Talk:John 20:16

[Untitled][edit]

This page as nomianted for Votes for deletion and was voted to keep by a 9 vote majority. An archived discussion may be found here. --Oldak Quill 20:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's worth noting that over 50 votes were cast (I counted about 55, didn't see an official tally)), so a 9 vote majority, while a majority, is by no means a landslide. (Sure, I admit it, this is sour grapes from someone on the losing side of the vote. ;-) Now time will tell if this creates the sort of mess I predicted. Wesley 05:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Initiator's introduction[edit]

This page was created as an experiment. I was wondering if it would be possible to have a decent article on every single Bible verse, so I picked one at random and wrote and article on it. Unfortunately the one picked seems to be of an above average notability. In retrospect a better test would be to find the single most uninteresting verse and try to do an article on it. I do think that this page shows that there is a possibility for such a detailed annotation project. Each verse has centuries of interpretation, debates over translation, and uses outside the Bible. In most cases enough material for a good article. - SimonP 02:45, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say every Bible verse is at least notable. Probably someone of significance has commented on every verse, though it may be difficult to find something worthwhile to say about some of the less-remembered ones. Twinxor 02:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page should be deleted. Commentaries and discussions of one's personal views on one part of a book are not encyclopedic in character. Albatross2147 05:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page should not be deleted. A Commentary on every verse in the Bible should be part of Wikipedia's scope. Even if an article may be biased, that is what we have community collaboration for. --One Salient Oversight 07:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Albatross - what nonsense! To create entries on verses in an important literary work in an NPOV and objective manner is not "[discussing] one's personal views". I certainly am not a Christian and would even go so far as to count myself as strongly anti-Christian - this is not to say that I cannot read and take interest in Christian mythology. However, my interest in reading an article is irrelevent as to whether it should be kept or deleted. This is a varifiable, factually accurate entry that many people WILL read and take information from. It is most definately not for WikiBooks. Keep up the good work SimonP - fight for the right to write Wikipedia articles on any worthy cause - not just those which some deem appropriate! --Oldak Quill 09:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I want to say that I strongly support the idea to create an article on every Bible verse. I'm not too knowledgeable about theology and such, but I think it is very important that we as a project recognize the encyclopedic nature of content such as this. Everyking 15:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I oppose this chiefly because we would essentially be creating a Bible commentary, and any Bible commentary is inherently POV, either by what it says or what it does not say about a given verse. I know Wiki is not paper, but having an article on each verse would make it impossible to police them all to ensure that POV pushing didn't explode in some article or other. It's just an invitation for trouble. Although we have a lot of good NPOV articles on controversial subjects, I don't think we can sustain that at this level. Wesley 22:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

SimonP is being somewhat disingenuous above when he claims that he "picked one at random". He has, quite properly, dived in at the heart of Christianity - the Resurrection. -- RHaworth 07:40, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

I did pick one at random, but it somewhat unfortunately turned out to be one the more notable verses, certainly in the top 10%. This page is thus not a great proof of concept. John 20:14 and John 20:18 are considerably less notable, but each generated good articles. - SimonP 15:16, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

I was about to suggest to you that the real test of this theory would be John 11:35. And then I immediately discovered that it already exists, and isn't a complete stub.

I would recommend you start e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible Verses to organize this, which may help prevent the messiness some predict and the massive stubbery or gaps that others predict.

Now -- If you and others in the Judaic religious lineage proceed to carry out this project, I would say then we should be prepared for an article on every quatrain of the Qur'an, etc. (See Category:Religious texts.) The potential scope almost seems to be beyond WP, frankly.

- Keith D. Tyler [flame] 22:38, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Should the articles be on sections of text longer than a single verse?[edit]

It looks pretty unlikely that this will win consensus for deletion, so some thought should go into the issue of whether these articles should be merged, with perhaps an article per chapter rather than an article per verse. Divisions by sub-chapter are also common, though there are many such systems and picking one would be difficult.

