Talk:Bible/Archive 9

message: What information do we need to cite for?  As far I know, it is all true, I haven't reviewed the grammar and spelling however. Complex-Algorithm-Interval 00:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is precisely when something is all true that it is easy to provide citations.  I think the citations requested here fall into two categoories.  In some cases, the article claims a group of people say something (some people call the bible the word of God, some scholars make a claim about a poarticular version of the text).  These claims raise the question, whi?  A citation answers the question by making clear who makes these claims.  In other instances where there is a general consensus or very widely shared view, a citation is a resource for readers who want to learn more 9about the bible, history, or religion).  To sum up: providing citations is another way to make this encyclopedia a useful education resource, and if everything is true finding good citations whould be easy to do. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Section 7.2 Canonization of the Old Testament and New Testament has the paragraph:  "Thus, the Protestant Old Testament of today has a 39-book canon—the number varies from that of the books in the Tanakh (though not in content) because of a different method of division—while the Roman Catholic Church recognizes 46 books as part of the canonical Old Testament. The term "Hebrew Scriptures" is only synonymous with the Protestant Old Testament, not the Catholic, which contains the Hebrew Scriptures and additional texts. Both Catholics and Protestants have the same 27-book New Testament Canon.[citation needed] Canonicity, which involves the discernment of which texts are divinely inspired, is distinct from questions of human authorship and the formation of the books of the Bible.[citation needed]" Can somebody explain why the "citation needed" flags are there.  Both statements are glaringly obvious facts.  (And can be seen as conclusions by reading the rest of the article, and the related article on canonicity, and biblical canon.)jonathon 19:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Jonathon, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Common knowledge.  What's common to some (e.g. that Protestants and Catholics have the same Old testament canon) is not necessarily obvious to others - especially those who are not Christian.  We cite things so that Wikipedia articles are credible to all readers, not just those from a particular background.  Hope that helps. Egfrank 10:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The first of those citation requests is for Catholics and Protestants have the same 27 book New Testament.  To say that there are 27 books in the NT is not controversial, is not an untested fact, is not technical knowledge, is not indirect knowledge. Do we really need a cite to The Articles of Religion, etc. there? The Peshitta had 22 books in the NT, but that issue was resolved centuries ago. Martin Luther resolved the issue of Epistle for the Laodocians for German Catholics. The Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church recognizes 28 books, but has not included 3 Corinthians in  their Bible in decades.(It was included because of tradition, not formal appointment.) The Canon of 81 (Broader Canon) hasn't been printed in over a century --- besides which nobody can define what it includes, and what it excludes. The Canon of 81 (Narrower Canon) includes the same 27 books as Protestant Christianity, Celtic Christiantiy, Orthodox Christianity, Protestant Christianity, Restoration Movement Christianity, etc. IOW, you have to wander extremely far into byways of theological history to find anybody who claims that there are not 27 books in the NT. (Ecclesia Gnostica, amongst other Gnostic Groups, doesn't have an official canon.)jonathon 17:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  The second of those citation requests is for which involves the discernment of which texts are divinely inspired, is distinct from questions of human authorship and the formation of the books of the Bible. which is discussed elsewhere in both this article, and the article on Biblical Canonicity. I'll wikify it, to clarify that it is discussed elsewhere.jonathon 17:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Many people consider the Bible (or large parts of it) to be a fictional creation and I think their viewpoint should be expressed here, at least within the Modern developments section - with a few supporting links. Whether or not Christians regard this as true, I believe that it is a legitimate viewpoint shared by many people and deserves at least a passing mention there if nothing else. --Philip Corner 22:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Bible#Textual criticism section. --Shirahadasha 03:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible as fiction 

