Wikipedia:Bible verses

This is a survey to aid in determining policy. It is not itself intended as a proposed policy. There is a related discussion underway at Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses.

• This concerns an issue that has been under complaint for the last month, with the general problem of failing to achieve consensus for any result (it is roughly 50:50 on each side of the argument, with the last VFD declared "keep" although the delete votes had a slight majority, of 2)

• The problem is what to do about Bible verses. Should articles exist for every single bible verse in the entire bible, or just for some specially notable verses, or somewhere in-between. The result will affect articles on verses of other religious literature, such as the Qur'an and Mahabharata (over 100,000 verses, and the second longest poem known to exist in the world). It will also affect the articles listed here.

• Since some religious sects, groups, and faiths, attach extreme importance to their opinion on the matter, this question is highly liable to sockpuppet abuse on one or more sides of the argument. Consequently editors with under 200 edits as of 22nd June 2005 (one month ago, roughly when the matter was first raised), are likely to be discounted, to avoid any potential sockpuppet abuse.

• This survey will remain open until 22nd August 2005, or until consensus is visibly reached, whichever is later.

Consensus is determined by number of votes.

Voting

All bible verses should have individual articles

This section is for votes supporting the principle that every single bible verse deserves its own article.

1. This is closest to what I support. I don't believe that that any and all Bible verses are automatically worthy of an article, don't get me wrong, but when an article is well-written, thourough, and encyclopedic, I'd rather not rely on somebody's defination of "notable bible verse", because that tends to be subjective. Support. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 20:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
2. For various reasons, although I'd rather see the whole thing transwikied to WikiBible. Tomer ^TALK 04:34, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

All new testament verses should have individual articles, but not necessarily old testament ones

This section is for votes supporting the principle that every single new testament verse deserves its own article, but not necessarily every old testament verse.

All gospel verses should have individual articles, but not 100% of other verses

This section is for votes supporting the principle that every single gospel verse (i.e. verses in the Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, and Gospel of John) deserves its own article, but not necessarily 100% of the other verses of the bible.

1. Sam Vimes 19:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC) This is the one I most agree with. IMO, the policy should be something like: "chapter articles unless the chapters become too big and unwieldy to read, then verse articles", and that would probably fit into here.

All verses notable in their own right should have individual articles

This section is for votes supporting the principle that only verses notable in their own right, rather than because they are part of the bible, or part of a part of the bible, should get their own articles. This position allows articles such as John 3:16 and Jesus wept, but is unlikely to include articles such as Matthew 1:9.

1. ~~~~ 17:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
2. Almafeta 18:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
3. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 18:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Wetman 18:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC) Because by definition the others are "non-notable". Selecting single verses out of chapters removes the context essential to an encyclopedia as compared to a dictionary.
5. kooo 18:51, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
6. Oleg Alexandrov 18:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
7. older≠wiser 19:21, July 23, 2005 (UTC), although this inevitably broaches the highly subjective criteria for notability.
8. kmccoy (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC) -- I'd also be strongly in favor of seeing a whole WikiBible thing happen on a more appropriate forum, maybe WikiBooks or something.
9. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:04, 2005 July 23 (UTC) Obvious, though everyone agrees on the same principle about schools and it doesn't stop the debate.
10. --Doc (?) 21:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC) But this is sooo pointless, as I might think several thousand of them are notable (including Matthew 1:9 - if a good case can be made by someone)- and -Ril- cites two examples. So we are still going to have to debate each individual verse on its metits as at the moment.
11. — Phil Welch 22:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
12. David | Talk 22:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
13. Hansamurai 04:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC) Notable Bible verses should be included in Wikipedia and I am also in full support of a Bible Wiki project.
14. If all Bible verses should have articles, then which Bible should we use? Different branches of Christianity have different books they consider part of the Bible. --Carnildo 04:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
15. I don't regard this as applying to very many verses. The two examples given above are worthy of their own articles I think, but which others? Most are better covered in a combined article about a certain passage, or chapter, or book. What is the bar for notability here? — Trilobite (Talk) 05:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
16. Plenty of verses have made their way into literature, general western culture, but the vast majority have not. I strongly support (and I am a bible reading christian) a move which restricts single verse entries. It would be rare to publish a bible commentary on a single verse, which I think says something. As to which bible? I doubt that is a problem. In practice there is little argument about which books are in the bible, or might be in someone else's bible, which is all that matteres. Now verse by verse entries on the Mahabharata would of course be excellent 8-). Francis Davey 16:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
17. I think a reasonable gauge for notability would be the extent that a particular verse has made its way into literature or culture in general, which at least has some chance of being objectively verified at some level. Mustn't confuse "notable" with "important" because every verse is very important to someone, and has been commented on and preached on. Wesley 20:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
18. Under the assumption that pretty much every verse is notable. - SimonP 21:55, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

