Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew

message: It strikes me that the existance of these articles is an attempt to flood the internet (via wikipedia mirrors) with articles about Jesus having a miraculous birth. It comes as no surprise that it is the first 200 verses of Matthew that are treated in this way rather than those of Luke. The UCCF/IVCF has a heavy favouritism for the Gospel of John, and of Matthew, over the others, and these articles are exactly what one of their mission weeks would seek to create.
I have seen absolutely no argument that each of these 200 articles is noteworthy in its own right, nor can I see any justification for continuing to keep the verses discussed in seperate articles. Particularly since the division into verses are an artificial construct of the mediaeval era, and have no relation to the original text, or how it was originally meant to be read. 200 seperate articles covering the first 6 chapters of a single book of the bible is frankly absurd. --Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 17:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a Christian, a regular worshipper in the Anglican communion.  My view on this is that biblical verses are a construct imposed on the text late in time, and to consider each verse separately defies all sense.  Very few Biblical verses are independently notable ("Jesus wept" being an exception, as the shortest verse).  Many passages of the bible are notable, and would bear inclusion, especially if the Greek and various translations and transliterations were included, but I would stop short of saying that all passages be included, and I would really only support those which have particular status either through common liturgical use, through well-known musical settings (Ps. 23 etc.) and so on.  Beyond that, if people genuinely want a verse-by-verse analysis I would suggest that a separate project be forked since that is in my view well beyond the remit of a general encyclopaedia. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 18:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with JzG's statement that "very few biblical verses are independently notable", plus I don't think Wikipedia is a Bible or an explination of Bible verses. I am a Christian and feel that since there is such leeway in the interpertaton of the verses I think it would be difficult to have accurate explinations of the verses, since no one knows for sure what the true meanings of them are. Mike 18:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I am a Christian--one of those dreaded Evangelicals.  I believe the Bible is the word of God and that its message should be spread.  However, that is not the purpose of Wikipedia.  The text of the Bible should not be here but rather in Wikisource.  I think it is fine to have articles on books of the Bible and topics in the Bible, but I don't think that even whole chapters of the Bible should be reprinted here, as the Matthew 1 article has done.  I don't think that Wikipedia is the place to house the text of the entire Bible, as eventually could happen.  We certainly don't need the entire Bible in multiple versions, as we would eventually have if articles are written about each verse the way they already have been.  Logophile 12:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Logophile wholeheartedly.  This is precisely why wikisource exists; please use it for good.  +sj + 09:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flooding the Internet with verses articles

message: * Redirect all to Gospel of Matthew or the appropriate chapter. It is a reasonable search term, but having an article of each separate verse defies common sense. Most of them just contain the verse in several different translations. All verses taken together, this would either be a copyvio or should belong on WikiSource. —Ruud 18:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree, that these should all be redirected and merged with the main article for their chapter. The system of verses was never intended by the authors of the bible, and there is no reason to have seperate articles for all 31,240 verses of the bible. - Pureblade | Θ 18:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: * IMHO even the notable verses could be discussed in an article which covers an entier chapter. —Ruud 18:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yeah, I'm fifty-fifty on those.  Might as well go all-or-nothing, and I prefer nothing in this case.  --King of All the Franks 18:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *I think some of the verses should be merged while others like Matthew 1:9 which is 100% unnessary, Deleted --Jaranda wat's sup 18:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Or redirected, i.e., to Matthew 1.  --King of All the Franks 18:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Definitely redirect. There is a very good chanche that somebody will look for the article Matthew 1:9, and if we delete them someone will most likely recreate them. —Ruud 18:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: * Yeah, I vote redirect all --Jaranda wat's sup 19:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Redirect all Bible verses that are not individually notable, or can better be covered in a larger context (eg chapter or topic basis). Default assumption for any individual verse is that it is non-notable (i.e. if no-one makes a good argument specific to the verse, redirect). Redirect rather than delete, because otherwise they'll be recreated. Rd232 talk 20:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect all

message: I agree with what Guy said earler, that most bible verses are not notable enough by themselves to merit articles.  However, there are a few that do, and those should have at least a short article about them.  The rest should redirect to the book in question -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option: Redirect Most

message: I would like to point out that there is a WikiProject that was set up to deal with articles relating to the bible (actually, I think it's been expanded to include other religious writings as well). From what I can tell, it's been inactive for a while, but someone is more than free to revive discussion if interested. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 04:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Bible 

message: Ive started a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible#Content forking and the Bible about whether having articles about John 20, Matthew 27, Luke 23, and Mark 15, as well as articles about the Passion and the Death of Jesus, constitutes content forking, or is otherwise a bad idea.
I was hoping some people might join the discussion there and tell me whether you agree with my stance or not. Clinkophonist 13:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content forking with Chapters 

message: It appears that Rich Farmbrough has created blank (redirected) articles for all the verses of Matthew. While this isn't problematic in itself (though it seems pointless), Rich has also started wikilinking to redirects (which I thought was to be avoided in the first place) as opposed to using one of the bibleverse templates. Because this issue has come up in the past, I am announcing it to those who are concerned either for or against these moves. I'd like to hear anyones imput on this matter. Thanks!--Andrew c 20:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh no, more verse articles 

message: Anyone notice a few months ago the 200 verse articles were restored (see :Category:Gospel of Matthew verses) by the same user at the center of the arbcom case way back when? Anyone still even watching this page?? -Andrew c [talk] 02:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  200 verses restored