message: I see that the letter to the Hebrews is currently listed as a Pauline Epistle.  This makes sense because some Christians believe that Hebrews was written by St. Paul. However, today many Christians believe that Hebrews was written by someone else, such as Barnabas or Apollos, because of the different theological emphases and the manners of writing.  In The NIV Study Bible from Zondervan, it states "Though for some 1,200 years (from c. A.D. 400 to 1600) the book [Hebrews] was commonly called 'The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews,' there was no agreement in the earliest centuries regarding its authorship. Since the Reformation it has been widely recognized that Paul could not have been the writer." (page 1856) (By the way, please DO NOT incorporate the aforementioned quote into Wikipedia without proper citation because it is no doubt copywritten by Zondervan.) I realize that this can hardly be seen as NPOV because it is written from a Protestant point of view. However, I just wanted to bring this issue up.  I don't see it as a big deal, but I think it's interesting that we don't know the author of this book in the Bible, or at least there is some uncertainty.  Of course, lacking clear authorship does nothing to diminish the validity of the epistle's message. WilliamJenkins09 17:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV does not mean an absense of views, it means providing multiple views and properly identifying them.  As long as you can provide an appropriate source and clearly identify the view, add it in! (as long as it is not your point of view, and is a notale view held by more than a fringe group of people.  identify the people properly - not just Protestant versus Catholic, but lay people, clergy, theologians, Bible scholars etc) Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book of Hebrews 

message: The article is far too long. If you would write some other article this long it would be marked to be shortened. Thus the neutrality of this article should be nominated. Skele 13:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article 

message: Hello again.
If it’s okay with everyone I’ll backup somewhat to make more clear where I’m coming from. At times I perused Wiki and liked it very much. Thank you very much.
Out of curiosity I searched ‘Bible’ and the first line was ‘Bible refers to the canonical collections of religious writings’. Well, I know that the Bible is not religious writings. So I thought to be helpful I would correct this error. I was unaware then that to correct this error with a Bible study type approach is not in line with Wiki policies. My bad. The first response was corrections re: signing my name/got that…. registering/?.....colons to indent/?.....study WP:NPOV/did that. Having to rethink the error of ‘religious writings’ and staying within the Bible and Wiki policies I thought I had an answer but I don’t. The only way I see now to explain this would be viewed as POV or OR. When at times I talked with people and set straight an error it was always coming from a religious POV to a truth. The search for truth is not within the scope of this forum. I’m the one in error being here and I don’t fault this site or anyone who participates in it. I’m just not in the right place.
tnx againCncdavellc 08:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dave closes on thread he started

message: I've been a bit slack commenting on a page without reading it first! Now I look at it there's some obvious corrections needed. I've removed the rather glaring error that the Tanakh has 39 books!!! The article correctly goes on to list the 24 books of the Tanakh.
For those who don't know, Tanakh is the Jewish POV on the Hebrew Bible (NPOV term, which has 39 books), and Jewish interpretation divides it into the three sections T-N-K. Old Testament (Christian POV) is an ambiguous term because there are at least half a dozen different Christian interpretations of how many books to include and how they are ordered and structured. There are 39 in Protestant traditions (which are based on the Masoretic Text), more in Catholic and still more in Orthodox, Catholics taking the Vetus Latina (Old Latin) and Orthodox taking the Greek LXX as somewhat normative.
The gender neutral language section is POV, surprise, surprise. The view exists, but the substantial criticism of it is not mentioned. When I get some time I'll provide text to cover the criticism. Google Colorado Springs guidelines on Bible translation for more information if anyone is interested.
How on earth did 39 books for the Tanakh get into this article. Isn't there at least one Jewish editor watching this page who knows how many books there are in the Tanakh! Or does counting them amount to original research. ;) Alastair Haines 06:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strike out my cheap comment above. It reflects an attempt to vent some frustration at a tense moment of uncertainty. I have a lot of pages on my watchlist and hope no-one ever holds me responsible for edits made on pages I watch. I am, however, responsible for edits I make, like the comment struck out above, so my apologies to all those gracious enough not to ask me for one. Alastair Haines 18:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LoL

