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

message: 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)
thread_title: Move to close

message: 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)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not paper, but neither is it :Wikisource: ;) Thryduulf 19:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia also isn't toilet paper, we don't put just anything on it -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 08:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  not paper 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Would also including the trnslation/version in the title not solve the NPOV problem 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Getting the facts and scope of the problem 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The simple solution to this pseudo-problem

message: # I have no objection to moving the discussion back to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text. That said...
# I believe that articles on individual Bible chapters are appropriate.
# This is a valid title people are likely to look up, so we should be able to get them where they want to go.
# 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.  
# 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.
# 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.
# 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...
# ... 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.
# 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)
thread_title:  Since I was asked my opinion... 

message: Why can't we use the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia numbering for ever and ever amen?  It's:
#the scholarly standard, and
#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)
replies: text: Yes, and yes. Sorry -Ril-, find another subject to troll. --Doc ask? 01:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbering of [[Tanakh]] verses 

message: John 11:35 
:--DV8 2XL 21:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus wept 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Are we done?