ColonelHenry's rebuttal. I do see how the two article titles could distinguish separate topics, even though I remain confused about what each is trying to say at present. Hopefully that can be made clearer through re-writing. And possibly that re-writing will also make clearer these articles' relation to the new discussion topic below. For now, I think it better to retain stability until larger considerations point to a clear path for improvement. Evenssteven ( talk) 20:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion from the preceding section Should article Biblical apocrypha be renamed Apocrypha? has morphed. I'm opening this new discussion title for its continuation, and to maintain discussion focus.
The navigation template sounds to me like a good practical item. We need something concrete to deal with, lest discussion just become theoretical. And we need to be able to deal with larger goals in bite-sized chunks that are doable in increments. I'd give this a shot myself, but I still don't feel I have enough perspective over this big picture right now. I'll continue reading and re-reading articles and other materials to try to make some headway before attempting proposals. BTW, I'm not sure what a navigation template looks like nor how it is implemented (I've only been on WP less than a month). Pointers gratefully received on my talk page (or in a contribution here along those lines?). Thanks much, Evenssteven ( talk) 20:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Another concrete area: There seems to be a lot of overlap between "Deuterocanonical books" and "Biblical Apocrypha". I tend to think that "Deuterocanonical books" is the more descriptive title where that material belongs (and it is the much better-written article at this time). But before I would want to start any major overhauls within "Biblical Apocrypha", can anyone point me to what the difference between these articles really is supposed to be? In other words, how much necessity is there to retain two articles, and/or where do we draw the dividing line? I'm partly following up on MSJapan's points above. Evenssteven ( talk) 20:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
There's a generic problem with the Apocrypha articles, and that is that there is a separate "Jewish" and "Old Testament" article. Maybe there's a nuance I'm missing, but I should think these are more or less the same thing.
Looking at the former article (which is linked in the title), I found that it includes the "early Christian period", which doesn't make a lot of sense, because if that is the case, there was already a distinction that would make those items "not Jewish" (again, maybe there's a nuance here, buit I don't see it and it's not explained in the article). I also removed a section on the Gospel of Adam and Eve, because that's not what it is called according to the uncited source from which is was lifted verbatim (Britannica, v.2, p.178). The tone was all wrong, and it could not be rewritten without finding other sources. From that point onward, there's a lot of "Christian" references in the sections, which again, would indicate to me that those books are not Jewish and therefore don't belong in the article anyway.
Could someone look that over and make sure that everything is correct and adequately explained if it looks like it shouldn't be there? MSJapan ( talk) 21:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Sotah#Requested_move. It has been re-listed due to lack of participation. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 16:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Members of this WikiProject may be interested in this discussion. SJK ( talk) 06:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
There is an RfC concerning what should Wikipedia's policy be on the use of non-free Bible translations: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 60#RfC: Use of non-free Bible translations.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 13:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
A peer review for the Gospel of the Hebrews article has been opened at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews/archive1. Please contribute suggestions and constructive criticism to prepare the article for WP:GAN. Thank you. Ignocrates ( talk) 17:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
A concern has been expressed (in intensely personal terms) about the comprehensiveness and neutrality of the recently promoted Gospel of the Ebionites feature article. Therefore, an internal review is in order. I have started a discussion on the talk page Talk:Gospel of the_Ebionites#WP:FAR. Please contribute suggestions, constructive criticism, etc., that will result in further improvements to the article, per WP:PRESERVE. The article is move protected until the day after it is featured on the main page, but I will address any comments/concerns asap after that. Cheers. Ignocrates ( talk) 17:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
These are the same person - Mahalath seems to usual name according to GBooks and GScholar, would someone like to merge them? Both have useful material. Dougweller ( talk) 12:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Gospel of the Ebionites is currently undergoing featured article review. Anyone who has any interest in helping to make this article at FA status is more than welcome to do so. Ignocrates ( talk) 00:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Please take a look at Talk:Book of Job#God, Yehweh or Yahweh?. I don't know which is correct where or why the IP is doing this but it need attention from someone who can figure this out. I've got some idea about what is going on but I'm probably wrong. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 12:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Maxximiliann ( talk · contribs) is a new account so should be treated softly, but I'm concerned about major changes in dates and other changes such as Yahweh to Jehovah. He is apparently editing from a JW viewpoint (as also suggested by his reversion of a talk page edit [6]. I'm hoping someone from here can explain why this is a bad idea before I have to take this further. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed a bunch of places on Wikipedia where virtually all biblical scholarship disagrees with fundamentalist Christians who believe there is no such thing as pseudepigrapha in the Bible, and Wikipedia seems to take something of a theological stand by implying that these issues are controversial among scholars. See the recent history of Saint Peter, or the 7th paragraph of Second Epistle of Peter which lists four sources supporting early (Petrine) authorship and implies that only a quarter as many favour a later date. I've also noticed that when I write a sentence accurately reflecting what is in a source, someone will come along and change the way the sentence was worded to imply the source supports a completely different viewpoint (even when this "viewpoint" is the factual statement "Most scholars believe X"). Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 14:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads-up about this submission. Seems non-notable. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Please see here. SJK ( talk) 11:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Template:Bibleverse needs to be edited by and admin. The source code links to http://bibref.hebtools.com. That website is no longer active. User:Atethnekos edited Template:Bibleverse/sandbox which links to http://tools.wmflabs.org/bibleversefinder/bibleversefinder.php
I've proposed the move described above and would like comments. Likewise, it looks lie there are several important articles within that overall topic that need a top to bottom restructuring. I think Historicity and the Bible should be a top level survey covering what the topic is, the general course of public opinion on it, scholarly developments, and then some nuts and bolts on methodology. A summation of the major narratives of the Bible might also be useful. Beneath Historicity of the Bible should be the major book families, such as Historicity of the Hebrew Bible, which can be further subdivided into the component parts (Torah, Prophets, Writings, Later prophets, the Twelve) as necessary. Any thoughts and/or volunteers to help?-- Tznkai ( talk) 03:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I just created a template for the Nag Hammadi Codices, and there were I think at least five articles that haven't be created or located. It would be nice if someone put their time in creating these articles, so I could have a proper template to post on each article involving the Nag Hammadi Library. I'm just not very good at creating articles on Wikipedia, only editing. Also, if you happen to pass by on a Gnostic article that involves the Nag Hammadi Codices and do not see the temple embedded, please place the template in that article. Here is the template: Template:The Nag Hammadi Codices Please read the "Note" in the template to figure out which articles need to be created or located. — Thank You! — ♣Jerm♣ 729 —Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() Archives |
---|
I want to inform the community that I have done a GA Reassessment of Isaac and found the article lacking. Not very much will need to be done but enough that I could not keep it GA without some effort. I am notifying all interested projects that I have held this article for one week pending editing. The review can be found here. If you have any questions please feel free to contact my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 23:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to point out, the Children's Bible Story Book article needs ratings from this wikiproject. Ross Rhodes ( T C) Sign! 21:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 22:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I have done the GA Reassessment of Ishmael as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found a few items that concern me about the article. My review can be found here. I have held the article for a week and I am notifying all the interested projects in the hope that work can be done to keep it at GA. Please contact me at my talk page if you have any questions. H1nkles ( talk) 16:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Arlen22 (
talk) 19:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Arlen22
Got it. #~~~~
It will look like this.
