Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible/Archive 4

Archives
2004 – August 2005 Old project pages Old discussions at overhaul

GA Sweeps notice of possible demotion of Isaac

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)

Hi,

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)

GA Sweeps invitation

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)

GA Reassessment of Ishmael

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)

How do I enter my name in the list of participants?

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)

hapax legomenon edited

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)

Consultation on renaming article: Roman Catholic Church --> Catholic Church

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

Project Page change

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)

Science and the Bible

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)

Work groups

We forget this:

• Biblical criticism work group - dealing with content specifically relating to Biblical criticism

Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Check the Project Navigation 22:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlen22 (talk • contribs)

Coordinator elections

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)

Codex Vaticanus

I am looking for somebody, who can copyedit the article "Codex Vaticanus". Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of the Bible

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)

Pageview stats

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)

Thanks Arlen22 (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Tense?

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)

This is a really good question. If I might ask a favor of you? I'm going to be busy for a few days unfortunately so I won't be able to do anything about it myself anytime soon. But if you could look over the bulk of the material relating to the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible books and articles and see which are in which tense, that might be useful as well. I have a feeling the same sort of questions might relate to material about Hindu and Buddhist scriptures as well, specifically, are we to count this material as fact, fiction, or maybe both somehow? But I think this is probably a serious question which is going to be relevant to more scriptures than just the Abrahamic ones. John Carter (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see what I can do. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

So far, it looks like most, though not all, of the "Book" articles are written in the present tense (exceptions include Book of Judges, Book of Jeremiah, Book of Ezekiel). Most related articles are in the past (e.g. The Exodus, Joshua), though Job (Bible) and Jephthah buck this trend. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for clarification of this matter at Wikipedia talk:Writing better articles#Question regarding article tense, and hope someone responds with a clarification shortly. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

John, in answer to your question, the sacred books of major world religions with millions of adherents including Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc. are not to be treated as fiction, nor endorsed as fact. To do either would not be neutral. That has always been the policy for keeping the peace; neutrality means not adopting any point of view, just explaining what the points of view are. This probably doesn't answer the question about tense, though. Either way I don't think tense should imply either fact or fictional, if the writing a is clear enough. It doesn;t seem like a big deal, but past tense seems little more grammatically appropriate, since events are at least said to have happened in the past, not the present. If past tense might sound like this is implying that everyone agrees them to be historical, then you just need more explanatory words to explain the situation with regard to all the verifiable pov's out there. (differing interpretations, etc.) Switching to present tense is no substitute for explaining this. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I note your comment refers to the major world religions, though. The question remains about some of the "minor" ones. And, there is, of course, the question, particularly regarding the Bible, as to whether the parables of Jesus and other stories whose facuality even within the relevant faith is a matter of question. It is specifically in the more problematic cases like those that I thought the clarification most required. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if an article is about a "minor" religion, or something else that they have a significant viewpoint on, we still have to apply npov. The other question is about sections that obviously aren't even presented as being historical account, such as "A king had two sons" or "The trees went out upon a time to choose for them a king"... I'm quite sure no one interprets these as intended for historical accounts, or anything other than illustrative of some lesson or moral. BTW notice also that these stories or parables are in the past tense, and it does not imply they are historical accounts. But if it were translated into the present tense as "The trees go out upon a time", in English, it would sound more like a stand-up comedy routine! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger question

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)

• Done. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Query

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)

Jahdai

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)

Suggest an article for Tubalcain (currently a disambig)

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)

standardized way of naming articles for biblical persons

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)

I could live with that myself. There would be variations, like Adam and Eve, of course ;), and where there descent is dubious or unstated, and some cases, like David, Habakkuk, Solomon, where they are the best known uses of that name, so there might be some exceptions, but I could certainly live with it as a second-level standard to be followed if there is no otherwise extant policy or guideline which would contraindicate it. Anyone else? John Carter (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Should it be X, son of Y or X (son of Y)? The first one is easier to type. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. For the record that is what I am suggesting. First it should be name X. Then if that doesnt work then go to X, son of Y. If even that doesnt work then I suppose one could go to X, son of Y, son of Z but I dont expect that would ever actually happen. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea in general, particularly when you run into problems with different versions of the name for the same person. (Koranic vs. Biblical) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant bud (talk • contribs) 03:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats what redirects are for. Any standardization is better than none at all. What else do you suggest when you have multiple people in the bible with the same name? Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Children's Bibles

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)

Biblical disambiguators

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)

keeping track of changes to bible related articles

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)

Category:Members of the Society for Biblical Studies in India

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)

AfD

Please see:: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahweh and Allah.Borock (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Project categorization

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)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

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)

Defining "text-type"

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)

Thanks to User:Radagast3, a hatnote at Text types directs readers to Textual criticism. Cnilep (talk) 16:00, 1 May 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)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

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.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Archive 4/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 01:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move Of Genesis Creation Myth

here Thank you For you time Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Biblical cosmology

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 broken

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)

The Terumah

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)

David - semiprot edit request

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)

This is still waiting; can someone please look at it? Thank you.  Chzz  ►  05:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Could we have some eyes on List of Biblical names?

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)

Dating the Book of Daniel

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)

Parable of the Good Samaritan

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. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bible verses/2010

I would like to bring your attention to an ongoing discussion here. Please chime in. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed redirect from Ritual decalogue to Covenant code

Please see my proposal here and comment/vote. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding Links

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)