Talk:Phoebe (biblical figure)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Phoebe (Bible))
Jump to: navigation, search

(Bible)[edit]

The disambiguation of "(Bible)" is wrong. It implies that the thing is inherently or substantially of the Bible. This would be true for the canon or a book or the Bible or a famous codex. It is not true for somebody just mentioned in the Bible. Most minor figures just usetheir name; no further disambiguation is required. This is not the case here as lots of other articles use the name. So some disambig is needed. I've noticed that other minor figures use the term "(biblical figure)". I propose that this be used here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Category:New Testament people, this is the disambiguation generally used - Aeneas (Bible), Anna (Bible), Heli (Bible), etc. StAnselm (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I count 6 in that cat that use (Bible). I also count 6 that use something different (e.g. biblical figure / biblical / new testament person / Gospel of Luke. If we can reach agreement here, then a standardisation work piece for minor figures is clearly needed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
That's fine - I would be happy for "biblical figure" for all. There would also be quite a few in Category:Hebrew Bible people that would need moving as well. I think a requested move would be in order. StAnselm (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

(Neutrality)[edit]

There are some major neutrality issues with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanusmichael (talkcontribs) 22:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Agree that current article is very biased. See <a href>http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?ArticleId=830</a>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.99.93.225 (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I will remove the neutrality tag since the article has been changed and edited many times since the tag was added a couple years ago, and the article doesn't currently have a POV prob. The tag indicates there is a dispute on the talk page, but I disagree -- there is not much of a dispute -- if any at all -- merely a claim by the editor that put the tag on the article. The article could use some references. NellsTorfelson (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)