Arlen22 (
talk) 20:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
There's a flag saying it needs an expert edit. I have good claim to be an expert on the subject, so i did a pretty complete edit, added a bunch of references, etc. What else should be done (if anything) in order to remove the flag, and hopefully get the article recategorized as past "Start" level?
Thanks!
Sderose ( talk) 03:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Done Arlen22 ( talk) 12:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedians at
Talk:Roman Catholic Church are discussing the merits of changing the article name as such.
Roman Catholic Church →
Catholic
Church. Please share your opinions
there. --
Carlaude
talk 12:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Moved on July 2, 2009 by Shell Kinney
If you do not like the change to the Project please say so. If you do like the changes, please say so also. Arlen22 ( talk) 21:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The old talk page is
here. And is also archived using the normal procedures.
The old project page is
here.
Arlen22 (
talk) 21:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Note that I did not change the Goals. Arlen22 ( talk) 12:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The C grade article, Science and the Bible needs attention. Editors with issues in Talk:Science and the Bible are talking about deletion. J. D. Redding 12:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
We forget this:
Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 13:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Any parties interested in being one of the coordinators of WikiProject Christianity and its various related projects is encouraged to list themselves as a candidate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 2. It would be particularly beneficial if we had individuals from as broad a range of areas of the project as possible, to help ensure that we have people knowledgable about the widest range of content possible. John Carter ( talk) 20:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I am looking for somebody, who can copyedit the article "Codex Vaticanus". Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 11:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
A new article, whose lead says:
"The following charts list all biblical data relevant to the study of its timeline. Gathered from all parts of the bible, the data is presented without interpretation in as convenient a form as possible. Links are provided to articles which provide more in-depth analysis and interpretation. It is my hope that this page can act as a central 'portal' to all areas of biblical study."
Dougweller ( talk) 21:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Bible to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 01:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
What is the proper tense to use for biblical narratives? I want to fix Samson, which switches back and forth between the present (fictional) and the past (historical) in the first paragraph. Esther uses the past tense, while Book of Esther goes with the present. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I want to merge Tattenai and Tatnai, but I'm not sure which spelling to use as the main page. Help? Aristophanes68 ( talk) 04:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone help me? I'm writing on behalf of the Society of Old Testament Study, the main British and Irish academic society for Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament ( [1]). As part of its coming centenary celebrations, the society wants to undertake several projects associated with improving public understanding of the Hebrew Bible. One of these is to be the creation of a separate wiki edited by members of the society, and probably designed with a slightly more specialist readership in mind, but we are also keen to contribute in any way that is useful to the creation and maintenance of the relevant pages on wikipedia. Although it is unlikely that more than a small proportion of the membership will be keen to get involved over the next couple of years, we can offer a considerable amount of expertise across the field. I appreciate that we could simply sign up and get stuck in straightaway, but it would be very helpful for us to know how and where we could be of most use (and how we could best avoid being a nuisance): suggestions would be very welcome, as would names of any editors we should contact directly about this. Stuart Weeks ( talk) 00:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs an article for 'Jahdai'. I dont know enough about it to do it myself. I only know that Jahdai could either be a wife/concubine or conceivably a descendant of Caleb. Lemmiwinks2 ( talk) 19:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I was surprised to find that Tubalcain just leads to a disambig, and that the original scriptural figure doesn't even rate his own article. Granted, his mention in Genesis is brief, but the figure played a substantial role in extra-scriptural beliefs and legends for centuries and centuries. I'm not sure I know enough about the subject, but does anyone else have strong feelings on the issue, have info to contribute, or at least believe that the scriptural (and later somewhat "legendary" in an expanded sense) figure merits an article of his own? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 05:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
How about a standardized way of naming articles for biblical persons. I would suggest 'X, son of Y' [or maybe X (son of Y)]. Lemmiwinks2 ( talk) 01:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
In Germany, there are - since the Middle Ages - Children's Bibles (i.e. books that contain some excerpts from the Bible in easy language and with many illustrations) by many authors, illustrators and publishers. This is described in de:Kinderbibel. In the English Wikipedia I just find The Children's Bible Story Book. Is there really only this one? -- 84.184.26.69 ( talk) 12:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
If you have a moment, please see
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Biblical disambiguators. Thank you!
