Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Verses of 1 Kings 4 and 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia








Give me strength! Why are we still having this discussion? I thought there was clear consensus that verse numbers are an artificial construct, and that individual verses are not independently encyclopaedic? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a formal policy proposal which if passed would enforce that consensus for these verses, and prohibit anyone from going against it. It would also act somewhat as a precedent against the others, hence the value of having a policy about these particular verses where the case is completely clear. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 20:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't nail them once they're there you try to salt the earth before they come along? :) I'd rather not this be made policy - if and when someone who wants to write a verse-by-verse treatment of 1 Kings arrives she can figure out some intelligent way to do it without us prematurely tying her hands. - Haukur 20:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:BEANS. Kim Bruning 21:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to make the same comment as Kim. I was also under the impression that we had already established policy that articles about spefic bible verses have to be unquestionbly significantly notable in their own right; and that copies of bible text belong on Wikisource not here. Thryduulf 21:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you could pursuade SimonP, the creator of most of those such articles that that is established policy, then we would be able to draw a line under the issue, but he still refuses to accept it. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 00:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are several inherent problems with writing about verses one-by-one.
(1) Few verses stand totally alone in the Bible. They are part of a bigger context. Some verses are less than a sentence long. Some are part of a bigger paragraph or story. Most have a relation to the book as a whole and can only be properly understood in that light. For example, the well-known verse "Jesus wept" from the book of John can only be understood if one explains the entire story of the raising of Lazarus. In addition you would really need to discuss the dual nature of Jesus--divine and human. These broader topics should be covered under subjects like "Lazarus" and "Nature of Christ".
(3) At the very least, very verse article would have to dicuss the preceding verse and the following verse in order to make any sense at all. This would result in each verse actually being covered three times.
(2) The Talk Pages of the verse articles that already existed show that there is much disagreement about which translation to include. The result in some cases was to include the verse in several translations. If this were to continue, not only would we have the entire Bible on Wikipedia (even though it belongs in Wikisource instead), but we would have several copies of it, albeit in bits and pieces.
(3) There are bound to be edit wars over each and every verse. If the Bible material were grouped by books and by subjects, then we could limit those wars to a few hundred broad articles rather than several thousand very narrow articles.
(4) Probably most Bible commentaries do cover verses one by one, after commenting on an overview of the book and the chapter. But Wikipedia is not a Bible commentary. It is a general pupose encyclopedia. In any encyclopedia I have ever seen, one can find articles on the Bible itself, books of the Bible, notable people in the Bible, and notable biblical topics. We should stick to the original purpose of Wikipedia. (forgot to sign originally) Logophile 02:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is utterly ridiculous

[edit]

1. We don't ban the creation of articles, this is a wiki.

2. -Ril- (Mr. 'help remove Biblecruft') is on a crusade:

These and more recent AfDs seldom give him the result he wants, so here he goes again.

3. Since Wikipedia is not paper, the governing principle must be how do we best encourage and organise good, verifiable, neutral material on the Bible. It must not be the satisfaction of pro- or anti- Bible agendas, and that undoubtedly is what is at play here. -Ril-'s sig until recently was tailed with help remove biblecruft - hardly NPOV. He is not, as far as I can tell, a substantial contributor of material to Bible articles.

4. Generally, individual verse articles are probably not the best way to organise material. Overwhelmingly, I'm happy to see them up-merged, providing no good material is lost. However, there may be exceptions, and if someone can write an article on a verse of such detail that it is better kept than merged, we should be willing to consider it on its merits - and not be prejudicing. Until the verse article arrives, we will not know whether it is better merged, or kept.