message: User:Luqmanskye's proposal and David's query have developed into a fruitful discussion.  With the page now unprotected, several days of discussion, and the Jewish and Christian days of sabbath/worship behind us, I wonder if it now time to summarize the points raised and discuss how to reorganize this article, and (dare I say) discuss how to divide up the work.  (I hate the idea of our investing this time without actually making something happen :-)).
So far, there seems to be consensus on the following points:
#Replacing Bible with a Bible (disambigaution) page is a bad idea 
#:Note: User:Luqmanskye and jonathan dissent because they would like to avoid controversy - User:Slrubenstein has countered that the avoidance of controversy is an example of a WP:POVFORK and against wiki policy
# The article Bible should include (and may be missing) some key information that belongs in a gateway article for such a broad subject:
#* a clear bridge between the common use of the term bible (somewhat circularly defined as "scripture") and the understanding of experts  (see comments of User:Shirahadasha, User:Alastair_Haines at the end of #Is the Bible "Religious Writings"?)
#* the canon/text/interpretation framework - User:Egfrank, User:Alastair_Haines and possibly User:Andrew_c.  User:Egfrank has pointed out that User:Slrubenstein's concern that this framework is "original research" raises issues of Wikipedia:Common knowledge and the need for citations where readers can learn more about this framework.
#* material on religiously neutral uses/interpretations of the biblical texts and the controversies that has engendered:  "David", User:Egfrank, User:Alastair_Haines.  
#*:David raises a chicken and egg issue of the relationship between the bible and the religions centered on it.  User:Egfrank raises the notability (and social implications) of the debate over the existence of non-religious uses.  User:Alastair_Haines raises the issues that "academic" languages and frameworks are at least intended to provide a religiously neutral context in which to discuss a religiously charged text.
#* the interaction between religious traditions User:Egfrank, User:Alastair_Haines, User:Andrew_c
# We need to prioritize the contents of this article because it can easily get overlong. User:Alastair_Haines (also see WP:LENGTHand above where User:Skele expresses concern about length)
#User:Alastair_Haines has suggested we use the common definition brought by User:Shirahadasha in the lead and use the canon/text/interpretation framework to structure the overall article.
I hope I haven't left out or misrepresented anyone's thought - if I have - please feel free to strikeout,overwrite, add to, or briefly qualify the above so that your viewpoints are accurately represented.  Kol tuv all, Egfrank 07:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! That's beautiful work Egfrank. You do make it seem like we've been making progress, and I think you're right. Later, much later, I may raise some points regarding circularity. It's an astute observation, and one that is made in some good literature. The positive thing is these "circles" are not always "viscious" ones. Alastair Haines 10:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm only a weak proponent of "Bible (Disambiguation)".   If one article can contain all of the different viewpoints, without an edit war, then go for it.  (If any description of how an organization defines and interprets the Bible gets too long, then spin it out as a separate article.)jonathon 16:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll note that there is an exception to WP:POVFORK called WP:POVFORK#Articles whose subject is a POV clarifying that it is legitimate to have articles whose subjects can legitimately be regarded as being points of view.  Communism and Capitalism, Biblical literalism and Biblical criticism, etc. don't have to be on a single article. Religion tends to be one of those messy classification areas where there can be disagreement as to what is a subject and what is a point of view. Because people can disagree (and members of this very discussion have done so) on whether a denomination's canonical Bible represents a distinct subject in its own right or simply the denomination's point of view on "Bible" as a more abstract subject, I don't believe the WP:POVFORK policy forces a call one way or the other and there's a certain amount of discretion. I agree the majority of people voicing an opinion have preferred a summary article over a disambig and I believe both have given reasonable reasons for doing so. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on the [[User:Luqmanskye]] proposal 

message: Looking over the proposed outline and User:Blanchardb's review of Bible in other languages, there seem to be some missing items:
* authorship theories/beliefs
* biblical archeology
* liturgical use of the bible
Egfrank 16:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing items 