—
V = I * R (
talk to Ω) 07:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
If you like to keep track of changes to bible related articles but dont want to add hundreds of links to your watchlist then try this instead: Changes_related_to_"Timeline of the Bible" Lemmiwinks2 ( talk) 21:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 2#Category:Members_of_the_Society_for_Biblical_Studies_in_India. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see:: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahweh and Allah. Borock ( talk) 07:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Going through the directory of WikiProjects, I noticed that there are 2 categories which mention this project, but both instances say the project's main listing is under a "Language and linguistics" category which does not exist. So my question to your project is, which category do you wish to have your primary listing under?
Philosophy and religion or
Language and literature?
-
Garrett W. {
☎
✍} 07:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
A search for sources with which to improve the page Text types turned up a number of books using the phrase to describe (I think) a sorting or selecting among various manuscripts, especially of the New Testament (e.g. Hartin and Petzer 1991 Text and Interpretation, Erickson 2005 A Beginner's Guide to New Testament Exegesis). Is "text-types" in fact a term of art in Biblical interpretation? If so, could some knowledgeable person comment at Talk:Text types?
In linguistics and philology, particularly historical linguistics and corpus linguistics, "text type" used more or less synonymously with genre. Text types as it is currently written cites only a single source, which appears to be a textbook for a composition course. This suggests that the page will require an entire re-write, ideally into two pages - one treating the linguistic/ philological sense of the word, and one treating the Biblical scholarship sense. Cnilep ( talk) 15:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Cnilep, the term "text type" is used differently in New Testament textual criticism. As someone who has worked a lot in this particular sub-field, I can say that the term is frequently misunderstood even among those who are specialists in the New Testament. This misunderstanding is also evident when one reads, e.g., the sub-section in the New Testament article on "early manuscripts". Readings that are frequently found together in certain witnesses that are likely related "genealogically" allow one to group these sets of readings into "text types". Though such grouping is a construct that we create, it is based on evidence found in the textual witnesses (both manuscripts and citations). Some such groups become fairly distinguishable *by* the fourth century. One cannot, however, really talk about "text types" (much) before the fourth century. Terms like "(early) mixed text" and "proto-Alexandrian" are really anachronistic attempts to describe earlier texts using later categories. Moreover, all "text types" are ultimately products of older forms of the text. What's far more important than "text type" is an assessment of the individual readings: when, how, and why they arose--which then allows one to see which is the oldest recoverable reading. 91.46.191.162 ( talk) 12:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>> Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Archive 4/Unreferenced BLPs<<<
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you.
here Thank you For you time Weaponbb7 ( talk) 18:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if someone would look at this and see if the sections on ancient astronomy and on angels are both relevant. A Google search on biblical cosmology doesn't turn up much when you add the words angels or cherubim, for instance. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 08:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Template:Bibleref2c seems to me to have been broken, but I'm no expert. I have reverted for now, but if anybody can determine what the last editor was trying to achieve and what the problem was perhaps you could have a look. William Avery ( talk) 11:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
is this suppose to be the pastor pay. I hear teaching of give 2.50 cents per hundred dollars 2 the pastor on top of tithes can someone share some light on this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.34.38 ( talk) 01:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Please can someone check the 'semiprotected edit request' Talk:David#Edit_request which I was unable to perform myself, as it needs someone with some knowledge of the Bible. Thanks, Chzz ► 06:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The whole thing, including 'meanings' of names, seems to be sourced from a single 19th century work. Some of the 'meanings' are quite dodgy. In addition, we already have the articles List of major Biblical figures, List of minor Biblical figures and List of Biblical places. I and another on the talk page thought the best thing to do would be to remove the meanings and treat it as an index, which could then be used to help populate the other existing list articles. Each entry could then be given a good link, and the linked article could give a proper discussion of proposed derivations for that name. We started this process.
A third contributor then reverted all the removal we had done, and claimed on the talk page that the 'meanings' were sourced from several places. The support for this was a website which provides links to other sources, even though the actual 'meanings' used in the article all come from the one 19th century source. The second contributor put a PROD on the article, and this was removed.
I really feel we could do with a few more eyes on this, preferably people who have some idea of how this fits in the other articles on this topic on Wikipedia. My own position (as I have said on the relevant talk page) is that reproducing 19th century sources in their entirety is what Wikisource is for, and that even if we did that here, the article should be renamed and rewritten to make it clear that this is not an overview of modern views on what these names mean.
Please join us on the article talk page, even if it's to disagree with me. 86.179.147.79 ( talk) 20:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
¶ I added the Hebrew spelling of the name to the article on SERAH. I felt it was important; apparently the same name appears in narratives some 300 years apart and there is considerable legend to the effect that it is the same person, impossibly long-lived, but there was a slight difference in the writing of the name, which I thought was worth bringing up.
Sussmanbern (
talk) 22:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
According to modern scholars, the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC. I would argue that this is a relevant information to put in the introduction of the article, but another user thinks otherwise. The "third opinion" agreed with my position, but the other user still opposes to this settlement.
Those who would be so kind to give their informed opinion are invited at Talk:Book of Daniel#Date of composition in introduction. Thanks -- TakenakaN ( talk) 15:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing debate regarding Parable of the Good Samaritan#Historical reliability which would benefit from additional input. Issues which are involved include (1) whether Wikipedia should provide concise definitions containing only relevant information, or whether articles should be more detailed; (2) how WP:NPOV should be implemented in practice; (3) whether the section accurately represents the opinions of one scholar (Bernard Brandon Scott); and (4) the best structure for the article. -- Radagast 3 ( talk) 01:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to bring your attention to an ongoing discussion here. Please chime in. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see my proposal here and comment/vote. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to understand how Wikipedia works, without disrupting anything or stepping on any one’s toes. My revisions on several pages have been removed and I am confused by these edits because I was not trying to self promote with my additions. Rather, I was adding a link to the Jewish Publication Society (JPS), the oldest Jewish publishing company in the United States and the authoritative English translation of the Jewish Bible. JPS has created a product called the Tagged Tanakh, which contains an online version of its most recent Bible translation.