5. Bible articles should not be treated any differently from any other article. That is, merge where there is consensus - split out if material becomes too large. Decisions are best taken by those working on the articles, whatever their POV, in the interests of good organisation of material. Pragmatism not 'instruction creep and POV crusades, should prevail. --Doc ask? 22:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We DO ban the creation of articles under certain titles - see Wikipedia:Naming conventions, WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles
(a) I am not responsible for several of those VFD's, so don't go assuming that I am the only person who would put such blatent bible cruft up for deletion
(b) The AfDs did give the results I want. The closing admins however were obviously biased (even going on to demonstrate their strong bias on the matter in later votes), closing blatent delete votes as keeps, hence the continued issue.
The important point is the word biblecruft. That isn't the same as remove pro-bible viewpoints, its the same as remove what is little more than spam from people who think every article written in the world should be about X where in this case X=the bible.
I am indeed not a substantial contributor of material to Bible articles. I have little interest in the subject in general. I am interested in historical linguistics, and egyptology, and there is a small amount of overlap, but that isn't why I am on this issue. I am here because I hate sophistry, fancruft, and spam, of which this is a pure and obvious example. Before this, I went out and had 200 articles deleted that were spam from a single editor on the obscure area of puzzles and had crept in without check over 3 years, link spam being a major component of those edits. This is just another of those spam issues; it happens to be the one that I'm currently on and that you are interested in.
There may be exceptions, but it is ridiculous to claim that all of the first 200 verses of Matthew are all of this level of notability, particularly when many are just "X begat Y who begat Z".
Indeed, but this is about banning anyone from creating an article under a title which is inherantly POV e.g. the title 1 Kings 4:30 is prejudiced against the Roman Catholic stance, wheras the title 1 Kings 5:25 is prejudiced against the protestant stance.
Inline responses at this level by me. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 00:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with the Doc. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You realise we are being asked here to make a policy to cover an eventuality that has never arisen? No- one has ever created an article on any of the verses in question. When, and if, they do, then we can discuss the best way of presenting that material (because only then we will know what the material is). Until then, why are we wasting time? --Doc ask? 00:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do realise that an eventuality is something that happens in the future? Indeed, no-one has created such articles yet, this policy proposal is to make sure that they don't do so when the time comes - it is self evidently clear, from the systematic nature of their editing (e.g. the first 200+ verse-articles of Matthew) that SimonP and cohorts aim to create a seperate article for every single verse. This is to make sure that these verses are not part of that inappropriate behaviour. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 00:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, in short, this has nothing to do with the better organisation of Biblical material, but rather it is about you pursuing some personal vendetta against SimonP. You are making some sort of WP:POINT about non-existent articles, in order to further your POV on other ones. Ironically, you do have a point about the difficulties with the notation on these passages, and I guess having found this obscurity to use as a weapon you're feeling rather pleased with yourself. Now, why don't you take whatever knowledge of the Bible you have and help us some improve articles, rather than your usual trolling? --Doc ask? 01:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, you could look at it this way. If a policy is enacted to prevent editors from wasting lots of time on articles that are going to be endlessly debated, warred over, and eventually deleted, it is a service to those editors. I think this discussion shows that there is one more reason not to have an article on every verse in the Bible.
If you think that's the motive that lies behind this, then you are a deal better a assuming good faith than me. --Doc ask? 09:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I do realise we are being asked to ban something which has not happened, which is why I agree with you. I also think the existing consensus re individual verses is strong enough that even if they were created they would be splatted - but come to think of it I haven't checked the status of the individual verse articles (please tell me they have gone?). I'm all for "cruftwatch" patrols, but this is going too far. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is a failure to communicate

[edit]

I don't own a copy of the New American Bible. The only Roman Catholic Bible I own is a Vulgate. In the Vulgate, you get a third Book of Kings, and 3 Kings 5:1 begins: Misit quoque Hiram rex Tyri servos suos ad Salomonem. . . ("Then Hiram king of Tyre sent his servants to Solomon. . .") This would appear to be the same narrative that the KJV has at 1 Kings 5.

What apparently happened is that the NAB renames 1 and 2 Samuel as 1 and 2 Kings; then 1 Kings {KJV} = 3 Kings (NAB), and like wise with 4 Kings / 2 Kings. The NAB, being a RC version, follows a RC tradition on the names of the several Books of Kings. My Vulgate, at least, gives 1 and 2 Samuel as alternative titles for 1 Regum and 2 Regum.