message: Prior to the full protection, this article had been long-term s-protected as it is a heavy vandalism target.  When auto-expiring protection expires, everything expires and thus the s-protection expired too.  Based on the level of vandalism since the expiration of the full protection, I have readded the indefinite semi-protection. I know that a lot of people don't like long-term semi-protection - and I'm not really trying to take a position on that one way or the other - I'm just restoring what was already there.  If someone has a compelling reason to do something different, I'm not going to yell too loudly. --B 22:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certain I'm not familiar with all the issues, but I'm the type to err on the side of liberty. I would argue that although high risk for vandalism, this is also a highly maintained page, i.e. there are many projects that class the article as TOP priority. Hence, it is likely watched by many, and cared about sufficiently that "experiments" will be reverted promptly and this work will be spread across enough people to present no undue burden. I'm not personally fussed, of course, as I don't seem to be locked out myself. Alastair Haines 01:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I was thinking it might make sense to use the Request for comments process to request additional comments. OK? Best, --Shirahadasha 04:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agreed! Egfrank 05:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article restructuring 

message: One "citation needed" tag asks that we provide a citation to show that the Acts of Peter is considered apocryphal. The language and context used in the article is such that "apocryphal", there, means that it is not included in the Canon, something just about any idiot can see by himself without need for a citation. Maybe it would be a good idea to expand the section, or write a new article altogether, to point out that "apocryphal" can mean either "non canonical" or "of dubious authenticity". That would take care of the need for a citation for this particular point.
I know that whoever wrote this factoid, and whoever put up the citation needed tag, both meant "dubious authenticity", but, if that's the case, this factoid does not belong in the section about the Canon, regardless of its veracity.
I intend to expand said section in the next few days to explain the process by which individual books were declared canonical (with full citations), and to me the fact about the "Acts of Peter" is just irrelevant. --Blanchardb 05:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to wait a bit - there is a consensus that this article needs to be significantly restructured and we are currently working though some issues about perspective.  I suspect details like this will probably be moved into sub-articles.  You are welcome (actually encouraged) to join in any of the discussion topics above (the restructuring work begins #Refining article with a disambiguation page for the various bibles here.  I'd make use of the history page to follow the discussion because more than one section is currently active.  Best, Egfrank 11:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apocrypha

message: I'm googling "synopsis" and "bible" to try to find something we could all criticise, but which we could probably "wikify" or "encyclopediarize". Wikification is a particularly good way to think about it, because we could link to many, many internal articles that already exist. This synopsis assumes Moses wrote the Torah (POV), I didn't get to any Christian assumptions, but I bet they are there (POVx2), the name OT (POVx3) for a start. I don't like it's style, "this book" and "is found here" are repeated many times, however, the "is found here" marks a range of pericopes that are of general interest, and the sort of thing people could use. List of Bible topics and list of Bible people might exist, but say I wanted to find Melchizedek, didn't remember the name, but knew he was in Genesis, a wikified synopsis could be very helpful. Perhaps all we need is Synopsis of the Bible and we can point to it from this article. I'm going pretty low-brow here, but the Bible is so written about and so deep, I think we need to agree to some "building blocks" of presentation. Egfranks framework does a lot of that work, imo. I guess I'm just thinking synopsis fits after text and canon, and before interpretation and social influence. Anyway, I'll report back if I find anything more impressive than the link I've offered above.
Leaving aside the synopsis idea though. I'd love to hear people's opinions on some other issues: What kind of readers do we think will come to the page? What will they be looking for? What will they already know? What are the biggest controversies about the Bible in the secular mindset? Alastair Haines 16:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis

message: Biblical or biblical? Should Wikipedia adopt a style guideline favoring one over the other when used as an adjective referring to the Bible (e.g., Biblical scholar, biblical exegesis, Biblical foundation, biblical support, etc.)?
Please comment on the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#RFC: "biblical" or "Biblical". Thanks — DIEGO talk 18:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "biblical" or "Biblical"?