    You did read the bit that says that "this position...is unlikely to include articles such as Matthew 1:9" ? If so, as the author of that article, and other genealogy verse articles, could you VFD them please. ~~~~ 23:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

    It looks like your assessment of what this position would be likely to include was, in fact, perhaps inaccurate. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:45, 2005 July 24 (UTC)

    You're right. I have switched to a less ambiguous example. - SimonP 23:57, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

    I've switched it back. YOU CAN'T CHANGE WHAT PEOPLE HAVE VOTED FOR AFTER THEY HAVE VOTED. ~~~~ 00:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

    I have added a new section below for you to move your vote to to support your position about which verses are notable (i.e. that it is a majority rather than small minority). ~~~~ 00:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The majority of verses are notable in their own right anyway

This section is for votes supporting the principle that only verses notable in their own right, rather than because they are part of the bible, or part of a part of the bible, should get their own articles. However, this section is for votes where this principle covers most verses, which are believed by the signatories to be notable in their own right. This position allows articles such as John 3:16 and Matthew 5:5, but is unlikely to include articles such as 1 Chronicles 1:2.

No bible verses should have individual articles whatsoever

This section is for votes supporting the principle that absolutely no articles should exist describing just one bible verse.

1. Flyers13 04:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
2. Nova77 04:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
3. Individual chapters should have their own articles if they're notable enough. Articles for individual verses is Biblecruft. We already have a Bible section at Wikibooks, why duplicate it here? — JIP | Talk 08:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Most of the articles I have seen on individual verses seem very PoV and carry largely irrelevant material. There are lots of places where Biblebashers can play their games analysing the meaning of each jot and tittle. Albatross2147 13:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Voting on secondary issues

Votes here may be in addition to votes above.

There should be a Verse-by-verse Biblical analysis (a WikiBible) at a transwikiable sister project

Yes

1. — Phil Welch 22:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
2. I am in favor of a WikiBible. Support --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
3. Agree. In this way people will not try to create a Wikipedia article for each and every Bible verse. Oleg Alexandrov 22:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Yes, there is a wealth of knowledge to be had about each and every bible verse. Let's include that at a place more appropriate for it. kmccoy (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
5. Yes. Not sure how -Ril-'s comment below goes against this point. I don't really care if there is a separate WikiBible, or a Bible project within Wikibooks; either way, reproductions and interpretations of Biblical text should be part of a "sister project" somewhere besides WP. Dcarrano 01:41, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
6. The best solution is to move it to WikiBible (or whatever such a project would be named). The argument that it should be moved to WikiBooks made on the inconclusive VfD is unsatisfactory, as a WikiBible project is incompatible with what WikiBooks is about. Tomer ^TALK 04:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
7. I am in full support of this project and willing to help in its undertaking one way or another. Hansamurai 04:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
8. Certainly. Carnildo 04:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
9. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
10. Yes, mostly to avoid pressure to create meaningless-ish articles in other projects. —kooo 09:12, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

No

1. We are already spreading our efforts too thinly by trying to create sister projects all over the place, and since this one will be seperated from Wikipedia and will likely be worked on by people with certain religious agendas, there are significant problems when it comes to NPOV and the Wikimedia Foundation becoming a vehicle for evangelism. Why can't we concentrate on encyclopedic content? This doesn't mean having an article on every verse. Look at the article on the Book of Hosea, for example. It's short and still has a notice saying that it's essentially modified public domain text. Can't those who wish to document the Bible start by improving articles on books, then when they get long and comprehensive breaking out into spin-off articles for notable passages in those books? I want Wikipedia to be a good source of information about the Bible. We're much too far short of that goal to start creating sister projects to contain articles for every verse. Come back and ask for WikiBible when Wikipedia is bursting at the seams with good coverage of Biblical topics. — Trilobite (Talk) 05:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
2. I agree with Trilobite Albatross2147 13:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
3. I agree with Trilobite as well. I think it's impossible to do a verse by verse biblical analysis and remain within wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Might be able to do it at a book level, and there's certainly plenty left to do there. Wesley 20:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Abstain

1. ~~~~ 23:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC) It partially already exists as one of the WikiBooks

Roughly how many verses are notable?

The vast majority

There are over 30,000 verses. Tens of thousands of these are notable.

A small majority

There are over 30,000 verses. Thousands of these are notable.

A large minority

There are over 30,000 verses. Hundreds of these are notable.

A small minority

There are over 30,000 verses. Only a few, in the order of 1-3 hundred or so are notable.

1. ~~~~ 00:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

... belongs on the discussion page.