Any article on the verses should take note somewhere of the alternative titles. There is no major NPOV issue provided that the source of the discrepancy is recognised. AFAIK there is no consensus yet about Bible verse articles; if one has arisen, someone is sure to cite it and suggest that it be followed. I agree in advance with any consensus-based proposal that does not result in loss of information. But the discrepancy of naming traditions in Christian versions of the Hebrew Bible is no reason to forbid the creation of any article. It's just something that writers need to be aware of. Smerdis of Tlön 22:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a result of the Vulgate not the NAB. Its apparantly something to do with a Septuagint - have a look at Books of Samuel. The NAB uses 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings. I think most translations do.
Regum translates more as Kingdom anyway, not as King (i.e. Book of Kingdoms).
But the issue here is about the fact that 1 Kings 5 and 1 Kings 4 use radically different numbering between modern English translations
-An article called 1 Kings 5:3 that discussed Solomon's diet and food supply would clearly hold an inherent Roman Catholic POV (since it discusses what the NAB - the official RC translation - considers to be 1 Kings 5:3)
-An article called 1 Kings 5:3 that discussed Solomon's message to Hiram about planning a temple would clearly hold an inherent Protestant POV (since it uses what the KJV/NIV/other-protestant-translations consider to be 1 Kings 5:3)
I.e. if we allow these things to exist under such article titles, it will be inherently POV, so we need to assert that putting articles under those titles shouldn't happen, to nip the POV in the bud.
--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 00:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All these verses don't exist (none do). And if they were created, they could be merged anyway. --Doc ask? 01:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that -Ril- is just saying to not create articles on every bit, but rather the concept. Like if I were to write an article on every act of every Shakespeare play, you would rather have me write an article on the whole play, with sections for each act. 64.12.116.8 01:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is worse than that. SimonP's method would be more like writing an article on every line or two of every Shakespeare play. Logophile 02:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But then it doesn't make sense for everyone to get all argue-y. It's perfectly logical to not want every line of Shakespeare to have it's own article. Noone here seems to be understanding the concept. The point is you write about things, like the Ressurection, not lines, like "And then Jesus died." (I don't actually have a Bible anywhere near me, so I apologize for no actual quote.) You can make an article as big as you want, and include all the concepts you want, (within reason, of course) so there's no point in an article for every verse. 64.12.116.8 02:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are two separate issues here. One is the variant texts of the verses in question, which are so deeply different that I frankly suspect bad editing on the Vatican's website, especially since the RC Vulgate text in my printed edition corresponds with the Protestant KJV. I do not know enough about any textual dispute to form an opinion here, but there is something fishy with the Vatican site text. Does someone have a printed Roman Catholic Bible, either Douai or some other edition, they could check?
The other is the propriety of articles on Biblical verses or other texts generally. My understanding is that this awaits the formation of a consensus. I don't think it's really pertinent to use a dispute about a particular passage to formulate a rule on Bible verse articles, either generally or about a particular passage, prior to any such consensus. Smerdis of Tlön 05:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Resetting Indent) Smerdis of Tlön has hit the issue on the head - both my paper NAB and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops online version of NAB [1] have similar text to that of KJV. There are many places where Catholic and Protestant numbering is out of sync (such as the Psalms), but this is not one of them. -Ril-'s making a WP:POINT, and doing it rather badly. However, this does not remove the issue of specific bible verses getting articles. This issue has its own centralized discussion. My position there is that the vast majority of bible verses have no business getting articles, and as a rule shouldn't, those articles which are notable in their own right (John 3:16 is often trotted out as an example of this) deserve an article.-- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, the link you give - United States Conference of Catholic Bishops online version of NAB does not correspond to the KJV, that version of 1 Kings 5 has 32 verses, the KJV has 18. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 16:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close

[edit]

Because this is a non-issue, I move to close this discussion (or start whatever the process is to close one of these things) and direct whatever further discussion there may be back to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second the move to close and redirect per m:instruction creep. Durova 17:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not paper

[edit]

Before you do, I'd like to point out that wikipedia is NOT paper, so as long as the bible verse articles are not original research, sure, why the heck not. For extra fun, cross-correlate with relevant Qur'an verses too. ;-) Kim Bruning 07:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not paper, but neither is it Wikisource: ;) Thryduulf 19:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia also isn't toilet paper, we don't put just anything on it -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 08:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The actual content of the bible and your characterization of it as being something one might put on toilet paper aside, I dare say that there is a significant body of scholarly work on most of these verses going back to untranslated versions the archeology of some of the texts and the process and disagreements about translating them. Regardless of personal views about what people have done with it, the impact that those translations and history of it all has had a significant impact on most world societies, as such in most cases there is notable, academically sound, factual data available. To the extent that an individual verse can field a whole article of its own within those criteria, I don't see why it should be treated differently than any other topic. I do not think there needs to be a specific policy in favor of or against bible verses on wikipedia. They should be merged deleted or keep the same way everything else is. Dalf | Talk 09:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would also including the trnslation/version in the title not solve the NPOV problem

[edit]

Not that I want to see 5 or 6 articles for each verse of the bible, though some of the more significant ones with the article displaying the text untranslated and discussing the translation might be a very useful tool. Though to be honest I woudl rather see an independant wiki devoted to this. Dalf | Talk 09:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

m:instruction creep

[edit]

just about covers it. Our "list of articles that may not be created" is very well covered by WP:CSD, which does not and should not contain any reference to the bible. If you don't want these articles created, I suggest you make a single article about 1 Kings and make all those other things redirect there (which of course allows other editors to work along or dissent). But making a policy to ban articles is not appropriate to Wikipedia. Radiant_>|< 11:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with this. Additionally, the whole suggestion violates WP:BEANS. Stifle 13:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with the above. Seconding move to close discussion. Durova 17:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting the facts and scope of the problem