You removed my links to the Tagged Tanakh, but Mechon Mamre, Bible Gateway, and the University of Michigan all have links in similar formats on Wikiperida pages related to the Bible. Please explain to me why these organizations are allowed to post and I am not. Additionally, I find it a little bothersome that Christian versions of the Bible (ie Bible Gateway and University of Michigan) are adding links to Jewish Wikipedia pages such as Torah and the Book of Genesis. Please advise me on the next step that I should take. Thank you, and I Look forward to hearing from you soon. Rrstern25 ( talk) 14:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
A Bible quote was included by the previous editor to the article: I cleaned it up and improved its presentation, but I'm unsure if it really belongs there...? Raymie Humbert ( t • c) 02:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
A discussion on Aorist has taken place on whether the article should remain essentially as-is, or should be rewritten the replace Greek-related grammatical terms like "aorist" by other terms. Input would be greatly appreciated at Talk:Aorist#RfC. -- Radagast 3 ( talk) 00:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (3rd nomination) Sumbuddi ( talk) 23:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Bible articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing,
Adullam, has been proposed for a
merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going
here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
Sreifa (
talk) 15:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
A quick reminder to members of this WikiProject: WP:NFCC#1 states that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Although the non-free content criteria are most commonly applied to images, they do apply to copyrighted text as well. Since there are a number of public-domain translations of the Bible available (e.g. KJV, ASV, WEB), this means that unless there is a specific reason why a copyrighted Bible translation must be used in a given article (e.g. to compare how different versions translate a particular passage), the use of quotes from copyrighted Bible translations (such as the RSV and the NIV) in articles is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Please use public domain translations instead. Thanks! —Angr ( talk) 15:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I see that User:Angr has put an indefinite block on User:Radagast3 over this issue. This appears to me to be a totally inappropriate use of admin privileges. St Anselm ( talk) 21:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Please read MoonriddenGirl's comments on the copyvio issue at WP:ANI. She's one of our experts. Dougweller ( talk) 14:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Radagast3 only asked me to "reach a consensus on the issue here" after he had repeatedly reverted my removal of the copyrighted text. The only issue that needs to be discussed on this page is which PD translation we want to use. The use of any copyrighted translation for simple quotation purposes (e.g. "The text of the parable is as follows:") is prohibited by WP:NFCC and Foundation policy, which does not only apply to media files (although they're what's at issue probably 95% of the time). As for which translation to use, I would point out that since the WEB is public domain, we are free to alter it and to use it without attribution. That means if we want to write "leaven" and the WEB says "yeast" (or whatever), we can just change it. —Angr ( talk) 19:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Ormulum for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 ( talk) 21:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Anyone interested in fixing this today? Most of it is from [2] (the book itself), [3] and various faq pages here [4]. Some editor even didn't notice or care abouta adding "Most of these queries came from our (tyndale house) own editors ". If no one else is interested I'll have to stub it. Dougweller ( talk) 08:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I am currently trying to get together some lists of articles relevant to each Christianity-related portal which could be used, at least potentially, to help bring all the extant portals up to Featured Portal status. The current, admittedly incomplete, list of articles, images, etc., relevant to each portal can be found at User:John Carter/Christianity portals. I also think that, at least in theory, we would probably best use a single article only in a single portal, and that we probably have enough articles to do that, although there might be a few exceptions. I would welcome input from anyone on the associated talk page regarding which articles and other materials they would like to see associated with which portal(s), any suggestions for additional portals or changes to existing portals, etc. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 15:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bible study (Christian). Jaque Hammer ( talk) 14:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Bible#Merging, and Migrating template usage to Biblesource. Hopefully we can reduce the proliferation of templates, at least a little. Thanks. -- Quiddity ( talk) 22:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed that on articles like Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, and Gospel of John, some editors are pushing a POV. They define a set universe of "mainstream scholarship" and used that to define what the "scholarly consensus" is. No evidence is ever given that this is what the "mainstream" is, it is just assumed and requests for evidence are ignored. Not only that, but this fake-mainstream is even often described as the "consensus". This universe just so happens to include and be personified by skeptics and atheists like Bart Ehrman or the ultra-controversial Jesus Seminar. Actually Ehrman and Jesus Seminar members are often the most heavily cited sources. Any scholars who deviate from this view are labeled "fringe" and their views dismissed. Most scholars actually deviate from what is defined by certain editors as "mainstream", but this nice little definition allows the majority to be dismissed as "fringe". Evidence that these people represent the "mainstream" is never given, editors just demand that one accepts it because "that's what everyone knows". With this, direct quoted evidence that they don't represent the mainstream is dismissed and never taken seriously. If they make claims that are well cited, these claims are deleted outright for no reason other than they don't fit in with this artificially defined universe of what is "mainstream". Wikipedia is ruled by what the majority of editors on a given article think about a topic, not what the "correct" or "mainstream" view is. These edits don't represent the "mainstream" view, but a heavily skewed POV. As such, these articles are badly biased on certain points, especially authorship.
I would like some non-involved editors to take a look at these pages and the talk pages to see what they think. RomanHistorian ( talk) 20:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick ( talk) 20:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:ANI#Is wikipedia policy to confirm that the Bible is a story book?. Please see Solomon's temple for more background. -- Avi ( talk) 13:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
We are currently discussing ways to improve these articles. Your input would be appreciated. Please see the discussions in Talk:Book of Daniel and Talk:Son of perdition. Elizium23 ( talk) 21:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Tahash ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm hoping to get some additional eyes on the Tahash article. This is a very long article on what seems to be a rather niche topic with very poor referencing. There is an ongoing dispute as to how, if at all, the article should be shortened. Any involvement would be greatly appreciated! —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 18:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
A TFD has ben opened on Template:Religious text primary. The TfD was opened on 2 December; so is due to close in two days time. Additional perspectives and the widest input would probably be useful. Jheald ( talk) 23:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at Patriarchs (Bible) a recent change Patriarchs_(Bible)&direction=next&oldid=404377992 deleted the substantial content and left a bare new structure which seemed to me problematic. I have tried to restore the old content while keeping some of the new material and empty structure but don't feel competant to do much on it. Best wishes ( Msrasnw ( talk) 14:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC))
We have several articles on this 'lost book' and its variations, and a number of links using it as a source. I've raised the issue of sorting this out at WP:FTN#The book of Jasher, maybe the wrong place to start but there you are and now I'm notifying relevant projects. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Some more knowledgeable eyes would be useful at Ritual decalogue where a slow editor war has been brewing over the lead. The discussion on the talk page seems deadlocked between the same three editors. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 21:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome.
