Wikipedia talk:Bible verses

message: Keeping the discussion over here, to not clutter up the project page...
I feel that if we allow every bible verse, we'll have set a precedent for BookOfMormonBot, KoranBot, PrincipiaDiscordiaBot, etc., to create articles for every verse for every holy book for every extant religion -- basically turning Wikipedia into the 200s section of the local library.  Almafeta 18:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My stance

message: I find that nothing close to my own position on this is even offered as an option. Can we add options to the list? Also, while I'm at it, where on earth did the option come from of saying that the New Testament would be covered in exhaustive detail, but not the Old? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:07, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Basically, the currently existing articles-for-every-verse are from only the gospels of Matthew and John. It struck me that this might be because someone felt, for religious reasons, that the gospel verses were somehow special and worthy of individual note, but would not intend to create similar articles for other sections. Likewise similar religious reasons might favour the verses of the New Testament but not the Old - e.g. there is a religious text producing group, particularly popular amongst evangelical UK protestants, which produces a text containing only the New Testament and Psalms. 
I appreciate that Judaism would obviously favour the Old Testament above the New, but Jewish tradition is far less inclined to consider the words themselves fundamentally important, preferring to dwell on interpretation of what they mean (though there is a sect, Karaite Judaism, that does dwell on the words themselves, reading them more literally), so it strikes me that there are likely to be very few, if any, voters considering the Old Testament verses to be individually noteworthy but not those of the New. Go ahead and add the section if you think that there might be. 
If your own option is not this (Old Testament but not necessarily New), can you explain it here, so I can see what I have missed out? ~~~~ 22:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether an article should be a redirect or not is not really being discussed. It would count as a secondary issue - "what should be done with the articles IF it is deemed that they should not exist individually". This survey is really discussing the simple question "should these articles exist individually or should something else be done". The "something else" could include redirecting, merging, transwikiing, or deleting, but it is a secondary question as to what it is. This is merely establishing whether 100% of verses should exist seperately or not. ~~~~ 08:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it would be madness to start writing about every verse at this stage, but this survey exists because someone already has, c/o a series of Anchor Bible commentaries they have bought. This survey is really dealing with what should be done about these already existing individual articles (there are about 100+ of them), and about whether the creation of any more should be encouraged/discouraged. N.b. Category:Psalms was created by the same individual to imply that there should be articles for each and every psalm. ~~~~ 08:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

text: N.b. The articles that I know to be already existing from this attempt to write about every single verse are listed at Wikipedia:Bible verses/existing ~~~~ 08:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How were these options determined prior to opening the vote? 

message: Rather than taking semi-educated guesses as to how many Bible verses are deserving of articles, perhaps we should ask questions determining more specifically what would make a verse worthy of an article. Questions worth asking could include:
*Does appearing on billboards make a verse encyclopedic?
*Does use in a major work of literature?
*Does a scholarly debate of its meaning or content?
*Does a debate over its translation, or a famous mistranslation in the KJV or Vulgate?
*Does being the foundation of a sect's doctrine?
- SimonP 12:49, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
::Considering that every single verse has been the subject of scholarly debate, that clearly isn't sufficient to make it notable.  Bible verses that are the basis of a sect's doctrine should be mentioned in the article on that sect; it doesn't make the verse notable on its own.  Similary, verses that are famously used in a major work of literature should be mentioned in the article on that work; verses that are just used in passing don't even merit a mention. --Carnildo 18:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability

message: This poll was badly done. It's best to discuss a poll before it is opened for voting, otherwise people will possibly ignore the poll. Having said that, people seem to be happy to vote on it. In fact people are still voting despitye the green box. So I've edited the intro. I've started off making, what I felt to be pretty uncontroversial edits and got bolder and bolder with each new edit I made. This is to facilitate people being able to undo what I did easily. You can revert back to whichever edit you feel comfortable with. Please no revert wars though.
The issue of consensus can be decided after the poll has closed. I see no reason to close a poll early even if 100% chose only one option. We need to give all interested parties time to find the vote. Usually for a small number of votes 80-100% is needed. As the total number  of votes goes up the % decreases but never less than 2/3 (67%). Of course what is a large /small number of votes is up for debate.
The issue of sockpuppets can also be decided after the poll ends. The best way to deal with thwem is just to add a note after each vote - account is 1 day old. or users 1st edit. I feel the number of 200 edits is far too high. This will catch out loads of legit non sockpuppet users and cause bad feeling. Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 22:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your changes, but would suggest a couple more. I feel the section on other religious works should be removed. This vote is pretty explicitly about Bible verses. Note the section on number of verses, for instance. We should not assume all religious texts should be treated equally. There is vastly less analysis and scholarship on the collected works of L. Ron Hubbard, and there is no reason to assume they can be treated in the same detail as the Bible. That noting of the "longest poem known to exist in the world" also seems to be worded in a way to suggest an inclusionist anarchy if we allow Bible verses. - SimonP 23:01, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I already changed it from "will affect" to "may affect" . Although I agree that we  shouldn't treat all religious texts equally, the section isn't talking about all relgious texts. It's talking about other, well studied, major religious texts. Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 23:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My changes to the top of the article