Talk:Textual variants in the New Testament

The article needs

Here is place only for important textual variants. Every textual variant should be given in Greek with translation into English. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Leszek -- this is tremendous work. How much are you wanting to document? The UBS4 and Metzger's commentary have a certain number of variants, but the Nestle-Aland (in Greek) and the Comprehensive New Testament (in English) have a considerable amount more... about 15,000. There are also multivolume editions that would eclipse even those. Do you have a ballpark scope in mind? And I also noticed that you give Byzantine designations in a few places. Do you have an idea in mind for a systemization of the textual families?

I think, perhaps, we may need to agree on a few sources that would keep the scope under control. Have any suggestions? I personally think the Nestle-Aland scale would be too big, but I think you're heading beyond the UBS now. I definitely want to help here, so whatever ballpark figure you have in mind would steer me in the right direction. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am totally agreed. I know you are expert. Perhaps it will better if you can take over and work on. I will only translator into German, Polish... Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Leszek, you're quite the expert yourself! As I said in your barnstar... I'm in awe of the incredible work you are doing here. I'm just happy to help. Trust me, it will be all I can do to try to keep up with your pace.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to find any kind of reference for how many of what kind of variant there are? I mean how many of Ehrman's estimated 400K are spelling errors? I don't know. Just wondering if you experts did. Tladuke (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You can find references in manuscript articles. I used mostly these two books:

• Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, ed. E. Nestle, K. Aland, Stuttgart 1981.
• Bruce M. Metzger, "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament", 1994, United Bible Societies, London & New York.

See also External links in this article. There is also available Tischendorf's Editio Octava (in Internet Arcive). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I added a note that identifies the English translations used in the comparision of MT vs. CT. But I am having trouble figuring out which English versions are being quoted in the TR vs MT section. The TR seems to be NKJV, but the MT English Translation seems to vary, and in some cases, I can't find it anywhere. I think the Greek Texts should be quoted, identified, and cited. Anyone using this article to study the differences would be interested. Adding this would also go a long way toward satisfying the challenges Wikipedia makes in the header. RFB51

John 1:18

I made a slight change to John 1:18 to

John 1:18

ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς (the only-begotten son) — A C³ K X Δ Θ Π 063 0234 f^1,13 28 565 700 892 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1253 1344 1365 1546 1646 2148 Byz

ὁ μονογενὴς θεὸς (the only-begotten God) — ${\mathfrak {P}}$⁷⁵ א^c 33 cop^bo

μονογενὴς θεὸς (God [the] only-begotten) — ${\mathfrak {P}}$⁶⁶ א* B C* L

This does two things. First, it treats μονογενὴς as the more traditional "only-begotten" rather than "only". And second it treats μονογενὴς as a qualifier for θεὸς. The full force of the verse is that no one has ever seen the (invisible) God, but (the revealed) God has made him known. In this sense, "only" doesn't work, but becomes contradictory: "no one has seen God but the only God has made him known." However, in the sense of "no one has ever seen (the invisible) God, but God (the only-begotten) has made him known" is not contradictory.

The KJV, ASV, and NKJ read "the only-begotten son". The NAS reads "the only-begotten God". The CNT reads "God the only-begotten." Only the NIV is an outlier here, so the traditional reading is also more widely known.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Citations

Is there any standard notation for the various manuscript citations? e.g. What happens when you have lectionaries supporting both variants? I've made a start at Col 1.14, but it might need some cleaning up. paulgear (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC) I had another shot and added some superscript manuscript designations after getting a look at my UBS4 & NA27. However, they seem to disagree on the list of minuscules (UBS lists 424, 1912, 2200, and 2464 in support of the longer reading; NA27 lists 614, 630, 1505, and 2464). I'm not sure whether there has been a manuscript renumbering or whether they just have different reasons for the evidence they cite, so i made the reference a little more general. paulgear (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Paul, The NU editions often list different manuscript witnesses for a given reading. UBS will often list some additional witnesses not listed in NA, and vice versa. The manuscript numbering is the same; both editions use standard Gregory-Aland numbering. Also, if a lectionary manuscript supports multiple readings, the apparatus should reflect this occurrence. List the lectionary as supporting whatever readings it attests. Gabeedman (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