John Carter (
talk)
Automated message by
Project Messenger Bot from
John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011
This may seem a strange question. When I was in college, lo those many years ago, I took a class with the head of the (secular) school religion department in which he said the Bible he used was the Jerusalem Bible. But there are the matters of the various commentaries. Some of these are contained within the specific version of the Bible or an obviously related commentary, some are not. There do seem to however seem to be several which are widely used based on what I've seen. I note, for instance, that those who hold with Biblical inerrancy (I don't) don't use the same commentaries/commented editions I would (I tend to favor the JB above myself). This is fine, and I have no problems with it, but I do think that it may well be to all of our advantage if we could figure out which commentaries/Bibles are used most frequently by such different strands of Christianity in particular - I am not that familiar with Judaism, and don't know if the same variation occurs between the various Jewish groups, or even Islamic or others. However, I do think that the articles would in general probably be easiest to promote if we had some sort of list of the most frequently used commentaries, and any major disparate groupings, so that, in those cases where there are significant disagreements in thinking, we would be able to know which sources to consult to provide information on the interpretations of the major extant belief groups.
I hope the above makes some degree of sense. In any event, if anyone knows of commetaries or editions which are most frequently used by fundamentalist, inerrancy, moderate, "scientific", or other major groupings, it might be useful in at least some cases to other editors to have them pointed out. Given the staggering number of commentaries out there, having some sort of "quick-list" of most frequently used commentaries would probably be useful. John Carter ( talk) 17:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The article Jerusalem during the Second Temple period was recently renamed to Jerusalem during the Persian, Hellenic and early Roman Periods. There is an ongoing discussion regarding the proposal to rename it back to the original title. This article is listed as part of this WikiProject, and comments may be left at Talk:Jerusalem during the Persian, Hellenic and early Roman Periods#Requested move. • Astynax talk 19:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I made some timelines graphically depicting the ages of the biblical patriarchs from the creation to Abraham. Abyssal ( talk) 23:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
All sources
|
---|
![]() |
MT
|
---|
![]() |
SP
|
---|
![]() |
LXX
|
---|
![]() |
I think that the relevance of this term for the discussion of biblical texts should be explained, and examplified; c.f. its talk page. (Perhaps articles on some other terms should be revised in similar manners, too.) JoergenB ( talk) 22:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC).
I am not a formal member of this WikiProject, but I hope you will not object if I request something. If one types in The Revelation of St. John the Divine, one will get red wikilinks. Can some please change this so that typing this will get a redirect to Book of Revelation? Thank you if you would look into this, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 19:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
This probably isn't needed, but just in case anyone is particularly well-versed in academic sources for the Exodus period (which I'm not) they may be interested in some of the discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism regarding the Jewish priesthood template. In particular I'd like to know what the correct academic English would be for the plate on the High Priest's turban. Also what modern study on the etymology of herem is. Cheers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I would welcome opinions re merger Elias with Elijah, please add your contribution here. Andreas (T) 18:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I wonder whether any one in this WikiProject group would help out with something? There are several articles in Wikipedia on Bible translations. One of these has sub-heading such as "Translations of the Bible into Wikipedia" and then says "Main article - translations of the Bible into Xhosa" but that is in red letters, showing that there is no such article in Wikipedia. In fact, the article is peppered with "Main article" - only to be followed by a red wiki-link! Could some one please remove these? Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The precise article I was thinking of is available at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_by_language
If you look there, you will see numerous places where "Main article" is followed by a red wiki-link. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Not sure I'm at the correct place to ask, but anyway: I've noticed that while in some languages there are articles on Books of Samuel, Books of Kings and Books of Chronicles (1 & 2 in a single article), in other languages these are separated into eg es:I Crónicas (with iwiki links to the 'overall' pages in en-wiki &C) and es:II Crónicas (with iwiki links only among themselves). Should these latter be also linked to 2 Samuel &c, even though the page is a redir, or would that be against some policy related to redirect pages? -- Thrissel ( talk) 15:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Your current Hussite Bible page makes it sound as though Hungarians created it... Please note that the name is derived from Jan Hus, who was a Moravian/Slav, a totally different language. Jan Hus I think tried to translate the Latin text into Czech, Moravian and Slovak languages, he had some disagreements with the Roman Catholic organization, and was burned at stake in 1415. The two Hangarians Tamás Pécsi and Bálint Újlaki came afterwards, so you need to fill in the first creation before you go and describe its subsequent use. Good luck in your research, and much needed upgrade of your article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussite_Bible. Kind regards, Tibor Schimek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.135.50 ( talk) 06:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Is it synthesis or POV to present Bible verses prohibiting witchcraft and sorcery in an article which presents Religious debates over the Harry Potter series? Please see Talk:Religious debates over the Harry Potter series#Biblical prohibitions against witchcraft. Elizium23 ( talk) 08:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, should this article be deleted? My concern is related to NPOV tag, however if its not going to be linked to, might as well remove it. - Roy Boy 02:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Books of the Old Testament requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>
).
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.