The main advantages of giving each verse its own article is that it allows easy linking, it would be useful if every time John 20:16 was mentioned a user could click through to a detailed article on the verse. Length is also an issue, if as it seems a five hundred word article on each verse is possible then an article on a 30 verse chapter would be quite bulky. The third concern is that of copyright. The newer versions of the Bible are copyrighted, and those copyrights are enforced. Quoting a single verse at a time is certainly fair use, but adding longer chunks of the text may get us into trouble.

The advantages of larger group of text is that there will be less repetition as every verse does not need its context and setting explained. Issues with some verses also affect neighbouring ones, e.g. both John 20:16 and John 20:17 seem to contradict Mark 28:9. With the current set up these issues are discussed separately, if there was an article on the whole chapter all of the contradictions could be brought up in one place. There is also the issue of whether it is possible to write a decent article on every verse. John 20:16 is of above average notability, and there may very well be verses that would be perennial sub-stubs.

A potential compromise that might work is to have separate articles on each verse of the Pentateuch, Gospels, and Revelations. These are by far the most quoted and analyzed and there is a truly vast body of analysis and literature about them. The other books would be subdivided by chapter. Each verse will have also have a navbox at the bottom so that readers can easily read through the articles in the order in which they are presented in the Bible. - SimonP 17:59, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. This could potentially satisfy people on both sides of the inclusion debate: particularly notable verses, on which a great deal can be written, still get their own articles, but the great majority of the Bible is dealt with through articles on chapters or some such system. Everyking 18:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would vote for deletion - while a noble cause, and one worthy perhaps of writing a book on, it could become hopelessly POV and is not a topic for an encyclopedia (try Wikibooks, I believe there is a book on the Bible already?) --Mark Lewis 18:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mark: yes, my sentiments exactly. Wesley 22:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You said it. What kind of fool would think of writing an article about an ethno-religious conflict, a hot-button contemporary issue, a micronation or even an Ashlee Simpson album? It's a good thing we prohibit content on controversial subjects, otherwise just imagine what a POV mess we'd be in. Everyking 22:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point entirely. It's not that the subjects are controversial, it's that by going verse by verse we'll be addressing many of the same subjects separately, in literally thousands of articles. Also, even identifying a block of verses as related to each other is an act of interpretation; in many cases leading to massive article moves and renamings before being settled. I've been involved in plenty of controversial religious articles over the years, with mostly satisfactory outcomes to all involved, but I really think this is opening an entirely new can of worms. Wesley 18:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The controversy that would result if we tried to develop our own method of dividing the text is exactly why we should use the standardized, though still arbitrary, division by verses. I don't see the duplication of content as a problem. Of the dozen articles I have so far created the duplication is minimal. Issues like the authorship of John do not belong in the article on each verse just as debates over evolution do not belong in the article for each species. Verse articles should just make sure they link to a more general one that will detail these major issues. - SimonP 22:57, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least we agree about sticking to the verse divisions rather than some larger more subjective division like a "passage." How do you plan to number the Psalms chapters; do you favor the chapter divisions found in the Masoretic text or those in the Septuagint? Choosing either for the chapter title is bound to reflect your bias, whether intended or not. Wesley 04:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is no ideal solution, but the Hebrew division of the Psalms would be the more common one among English speakers. Picking the common usage is how most ambiguous names are dealt with on Wikipedia. We should, however, make sure to mention both possible names in each article. (The alternative system would be to see Masoretic vs. Septuagint as equivalent to British English vs. American English and allow a mishmash of systems, but this would get very complicated very quickly.) - SimonP 14:35, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

So essentially you're saying to adopt the usage and implicit POV most common among English speakers. This isn't just about naming or American vs. British spelling; the choice between Masoretic vs. Septuagint has a large impact regarding whether Jesus fulfilled Messianic prophecies in the Psalms. Wesley 18:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is only the titles, the text of the articles should give equal weight to each version. It is an unfortunate necessity, but also standard practice, to have POV titles for these articles. - SimonP 18:48, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John 20:16. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]