1 Corinthians 9:20

- 1 Corinthians 9:20, the Byzantine Majority lacks μὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον, though I myself am not under the Law. The King James is one of the only versions to properly account for this, despite being based on the Receptus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.106.7 (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Versional anomalies are irrelevant when discussing textual variation of extant manuscripts, and thus will be ignored. Gabeedman (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hebrews 2:9

I think this needs more information. Syriac Peshitta manuscripts differ, and some even write "God, in his gracious favor" which was Monophysite interpolation, while Nestorian Copies read "Apart from God". (Although in one book I read even Monophysite manuscripts show deletion of "apart from God" and rewriting "with God's grace"... But can't find that book in internet at the moment)

Theodore of Mopsuestia(pre-Nestorian)said that some persons had removed the reading, "without God," and had substituted, "by the merciful favour of God". (From William Norton's Book about Peshitto-Syriac Translation of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John, Page xxxix.) He even ridiculed the more radical monophysite interpolation: "God, in his gracious favor, tasted death"

http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/Murdock/murdock_hebrews.htm

This is translation of Peshitta, with footnote:

• So the Jacobite copies read; but the Nestorian copies read, But he, apart from God, tasted, &c. --Virtuslb (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No reason to remove link to biblical inerrancy from See also section

It's a good contrast to this article. User:Leszek Jańczuk's reasons for removal don't seem to understand what see also sections are about. In a discussion about the variant texts, it's very useful to go to an article about biblical inerrancy. Stating and this article is about transmission of biblical text, not about inerrancy and "Biblical inerrancy" is not about transmission, "textual variants" is not about inerracy - different subject misses entirely the point that many people look at transmission errors as an argument that inerrancy is not a reasonable position. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that many people look at transmission errors as an argument against inerrancy, but not scholars. That is why we should avoid misunderstanding. Section Wikipedia:See also#See also section is only for related articles, this one is not related (or we should add several other). Link was added in this edit, I did not removed in that time because section "See also" was not very long (and many people think that transmission and inerrancy are the same). No section has 8 position. There is another link to the article very loosely related to the "Textual variants" - List of Bible verses not included in modern translations (the title is POV, it should be "Non-interpolations..."). I did not remove it because many users think that they are closely related, but it should be removed. I did not see you have ever edited New Testament textual critic articles. Of course wikipedia is not work of scholars, if other users want to see in "See also" "List of Bible verses not included..." or "Biblical inerrancy" I will not oppose. There are more articles with wrong titles or incorrectly written. Did you see article Jewish mythology? OR and POV. It should be deleted. Only on de-wiki this article is correct. I do not have time for this article, I work only in area of the New Testament textual criticism (and on 24 other wikis in the same area), in other articles I do only minor edits (usually). It will better if you will improve "Jewish mythology", because you have more time. With regards (Ps. I was wrong with Graham, you know I am overworked). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Since there's no "for scholars only" template to place at the article, and non-scholars are likely to come to this article, your point is moot. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:See also, a hypothetical perfect article on textual variants would reasonably discuss the implications of textual variants on inerrancy - or the lack thereof. While this is mostly a list and very little of an article, I see no reason not to include a link to inerrancy in the See also section. Huon (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Codex Bezae?

So, am I to take it that D* represents Codex Bezae? Why the *? What does the superscript it mean? Thanks for your help. Rwflammang (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion?