As per discussions in 2008 that agreed too many templates were in use on the articles about individual Books of the Bible, and since another cleaner template exists (and is in use to replace it), I have proposed speedy deletion of Template:Books of the Old Testament, whose content exists in the Template:Books of the Bible at the bottom of every such page. This will remove the clunky, old, intrusive series template, but will leave in a template with the same set of links. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 05:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I have been working on the Parashah article for several years (about space divisions in the masoretic text of the Bible). It is now way beyond "start" class, so I raised the quality rating to "B". However, it would be good to have other people look at it too and give their feedback. Please comment on the talk page there about the quality rating and what else needs to be done to improve the article. Thanks, Dovi ( talk) 12:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Template:Books of the Old Testament has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
EncycloPetey (
talk) 18:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Ammon was recently tagged with Template:unreliable sources. As both the topic and the sources are biblical, I think this could be rebutted by a subject matter expert to assert that the Bible and secondary sources on the Bible are reliable with respect to a biblical topic. patsw ( talk) 14:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I have recently reviewed the Jesus Seminar article, and, as is I think visible from the article and talk page, think that there are some serious concerns regarding it. It may be, I don't know, that articles on other topics relating to the historicity of Jesus might be, perhaps, more frequently edited by individuals who have a specific interest in the group rather than the broader group of editors. Certainly, I have found that most of the discussion on Christianity WikiProject pages relates to specific groups and beliefs, rather than modern academic opinions. Anyway, I would welcome any input on the article, and believe, perhaps, it might be valuable if related articles got a bit more attention from possibly a broader group of editors as well. John Carter ( talk) 21:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Already posted this note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity. Please see Talk:Gospel. Fine to link to peripheral material articles and deal with theories at length there, but basic "Gospel" article needs to be kept mainstream. In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Editors at Christianity and homosexuality are considering this question. You can be a part of this exciting and invigorating discussion here. – Lionel ( talk) 04:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed that other large projects, such as WP:India, have newsletters. I think a newsletter could help improve the project. Who is interested in contributing to it? I look forward to your comments. With regards, Anupam Talk 17:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed that on various articles, like the exodus, a small group of editors consistently enforces a minority hyper-skeptical POV. The problem routinely seems to be that the same small group of 2 or 3 editors work together somehow, while the editors trying to bring back the majority scholarly viewpoint come one at a time, and so are usually outnumbered. If anyone wants to work with me to bring some balance back to these articles, let me know. Quarkgluonsoup ( talk) 15:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
If this group truly desires to improve the articles on the Judeo/Christian bible, how about trying a little objectivity and fairness? Biblical apologetics are in no way to be considered academic. Just a thought... Manson 23:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 ( talk • contribs)
There are discussion underway at the talk pages of Books of Chronicles, Books of Kings, and Books of Samuel as to whether or not to move those pages to article titles reflecting the singular nature of each of the works in the Masoretic text, rather than the current Septuagint-based titles. The input of any interested editor would be greatly appreciated. Evanh2008 ( talk) ( contribs) 05:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The Bible Wikipedia page seems (unless I've missed something) to treat The Bible as the text itself, rather than the physical book/CD-Rom or whatever the words are contained in. I cannot find anything on Wikipedia regarding Bibles as printed medium. Are there any pages. To assist in understanding what I am on about if I'm not being clear: I wrote the article Bible case and wanted to add a mention of it onto The Bible page. However there is no relevant section to add it to. Likewise things like different sizes of physical bibles, the medium on which they appear, bible boxes and the like. Am I missing something? Thanks in advance for any response! Cls14 ( talk) 16:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Since this concerns the wider Christianity Project, I have raised my concern on its talk-page and this is just a note to advise that the subject is up for discussion. Jpacobb ( talk) 19:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Which articles are appropriate places in which to mention
The Divine Name King James Bible?
I
mentioned it in "
Tetragrammaton" at 20:06, 1 July 2012, but my addition was reverted in the next revision.
—
Wavelength (
talk) 00:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Some users, or at least one, actively inserts the Arabic versions for Biblical persons (Moses, David, Jesus etc.) into the lead of each article. I don't really see this as relevant or accurate. Of course these religious figures are of importance in most languages, but the lead would look very silly indeed if we added the different versions of their names in each language. I would argue that the only relevant languages are English (as this is the English Wikipedia) and the language of the person in question, as is standard procedure with biographies. So for Moses, Davic etc., we of course use the English version of their names, and provide the Hebrew version as there Biblical figures were Hebrews. While they are important in the religions of Arabs, Lithuanians, Finns, Italians and many others, I don't see that as enough reason to include their names in Arabic, Lithuania, Finnish, Italian and so on. This is already being discussed under the article on King David, but as it concerns multiple Bible-related article, this is probably the right forum to discuss it. Jeppiz ( talk) 09:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
"'While they are important in the religions of Arabs, Lithuanians, Finns, Italians and many others", that doesn't makes any sense; Arabs, Lithuanians, Finns and Italians are not ethno-religious groups. And the Arabic version is necessary because they are also figures mentioned in the Quran and also in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, scriptures of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (both are written in Arabic), you are forgetting that David is not only a prophet in Christianity and Judaism but also in many other religions(like Samaritanism, Yazidi, Druzes, Mandeans to start with) and did you know that some people don't even believe in prophets and God? This is an encyclopedia, not an online Bible, we are required to give the views of others and not to hold a monopoly to the truth. "but as it concerns multiple Bible-related article, this is probably the right forum to discuss it", again let me tell you that they are not only figures mentioned in the Bible, please be nuanced. Runehelmet ( talk) 14:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
There is currently discussion taking place at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha) regarding material to be included in wikipedia regarding this reading, as well as the others. Input is more than welcome. John Carter ( talk) 15:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Discussion on name of Genesis creation narrative article at Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Requested move. -- 203.171.196.112 ( talk) 06:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
In fact I am amazed that a year and half ago has been removed. See this discussion: Section "popolare culture". -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 22:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
At the momentt Isaac is GA status, but changes in Isaac#Christian views (the major change was made with the edit summary "Christian View expanded based solely on Scripture and knowledge of "types and shadows" of Christianity.") mean it no longer meets criteria 2 of Wikipedia:Good article criteria and I will probably ask for it to be reassessed if this isn't fixed. Another editor tagged the section.