message: ===French===
Here, I have translated the table of contents of the article Bible in the French Wikipedia. It might help us decide whether we're on the right track in our own reorganization, though I see that some of these points are covered in other articles, and I regard them as irrelevant for the sake of a main article.
Contents [hide]
*1 Presentation 
**1.1 A collection of Holy Scriptures
**1.2 The most distributed book in the World
*2 Structure of the texts
**2.1 Biblical canon
**2.2 Chapters and verses
*3 The Hebrew Bible
*4 The Septuagint
**4.1 Deuterocanonicals (apocryphs for protestants) 
*5 The New Testament 
*6 Biblical Exegesis
**6.1 Hebrew Bible and Old Testament
**6.2 New Testament 
*7 Bible readings
**7.1 Judaïsm
**7.2 Christianity
***7.2.1 Roman Catholicism
***7.2.2 Protestantism (Lutheran-reformed) 
***7.2.3 Protestantism (Evangelical)
***7.2.4 Mormonism
***7.2.5 Jéhovah's Witnesses
***7.2.6 Ecuménism
*8 Archaeological and historical research
**8.1 Nomadist theory
*9 French editions of the Bible
*10 Notes and references 
*11 Bibliography
*12 Related articles
*13 Bible versions available online
**13.1 Jewish
**13.2 Roman Catholic
**13.3 Protestant
**13.4 Jehovah's Witnesses
**13.5 Ecumenical
B-class in French --Blanchardb 19:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization — what's done in other Wiki languages

message: Here, I have translated the table of contents of the article Bible in the French Wikipedia. It might help us decide whether we're on the right track in our own reorganization, though I see that some of these points are covered in other articles, and I regard them as irrelevant for the sake of a main article.
Contents [hide]
*1 Presentation 
**1.1 A collection of Holy Scriptures
**1.2 The most distributed book in the World
*2 Structure of the texts
**2.1 Biblical canon
**2.2 Chapters and verses
*3 The Hebrew Bible
*4 The Septuagint
**4.1 Deuterocanonicals (apocryphs for protestants) 
*5 The New Testament 
*6 Biblical Exegesis
**6.1 Hebrew Bible and Old Testament
**6.2 New Testament 
*7 Bible readings
**7.1 Judaïsm
**7.2 Christianity
***7.2.1 Roman Catholicism
***7.2.2 Protestantism (Lutheran-reformed) 
***7.2.3 Protestantism (Evangelical)
***7.2.4 Mormonism
***7.2.5 Jéhovah's Witnesses
***7.2.6 Ecuménism
*8 Archaeological and historical research
**8.1 Nomadist theory
*9 French editions of the Bible
*10 Notes and references 
*11 Bibliography
*12 Related articles
*13 Bible versions available online
**13.1 Jewish
**13.2 Roman Catholic
**13.3 Protestant
**13.4 Jehovah's Witnesses
**13.5 Ecumenical
B-class in French --Blanchardb 19:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: French

message: Here's the German:
Inhaltsverzeichnis [Verbergen]
*1 The words "Bible" and "Holy Scripture"
*2 The Jewish Bible
**2.1 Torah
**2.2 Prophets
**2.3 Writings
*3 The Chritian Bible
**3.1 Old Testament (OT)
**3.2 New Testament (NT) 
**3.3 Relationship between the Old and New Testament
*4 History of the text
**4.1 Oldest manuscripts
**4.2 Canonization
**4.3 Translation
*5 Biblical criticism — facts or myths
*6 The Bible in Islam 
*7 Spreading of the Bible
*8 Image Bible
*9 Collections and museums
*10 See also
*11 References
*12 Literature
*13 Web links 
**13.1 General
**13.2 Translations
**13.3 Image Bibles (Bilderbibel) 
**13.4 Interpretations & Commentaries 
**13.5 Literary associations
**13.6 Music
Not rated in German --Blanchardb 19:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: German