Great to have this here on Wikipedia. What are the criteria for inclusion? An expert on Galatians says those references are "a real mixed bag" - see http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1204&p=5854#p5854

Jonathan.robie (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

There are three places where the issues of textual criticism were developed seemingly independent of each other. One was in article "Textual criticism". I split a separate page from it. Another is section "Textual variation" in "New testament". And third is this one. All of them speak of the same topic but content both diverges and overlaps, which commonly happens when the subject WP:FORKs into several places. Somebody with expertise in the subject has to fix this by bringing it into the correspondence with Wikipedia's "summary style". If you think that the suggested merging may produce a too long article, then the merge result must be cleanly split by sub-subjects. - üser:Altenmann >t 14:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. the page Textual criticism of the New Testament has a cleanup tag dated 2011. This is not a mistake: I moved it here together with the text during splitting. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose This other article is not about textual criticism. Textual criticism of the New Testament hasn't even been around since 2011. It was created by a copy-and-paste by Altenmann on 2015-08-16 2:54:55 (UTC). I suggest that the copy-and-pastes be reverted so that we return to two articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Textual criticism of the New Testament was created in accordance with WP:SUMMARY. This huge piece was clearly misplaced in the general (and also huge) article Textual criticism. It is clearly a separate and important topic, which deserves a separate page, which was also the opinion of the person who created the redirect:

(cur | prev) 00:54, February 21, 2013‎ StAnselm (talk | contribs)‎ . . (45 bytes) (+45)‎ . . (This definitely needs an article, but for now creating a redirect) (thank)

• and of a suggestion made years ago: Talk:Textual criticism#Time to break out holy text section?

• and the separate article exists in other languages : e.g. de:Textkritik des Neuen Testaments,

so I don't think my act was a gross mistake to be reverted. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I have also found another one for the consideration of the merging: List of major textual variants in the New Testament - üser:Altenmann >t 17:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus to merge. The significant and valid objections are:

• The target article is over 236,000 bytes long; there is not room there for significant additions
• The source article is not referenced, and is a potential candidate for deletion for that reason
• The small difference in titles, Textual variants in the New Testament vs. List of major textual variants in the New Testament, implies that the "major variants" article is a WP:Summary style break-out from the other article. I don't find this to be the case. As suggested in the discussion, editors should consider disambigating these ambiguous titles by moving one or both to titles which succinctly describe the type (text-types) of "textual variants" which are listed, e.g. variants in the original text vs. variants in translations of the original text. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Request received to merge articles: List of major textual variants in the New Testament into Textual variants in the New Testament; dated: April 2017.

Proposer's Rationale: Merging of the source article into this target article has been proposed for two primary reasons:

1) Source article conflates the Byzantine text-type (𝔐 = Majority Text) and the nonidentical Textus Receptus.
2) Source article "Critical Text" is not representative of all known textual variants from all four text-types.

Discuss here. Gabeedman (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support List of major textual variants in the New Testament is an interesting variant of this article, but it lacks a display of the issues with the original languages and uses unsourced translations to indicate the differences. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Source article does not contain any Greek text. Moreover, its title is not Textual variation between the Byzantine and Alexandrian text-types. Yet, that accurately summarizes its contents. Gabeedman (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Rather deletion for second article. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support Source article contains phrasing "For a more comprehensive list...." in its introduction redirecting its readers to this target article. Gabeedman (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Having two articles could work, but going the opposite way - i.e. having one general article about textual variants in the NT, listing the major (important/famous/disputed) ones, and then another article which is a comprehensive list. StAnselm (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Besides proposing a merger of the redundant, unreferenced source article into the target article, I propose to merge the first half of this superfluous article into this article and its remainder into our target article. Gabeedman (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

No objections and it's been a month. I think it's time to make this happen. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• I believe there ought to be 2 articles. Textual variants in the New Testament is a very long and exhaustive article, and gives the texts in Greek which is not accessible to non-technical (i.e. the vast majority of) readers. The shorter article is useful for its accessibility, showing significance divergences between the major families of texts (Alexandrian and Byzantine) in English. If anything, I would merge List of Bible verses not included in modern translations into List of major textual variants in the New Testament. Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The discussion is that we would have one article that is accessible to both audiences. See @StAnselm:'s comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• It does not make any sense, the other list is a list of printed editions. It is different thing, different importance. Some variants do not occur in Greek manuscripts. Title in second article should be changed (Variants of printed Bibles). I do not understand why in this discussion participate only persons who do not understand subject. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Leszek Jańczuk: This is where the discussion is happening. If you object to the merger, this is where you would voice that objection. Removing a merge template is not the correct place. As it stands, the content is about to be merged out based on points made by @StAnselm:, @Gabeedman:. Also, @Tonicthebrown: are you still opposed to two separate articles? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, missed @Altenmann: from the earlier discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