Ishmael I'm not sure about. I removed some OR by the same editor, but I'd like someone with more knowledge to take a look at the changes. [5] Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 08:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I would like some input on a proposed merge between Trachonitis and Lajat. Another editor thinks that these may be the same place. Please comment at Talk:Trachonitis#Merge proposal Ego White Tray ( talk) 02:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
We have an issue with Bible disambiguation pages that needs to be addressed. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Bible disambiguations. Note that this is not the same topic that was discussed at Wikiproject Religion three years ago. Ego White Tray ( talk) 14:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I have found the bible links on Wikisource very easy to use. But look at this. They need watching, and I am not sure if people do. I know that is officially not an English Wiki issue, but if some of you want to watch that with a Wikisource account it may help. I am not that active on these things, but thought I would suggest it here. There are not that many pages, i.e. one page for each NT book. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 00:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I am starting a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Encyclopedic articles which lists those topics which are covered by separate articles in other highly regarded print reference works on the Bible. It should be noted that those works are however about the Bible itself, not about the religious groups which hold the Bible in esteem, and as such it contains only topics which seem to relate in a fairly significant way to the Bible in some way. I think it might serve as a good basis for determining what articles here should exist, and perhaps provide some indication as to what other reference works say on some of the topics we are covering here. I will try to go through the Anchor Bible Dictionary and add the articles included in it as well in the near future, more or less following the format of the current list. John Carter ( talk) 23:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#the God of Israel or the god of Israel as to whether to use a capital "G" in the phrase "god of Israel". St Anselm ( talk) 00:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
For your information, there is a new proposal to move Genesis creation narrative to Genesis creation myth. See Talk:Genesis creation narrative#New proposal. St Anselm ( talk) 21:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Currently all members of Template:Ten Commandments, below, appear to have titles from the NIV, except for Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain (though the template displays with the modern translation). It seems to me that the KJV names are more widely used, but I don't know if that satisfies WP:COMMONNAME, which specifies common in reliable sources, not popular usage. Perhaps the best way forward is to rename to the Bible reference, but then they are repeated in two places in the Bible, so that might be restricting the scope of each article. Using the numbers won't work, because there are three numbering schemes, two of which are widely used, and I don't think you could argue one is primary. Basically I don't know what to do, so I thought I'd just ask what other folks thought.
-- JFH ( talk) 16:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
( Discuss) – Decalogue → Decalogue (disambiguation) – Ten Commandments is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Decalogue should redirect there. JFH ( talk) 17:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)-- JFH ( talk) 00:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Should there be a wikiproject Quran? What about a wikiproject Vedas ? Pass a Method talk 12:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to post a note of congratulations to User:Cerebellum for bringing Third Epistle of John up to GA quality--so far as I can tell from the project's listings, it's the first book of the Bible to reach this milestone on Wikipedia. Hopefully it can be the start of a trend! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 00:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Authorized_King_James_Version#Requested_move Mangoe ( talk) 01:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
We have received an e-mail at OTRS with respect to the image in this article:
Your illustration of the 10th century Ramsey Psalter on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey_Psalter is not the 10th century Ramsey Psalter. I don’t know what it is, but it’s not 10th century. There seems to be an early 14th century Ramsey Psalter (c1310) at the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York; perhaps that’s what you’ve got.
Here is an image of the 10th century Ramsey Psalter from the British Library – the fifth manuscript down: http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/TourIntro2.asp
I would appreciate someone looking into this and changing the image if necessary. Thanks.-- ukexpat ( talk) 14:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
That would also require current article Apocrypha to be renamed: (to what? perhaps Non-biblical apocrypha?)
WP:TITLE#Deciding on an article title gives five criteria for good article names, the first two being Recognizability and Naturalness. I went to Apocrypha myself recently, expecting to find something more like what I now find is in Biblical apocrypha. On Apocrypha's talk page, I found a couple of edits from readers who apparently made the same mistake, left comments about the need for improvement, and no indication that they ever got further. So there's an indication that Recognizability and Naturalness favor the idea of renaming. The next criterion is Precision, which argues for leaving the titles alone, but it conflicts with Conciseness which argues for renaming if you accept the Recognizability and Naturalness points. The last criterion is Consistency, which seems fairly neutral here. Or so I see it all, but I've only been a Wikipedia editor for a couple of weeks.
One more thing: the term "Apocrypha" has a very large currency within the context of the Christian religion and the Bible, along with biblical canon. That context is also one where discussions of considerable vigor have been taking place for around 500 years. I'm guessing that there is no other context that has a similar vitality, especially within the group "readers of English" (our constituency). I think the prominence of the topic argues for renaming.
I hope my initial view is clear, but the proposal only makes sense if enough others look at it that way too. So I thought it might be useful to consider and wanted to put the idea forward.
I've also raised the question at the Project Christianity Notice Board, but asked for discussion to take place here. Evenssteven ( talk) 15:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm yielding the article rename suggestion to the solid points in ColonelHenry's rebuttal. I do see how the two article titles could distinguish separate topics, even though I remain confused about what each is trying to say at present. Hopefully that can be made clearer through re-writing. And possibly that re-writing will also make clearer these articles' relation to the new discussion topic below. For now, I think it better to retain stability until larger considerations point to a clear path for improvement. Evenssteven ( talk) 20:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion from the preceding section Should article Biblical apocrypha be renamed Apocrypha? has morphed. I'm opening this new discussion title for its continuation, and to maintain discussion focus.