message: The Spanish version is, quite frankly, stub-class, but it does have a chapter about consevation and integrity of the text. --Blanchardb 19:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spanish

message: Thanks for these examples Blanchardb. I've also discovered a Wiki entry — Cain and Abel that looks good to me. Neutrally providing several interpretations. Lots of information for the reader, plenty of food for thought. But that's just an example of how synopsis can be done well with a short section. Alastair Haines 01:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A good example at English Wiki

message: I'm going to try to do a survey of the bible articles to see what is and is not missing from the books.  For anyone that wants to help me, I'll put it at Talk:Bible/Article survey.  If this doesn't get still born we may want to move this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible.  Egfrank 12:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's a lot of work, thanks for gathering that Egfrank. There are a lot of excellent articles in that collection too. I am going to hang in with this work group (and maybe do some recruiting;). I know there are other editors, notably Andrew c, who have been doing work to bring cohesion to Wiki articles in this area. Alastair Haines 04:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah! You are a great contributor! Egfrank 11:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review of bible coverage 

message: Per the Good Article quick-fail criteria, any article with cleanup banners and multiple  tags, such as this one, must be failed forthwith and without an in-depth review. Once the issues brought up by these templates have been addressed, the article may be renominated. If you feel this decision was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky Talk 23:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick-failed "good article" nomination

message: The tag in the external links rightfully notes that this section should be fixed, and I wondered if anyone objected to a Bible search engine like this one to scale down the sheer number of links in this section. Biblegateway has 22 versions of the Bible in English like KJV,RSV, NIT, etc.(all the cool ones, plus some nerdy ones *kidding*). And it has Bibles in 45 different languages including Hebrew, French, Italian, Spanish, etc. 
I would also like to include this Strong's Concordance. These two links I believe could scale back this exceedingly large compilation of links down to something reasonable. Surely they don't negate the need for all of them found therein, but does cover the gist of them. Can we get an informal consensus about this? Jeff 18:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. No need to have 200 links that basically say the same thing. Actually, I will link to Strong's concordance right away. If anyone feels it is not right, it can always be removed. --Blanchardb 13:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible version in External links 

message: *We have a one-year-old  tag for the entire Hebrew Bible translations and editions section. Not one reference whatsoever in that section.
*The following statements have been tagged with 
**While there are no complete surviving manuscripts of the Hebrew texts on which the Septuagint was based, many scholars believe that they represent a different textual tradition ("Vorlage") from the one that became the basis for the Masoretic texts. (Hebrew Bible translations and editions)
**With the benefit of hindsight it can be said that this process effectively set the New Testament canon, although there are examples of other canonical lists in use after this time. A definitive list did not come from an Ecumenical Council until the Council of Trent (1545–63). (Canonization of the Old Testament and New Testament)
**It should also be noted, that Catholics and Protestants both describe certain other books, such as the ‘’Acts of Peter’’, as apocryphal. (Canonization of the Old Testament and New Testament)
**Canonicity, which involves the discernment of which texts are divinely inspired, is distinct from questions of human authorship and the formation of the books of the Bible. (Canonization of the Old Testament and New Testament)
**The Church also has a "broader canon" that includes more books. (Ethiopian Orthodox canon)
**In scholarly writing, ancient translations are frequently referred to as "versions," with the term "translation" being reserved for medieval or modern translations. (Bible versions and translations)
**The critical analysis of authorship now encompasses every book of the Bible. Every book in turn has been hypothesized to bear traces of multiple authorship, even the book of Obadiah (Modern developments)
Whenever one of those gets fixed (or the statement it is attached to is deleted), its mention here should be struck off like this. If I missed any, please add it to the list. --Blanchardb 13:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remaining cleanup tags 

message: # Added "is there a real text?" to set of "text" questions - see comment User:Jheald below - Egfrank 20:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of changes