Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text

message: Personally, I think we should listen to Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, which is, after all, one of the policies and guidelines.
Community consensus on the issue, as per, Wikipedia:Bible source text, is that they should go as well.
Some people say 66% isn't a consensus. But it seems very definitely to point to what the community opinion is. It's 2:1 against keeping the text. --Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 17:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Earlier comments

message: I object to the false dilemma of "fundamentalist" translations (not that he's using that word in any careful way) versus scholarly translations. There are scholarly translations favored by conservative Christians, namely the NASB and the ESV.  A.J.A. 03:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think part of the reasoning for the "fundamentalist" wording was because NAB and NIV, the two versions more commmonly used by Catholics and mainline Protestants, respectively, are rarely used by those who stick bible text into wikipedia. - Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On occasions I, a Roman Catholic, have quoted single verses in Wikipedia articles concerning Christian theology using the King James Version because of its timeless beauty and acceptability among those who would respond to a point made by the bible. It is the scripture equivalent of what Wikipedia is always striving for--consensus.  Ruby 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Timeless beauty? King James Version is barly english anymore.  If you want the origional learn hebrew --T-rex 18:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on Translations 

message: So, anyone up for a lot of transwikiing? Radiant_>|< 18:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't Thryduulf  say above that there are already several versions on Wikisource? -- nae'blis (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volunteers please 

message: It seems to me that there is no significant dissent from the view that source belongs on Wikisource, and that individual verses are of no encycloaedic merit, being in any case a mediaeval conceit and not part of the text.  But we still have the text of the KJV in these articles and blue links to individual verses.  Nobody (and I do mean nobody) is likely to search Wiki for John 20:1; redirects are cheap I guess and it does allow for a Wikilink John 20:1.  Should we start unlinking and redirecting? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 09:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is meant to be only about the source-text question (hence the name), so ...
--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 20:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason these debates have had a surprising amount of agreement is that they were only advertised to the people who -Ril- already knew agreed with him, or were attracted by the recruitment message in his signature. Not one of the people who have worked on this series of articles have commented on this page. This is understandable as this issue has been debated many times before, and it was decided the texts should stay. That -Ril- has this time managed to construct an artificial result is something to simply be ignored or reverted, not acted upon. - SimonP 21:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are we at? 

message: I have notified some editors associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism and hopefully they will have something to add to the present discussion/s before any "final" decisions are reached. Thank you for your understanding. IZAK 09:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awaiting comments from Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism editors 

message: Whether with reference to Wikipedia or Wikisource, "Should we use only the translations favourable to fundamentalists?" is obviously a straw man. Obviously not. It makes me wonder whether this proposal is being made in good faith. - Jmabel | Talk 19:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw man 

message: Wikisource would be a great place to do a variorum edition of the Bible. Articles that are just Bible text have no place in Wikipedia. But I see nothing wrong with extensive, even comprehensive, quotation of text in articles on Bible chapters. I would suggest quoting one version in full (maybe the RSV, as a good compromise between poetry and scholarship?) and discussing any significant variations in other versions. Thus, we could discuss who chose in Matthew 12:40 to translate κετοσ as "whale" and who as "sea monster" (and doubtless there are other variants). -- Jmabel | Talk 19:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it just translates as Cetus/a cetus- and the spelling kind of gives it away. Whether that was a whale or a sea monster is a debate about Greek myth, not the bible - the debate isn't one by biblical scholars but by people studying Greek mythology. Its like mentioning fish and then going into a huge discourse about how fish and chips first came to be made together. It's off topic. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 00:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia vs. Wikisource 

message: Traditionally on wikipedia links are put at the bottom, but in this case I believe that it would be useful to have a huge link very obvious link to the full text right at the top of the artical.  This would make it easy to find, without having to include all the text, which is just rediculous -- T-rex 18:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a prominent template pointing to the text on Wikisource would be good.Thryduulf 20:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious Links