And apparently, Leszek Jańczuk has incorrectly added a merge from template to list of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

My opinion hasn't changed. There should be a non-technical article accessible to non-Greek readers. So I believe it is preferable to have one technical, exhaustive Greek article and one summarised, non-technical, non-Greek article. Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• The source for this list was Novum Testamentum Graece of Nestle-Aland. The second article is not professional, it is the article of printed editions variants. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support merge followed by reasonable refactoring.- üser:Altenmann >t 05:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Partial merge There is definitely value to having two articles. I think the majority of content here should merge into the list and this article should be expanded with discussion from relevant academic sources explaining what "textual variants" are and why they are important in way that can be understood by laypersons who don't read Greek. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• No merge. Both articles are already long enough, and the new article would be way too long to read comfortably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoOneCaresTBH (talk • contribs) 16:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Summary and break

After six months we have two opposed to a merger, one in favour of a partial merger keeping one as a lay version and the other to be focused on the Koine. Four are in favour of merging. New comments would be best added below this summary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

New Comments

• Support - I would support a merge, but I really think the List of major textual variants in the New Testament could be deleted entirely - it doesn't compare variations in the original texts, but only translations of the variations from the New King James Version and the New American Standard Bible - as far as I can see, it does not add any new information to the "Textual variants in the New Testament" article (although I did not examine every entry). - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose by WP:TOOBIG (as at least on of the pages is over 100kB), and the two articles are designed in such a way that size reduction (without wholesale deletion) is impractical. Klbrain (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• This unsourced 2011 article has been tagged (contested) since April 2017. There is an outdated merge tag with consensus to merge but never closed. The lack of notability as well as the original research tags never addressed are ground for seeking deletion. Merging an unsupported (contested) article into an already large article does not seem to be favorable and would be just be moving original research from one location to another. Otr500 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC) Comment copied from Talk:List of major textual variants in the New Testament#Article issues. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Textual variants in the New Testament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110120220811/http://dubitando.no.sapo.pt/nt_gr.htm to http://dubitando.no.sapo.pt/nt_gr.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606153005/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/translation/TR-Varianten/index.html to http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/translation/TR-Varianten/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

We need to stop linking headings

I've noticed that we've started that we have added links to headings. MOS:HEAD states not to do that. Any suggestions? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Links removed from the headings. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Textual variants DO AFFECT doctrine according to Dr. Ehrman

From 'Jesus Interrupted’:

In response to the assertion, made by conservative evangelicals, that not a single important Christian doctrine is affected by any textual variant, I point out:

a. It simply isn’t true that important doctrines are not involved. As a key example: the only place in the entire New Testament where the doctrine of the Trinity is explicitly taught is in a passage that made it into the King James translation (1 John 5:7–8) but is not found in the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. I would suggest that the Trinity is a rather important Christian doctrine. A typical response to this rebuttal is that the doctrine of the Trinity can be found in Scripture without appealing to 1 John 5:7–8. My reply is that this is true of every single Christian doctrine. In my experience, theologians do not hold to a doctrine because it is found in just one verse; you can take away just about any verse and still find just about any Christian doctrine somewhere else if you look hard enough.