The navigation template sounds to me like a good practical item. We need something concrete to deal with, lest discussion just become theoretical. And we need to be able to deal with larger goals in bite-sized chunks that are doable in increments. I'd give this a shot myself, but I still don't feel I have enough perspective over this big picture right now. I'll continue reading and re-reading articles and other materials to try to make some headway before attempting proposals. BTW, I'm not sure what a navigation template looks like nor how it is implemented (I've only been on WP less than a month). Pointers gratefully received on my talk page (or in a contribution here along those lines?). Thanks much, Evenssteven ( talk) 20:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Another concrete area: There seems to be a lot of overlap between "Deuterocanonical books" and "Biblical Apocrypha". I tend to think that "Deuterocanonical books" is the more descriptive title where that material belongs (and it is the much better-written article at this time). But before I would want to start any major overhauls within "Biblical Apocrypha", can anyone point me to what the difference between these articles really is supposed to be? In other words, how much necessity is there to retain two articles, and/or where do we draw the dividing line? I'm partly following up on MSJapan's points above. Evenssteven ( talk) 20:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
There's a generic problem with the Apocrypha articles, and that is that there is a separate "Jewish" and "Old Testament" article. Maybe there's a nuance I'm missing, but I should think these are more or less the same thing.
Looking at the former article (which is linked in the title), I found that it includes the "early Christian period", which doesn't make a lot of sense, because if that is the case, there was already a distinction that would make those items "not Jewish" (again, maybe there's a nuance here, buit I don't see it and it's not explained in the article). I also removed a section on the Gospel of Adam and Eve, because that's not what it is called according to the uncited source from which is was lifted verbatim (Britannica, v.2, p.178). The tone was all wrong, and it could not be rewritten without finding other sources. From that point onward, there's a lot of "Christian" references in the sections, which again, would indicate to me that those books are not Jewish and therefore don't belong in the article anyway.
Could someone look that over and make sure that everything is correct and adequately explained if it looks like it shouldn't be there? MSJapan ( talk) 21:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Sotah#Requested_move. It has been re-listed due to lack of participation. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 16:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Members of this WikiProject may be interested in this discussion. SJK ( talk) 06:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
There is an RfC concerning what should Wikipedia's policy be on the use of non-free Bible translations: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 60#RfC: Use of non-free Bible translations.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 13:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
A peer review for the Gospel of the Hebrews article has been opened at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews/archive1. Please contribute suggestions and constructive criticism to prepare the article for WP:GAN. Thank you. Ignocrates ( talk) 17:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
A concern has been expressed (in intensely personal terms) about the comprehensiveness and neutrality of the recently promoted Gospel of the Ebionites feature article. Therefore, an internal review is in order. I have started a discussion on the talk page Talk:Gospel of the_Ebionites#WP:FAR. Please contribute suggestions, constructive criticism, etc., that will result in further improvements to the article, per WP:PRESERVE. The article is move protected until the day after it is featured on the main page, but I will address any comments/concerns asap after that. Cheers. Ignocrates ( talk) 17:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
These are the same person - Mahalath seems to usual name according to GBooks and GScholar, would someone like to merge them? Both have useful material. Dougweller ( talk) 12:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Gospel of the Ebionites is currently undergoing featured article review. Anyone who has any interest in helping to make this article at FA status is more than welcome to do so. Ignocrates ( talk) 00:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Please take a look at Talk:Book of Job#God, Yehweh or Yahweh?. I don't know which is correct where or why the IP is doing this but it need attention from someone who can figure this out. I've got some idea about what is going on but I'm probably wrong. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 12:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Maxximiliann ( talk · contribs) is a new account so should be treated softly, but I'm concerned about major changes in dates and other changes such as Yahweh to Jehovah. He is apparently editing from a JW viewpoint (as also suggested by his reversion of a talk page edit [6]. I'm hoping someone from here can explain why this is a bad idea before I have to take this further. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed a bunch of places on Wikipedia where virtually all biblical scholarship disagrees with fundamentalist Christians who believe there is no such thing as pseudepigrapha in the Bible, and Wikipedia seems to take something of a theological stand by implying that these issues are controversial among scholars. See the recent history of Saint Peter, or the 7th paragraph of Second Epistle of Peter which lists four sources supporting early (Petrine) authorship and implies that only a quarter as many favour a later date. I've also noticed that when I write a sentence accurately reflecting what is in a source, someone will come along and change the way the sentence was worded to imply the source supports a completely different viewpoint (even when this "viewpoint" is the factual statement "Most scholars believe X"). Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 14:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads-up about this submission. Seems non-notable. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Please see here. SJK ( talk) 11:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Template:Bibleverse needs to be edited by and admin. The source code links to http://bibref.hebtools.com. That website is no longer active. User:Atethnekos edited Template:Bibleverse/sandbox which links to http://tools.wmflabs.org/bibleversefinder/bibleversefinder.php
I've proposed the move described above and would like comments. Likewise, it looks lie there are several important articles within that overall topic that need a top to bottom restructuring. I think Historicity and the Bible should be a top level survey covering what the topic is, the general course of public opinion on it, scholarly developments, and then some nuts and bolts on methodology. A summation of the major narratives of the Bible might also be useful. Beneath Historicity of the Bible should be the major book families, such as Historicity of the Hebrew Bible, which can be further subdivided into the component parts (Torah, Prophets, Writings, Later prophets, the Twelve) as necessary. Any thoughts and/or volunteers to help?-- Tznkai ( talk) 03:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I just created a template for the Nag Hammadi Codices, and there were I think at least five articles that haven't be created or located. It would be nice if someone put their time in creating these articles, so I could have a proper template to post on each article involving the Nag Hammadi Library. I'm just not very good at creating articles on Wikipedia, only editing. Also, if you happen to pass by on a Gnostic article that involves the Nag Hammadi Codices and do not see the temple embedded, please place the template in that article. Here is the template: Template:The Nag Hammadi Codices Please read the "Note" in the template to figure out which articles need to be created or located. — Thank You! — ♣Jerm♣ 729 —Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)