[edit]

Has anyone anywhere completed an exhaustive analysis that compares the inclusion, sequencing and numbering of books in biblical texts? Before we go nuts on this issue it might be useful to know the scope of the problem. I think we need some means to refer specifically to sentences and passages in these works. --Leifern 12:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The simple solution to this pseudo-problem

[edit]

There are certainly problems with terminology in many other areas which have been worked out through resorting to some scientific or official standard, or to any standard that seems most useful for the purpose - this suggestion from Ril is the equivalent of saying that we should never have an article on aluminium, because there are two different forms of that word and it is POV to settle on only one of them for the page title.

Just decide once and for all to use the verse numbering of the most commonly used scholarly edition of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament for that, and the most commonly used scholarly edition of the Greek New Testament for that. Where numbering differs one can indicate that in a parenthsis (as we do with measurements in alternative systems) for clarity. If there are apocryphical parts falling outside this framework, I'm pretty sure there are established ways in academic publications to refer to them in a unambiguous manner as well. In fact, even without actual articles on individual verses, any wider coverage of biblical topics probably requires some standard for references. If any problems remain, I'm sure those can be managed by those actually contributing to the subject, as opposed to wild "biblecruft"-hating trolls running around wasting other people's time. u p p l a n d 12:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You had me worried for a minute there. I'm pleased to see that aluminum] redirects to aluminium, per IUPAC :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, Aluminum isn't ambiguous as to what it refers to. We all know that it means Aluminium and vice versa, and redirecting Aluminum to an article about the non-magnetic metal doesn't constitute any sort of pov presumption about what Aluminum refers to. Unlike 1 Kings 5:3. Redirecting 1 Kings 5:3 to an article about what Solomon ate is POV because it presumes we are talking about the NAB 1 Kings 5:3, because if we were talking about the KJV 1 Kings 5:3 we would redirect it to something discussing a temple.

You have confused two quite seperate issues:

  • Aluminum vs. Aluminium is an issue about two different titles for the same content
  • This is an issue about two identical titles for different content.

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 16:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah. The problem can be solved. Dab the simple titles to both bits of content- have the article at 1Kings x (aka 1Kings y). Sure, that solution isn't great, and we can probably come up with a better one, when and if the problem arises. But let's not waste time solving problems that don't exist. --Doc ask? 16:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was asked my opinion...

[edit]
  1. I have no objection to moving the discussion back to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text. That said...
  2. I believe that articles on individual Bible chapters are appropriate.
  3. This is a valid title people are likely to look up, so we should be able to get them where they want to go.
  4. If 1 Kings 4 is seriously ambiguous, it should be a disambiguation page, just like any other ambiguous title people are likely to look up.
  5. If, as I suspect, there is only a minor ambiguity (see next item), then this can be dealt with via a hat-note at the top of the article.
  6. In portions of the Bible where different numberings exist, we need to have our substantive articles follow some particular numbering. I'd suggest the KJV, because in the English-speaking world people who quote the Bible by numbered chapter and verse tend to refer to the KJV.
  7. So, if we consider 1 Kings 4 seriously ambiguous, it could redirect to a substantive article at 1 Kings 4 (KJV numbering) and what ever other articles ''Foo'' (KJV numbering) are appropriate...
  8. ... or (my preferred scenario, treating the ambiguity as minor) 1 Kings 4 would refer to the KJV numbering and would have hat text that redirects appropriately for the NAB numbering and any other relevant numberings.
  9. Note that my preference for KJV numbering of chapters and verses is not a preference for their text.

Jmabel | Talk 18:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering of Tanakh verses

[edit]

Why can't we use the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia numbering for ever and ever amen? It's:

  1. the scholarly standard, and
  2. what Brown-Driver-Briggs and Strong's Concordance will reference.

I don't understand why there's debate about potential articles. Can't we talk about this later? --Mgreenbe 00:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and yes. Sorry -Ril-, find another subject to troll. --Doc ask? 01:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus wept

[edit]

John 11:35

--DV8 2XL 21:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said! Homestarmy 03:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we done?

[edit]

If so, would someone like to mark this as 'failed' or 'old', and we can get back so some real work?--Doc ask? 08:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. I hope Template:Rejected isn't too strong; I couldn't find anything else standard. --Mgreenbe 10:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Verses_of_1_Kings_4_and_5&oldid=1080295538"