(Please correct article accordingly) DocMando (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The straight dope is here: https://ehrmanblog.org/my-very-first-post-criticisms-of-misquoting-jesus/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Ehrman is playing with words here: the common claim, as the header shows, is that no major doctrine is AFFECTED; Ehrman uses the word "involved". There's a significant difference between the two. (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced "List of major textual variants in the New Testament"

After the merge of this article into this one, I argue that this section should be removed, mainly because there is no source saying if a variant is a major one, as I argued in my AfD. Veverve (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Otr500: I saw your post. I propose we transfer the discussion here. Also pinging @Wbm1058: @Gabeedman: @Walter Görlitz:. Veverve (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I simply removed "major". This is not WP:OR, it's evident in the content and is covered by WP:CALC. 18:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs)

Lack of inline refs

@Gabeedman: you claim the Template:No footnotes should not be put in the article because [a]pproximately 20 inline citations have been retrieved since 1 September 2021. This list of NT textual variants draws from the critical editions.
I do not understand what you mean. How is one to guess where the source(s?) for most sections are? When is one to know when to look at - as the article says - the "United Bible Societies' Fifth Revised Edition (UBS5) published in 2014, Novum Testamentum Graece: Nestle-Aland 28th Revised Edition of the Greek New Testament (NA28) published in 2012, and Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior (ECM) last published in 2017" or the "nonmodern publications, including those of Hodges & Farstad, Greeven, Lachmann, Legg, Merk, Nestle-Aland editions 25-27, Aland's Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (SQE), Souter, Swanson, Tischendorf, Tregelles, von Soden, and Westcott & Hort wherever applicable"? Most of the article's information are not sourced with inline citations, e.g. there is no way to know what is the source(s?) for the "Matthew 4" section. WP:V states that "quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." Veverve (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Also, there are all these symbols in the article such as "Chrysostom", "Basil", "Origen", "G", and many others, which are not defined in the Legend section. Veverve (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Moreover, all the split articles, such as Textual variants in the First Epistle of John, Textual variants in the Gospel of Mark, and Textual variants in the Epistle to the Romans, also have the same problem: no inline ref when it comes to the subject of the article! Veverve (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: Stop improperly flagging the article for lack of inline citations. Approximately 20 inline citations have been retrieved since 1 September 2021. The article lists New Testament textual variants drawing from numerous different critical editions which are all referenced. Gabeedman (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: My contributions to this page since March 2010 are numerous and substantial. What has Veverve contributed? Nothing whatsoever. Zero contributions here. What exactly does Veverve want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabeedman (talk • contribs)

@Gabeedman: yes, I have seen your rebuttal, as you have copy-pasted it multiple times in your editing summaries when you undid my edits. It is not acceptable to have most of the article without inline refs, and espeially having no inline ref when it comes to the subject of the article, as it prevents readers - and that include WP users wanting to improve the article - from easily verifying the information you gave. I did not say the article has no inline refs, but that it lacked some, especially in its most critical parts. Again, "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations" (WP:V).

All I want is for the information on WP to be reliable and verifiable. You having worked a lot on any article does not entitle said article to avoid official WP policies. Veverve (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: The article has sufficient citations and references which satisfy WP:V and you cannot unilaterally dictate otherwise. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the purpose of this article, or you fail to understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabeedman (talk • contribs)

@Gabeedman: If so, then please tell me where someone reading the "Matthew 4" section is supposed to see exactly where those information come from. Stating United Bible Societies' Fifth Revised Edition (UBS5), 2014, Novum Testamentum Graece: Nestle-Aland 28th Revised Edition of the Greek New Testament (NA28),2012, and Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior (ECM), 2017, and undisclosed "nonmodern publications" does not constitute what meets WP:V. Veverve (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: Your objection proves that you do not understand the purpose of this article, nor its contents, nor its inline citations, nor its listed references. If other key contributors to this article Leszek Jańczuk Walter Görlitz Altenmann have anything to add, ας ειναι since ειρηκα η ειρηνη μου. Gabeedman (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the article then? And how can such a purpose justify violating a policy? Veverve (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

So, if no one answers, I guess you mean I can put the banner. Veverve (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I will add the banner back, then. Veverve (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, it has already been done a while ago by someone you had pinged. Veverve (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)