Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible

__NEWSECTIONLINK__
 * A more uniform way to cite to the Bible on Wikipedia is sought which more closely complies with the policies on wikipedia.

Please edit the current situation, relevant policies, issue summaries, etc. as this is intended to be a work in progress.

Current situation
The Bible is often cited on Wikipedia using a variety of methods including the following: See discussion on TfD listing which inspired this page.
 * John 1:5 &bull; link to wikipedia article on
 * &bull; link to external website through template
 * John 1:5 &bull; link to external website directly
 * John 1:5 &bull; link to external website directly
 * John 1:5 &bull; no link

Relevant policies

 * Key Policies - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Avoid bias, Don't infringe copyrights, Respect other contributors
 * WP:NPOV - Wikipedia should neutrally present information, and although cites usually have a POV - to use a particular version of the Bible would favor that version
 * WP:Copyrights - Wikipedia material should be GFDL compliant

Some pages discussing issues related to Citing the Bible
 * Bible citation
 * Arbitration of KJV issue (later withdrawn)

Use of external sources
Currently extensive articles within wikipedia (approximately 520 use the template Bibleverse and 210 use its shortened version bibleref) use external sources. Trödel and others have concerns that such extensive use of a source that is not compliant with the GFDL is contrary to the Wikipedia's goals.

This template links to the site: http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibref.php which, using parameters, redirects the user to at least three different websites based on the src parameter passed including BibleGateway.com, nccbuscc.org, bible.cc (an advertisement laden wrapper for the BibleBrowser.com site).

The author of the bibref.php code apparently released the code under a free license, he could verify that if he knows about this discussion as he is a wikipedia editor. With this in mind there is the possibility of a compromise where Wikisource is used where it is available and other sites are still used to provide a variety of versions, and hence reduce any concerns that Bible links may not be NPOV.

Wikisource does not have sufficient material
Currently Wikisource only includes the following versions of the Bible:
 * &bull; &bull;  &bull;  &bull;  - incomplete - an incomplete WikiBible project


 * Notes

Current template does not always work
See Abigail, David (2 of 5 articles checked - checked articles, 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 26 from What links here)

Changing internal links to external links
Some internal links to articles about topics/chapters of the Bible are being changed to external links. See:      . Note - some of these are from the consolidation of bible verse articles to topical and chapter articles.

Research
Biblebrowser.com seems to have many different ways to view the same text:
 * John 1:5 (multiple languages)
 * John 1:5 (web translation)
 * John 1:5 (bible commentaries)
 * John 1:5 (online parallel bible with Advertisements)
 * John 1:5 (parallel chapters with 3 versions)

Lists of online bible study tools

 * A comprehensive list of on-line Bibles
 * All-in-One: Bible Versions and Translations
 * English Translations of the Bible on catholic-resources.org
 * another list of bible version online

...

Other translations
Area for research on copyright status, NPOV nature, acceptance of version of specific translations and feasibility of putting them on wikisource.
 * Notes


 * I don't understand the material in the NPOV column here... Gender-neutrality, for instance, can be argued both ways. jnothman talk 16:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is intended for any claims of bias - not for deciding whether or not they are legitimate. -- Trödel 06:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Table of possible solutions

 * references


 * notes

solution #2:maps
At the top of most geography articles, such as Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, there is a link to an external Wiki that provides links to those coorinates on myriad mapping services. We should create the same kind of page, either on Wikipedia or on an external Wiki, for Bible sources. That way, each article would have no clutter -- just one line -- but clicking on the bible link would provide a comprehensive list of all relevant versions of the Bible. Such a system could easily be adopted for the Talmud and Koran as well. --M @ r ē ino 20:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Well Trödel, you seem to have the issue pretty thoroughly covered. I don't know what's left to add except maybe a third or fourth website option... I added Crosswalk to the list since it has my favorite translation. As for the others, I prefer both BibleGateway and BibleBrowser to Wikisource (at this point), and the vatican.va link doesn't seem to have anything going for it apart from the status of its domain (Even as a Wesleyan, I can dig the majesty of browsing around the Vatican website.) The LDS link was broken.

To me a quality, educational, link is more important than ceding to the GFDL fanatics. Out of those two, then, it's about 50-50 for me. Browser definitely has a lot more going on at once... Gateway gives a cleaner first impression, and yet has most of the same info available. (From a pragmatic point of view, the trimmed down Gateway site will use significantly less server CPU cycles, and anything linked from wikipedia is going to have quite a bit of traffic. My personal site is linked from the Raw Toonage article because of a little research I did on Badly Animated Man... that linked page is consistently one of the most visited pages on my site just from random wikipedians stumbling upon the obscurest of articles.)

In depth feature comparison:
 * Gateway
 * 19 English Bible translations
 * 5 English Bible translation read aloud
 * Easton, Hitchcock, and Smith Bible Dictionaries
 * Nave's and Torrey's Topical Indexes
 * IVP New Testament Commentary, Matthew Henry's Bible Commentary
 * Includes Apocrypha
 * Remembers Preferences
 * Copyright status right in your face
 * Very mild advertising (banner-link to copyright holder, donate button on top, gospelcom.net banner at bottom) I never noticed them until you said there was advertising on their site
 * (31 Languages (70 translations total, one click selectionDLH 13:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC))
 * (2 Display languages: English & SpanishDLH 13:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC))
 * (Default language, version selection & cookie.DLH 13:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

(Are these all free translations? For copyrighted translations, BibleBrowser transfers to Biblegateway.com for NIV etc, or to Crosswalk.com as noted aboveDLH 13:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC))
 * Browser
 * 8 English Bible translations on site (but the Translation drop-down box lets you select like 17 other English translations that redirect you to either BibleGateway or Crosswalk)
 * Greek/Hebrew Lexicon right there and hotlinked to Strong's Greek/Hebrew Dictionary
 * Vulgate right there
 * Foreign language translations right there under the Vulgate (**25 Languages DLH 13:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC))
 * Wow, that box right under the Parallel verses box is really cool: Multiversion concordance, Geneva word by word study, People's New Testament, and then if you scroll down further, Matthew Henry's commentary and John Wesley's
 * On the left you get the whole chapter, so you can read it in context
 * Easton's and Strong's Bible Dictionaries
 * The Bible Search box function is uncool (uses MSN search and takes you to a different site: bible.cc, which looks like an ad-version of BibleBrowser with a lot more visitors - according to the counter)
 * Neat concordance
 * No copyright notification whatsoever


 * Crosswalk
 * 26 English Translations
 * Interlinear Bible/Lexicon (Strong's KJV or Strong's NAS)
 * Parallel Bible reading from 2 sources
 * Commentaries: Darby's New Testament, The Fourfold Gospel, Geneva Study Bible, John Gill's Exposition of the Bible, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown), Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible, People's New Testament, Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament, Scofield Reference Notes, Spurgeon's The Treasury of David, Wesley's Explanatory Notes
 * Concordances: Nave's Topical Bible, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Torrey's New Topical Textbook, Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (also by Torrey)
 * Dictionaries: Baker's Evangelical dictionary of Biblical Theology, Easton's Bible Dictionary, Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary, Jack Van Impe's Dictionary of Prophecy Terms, King James Dictionary, Smith's Bible Dictionary
 * Encyclopedia: Condensed Biblical Encyclopedia
 * History section: Old Testament Apocryphal Writings, The Works of Flavius Josephus, Pseudoepigrapha, Apocrypha, Creeds and Confessions, Fox's Book of Martyrs, Sketches of Church History, Writings of the Early Church Fathers (38 volume collection)
 * Other Resources: Scripture Alphabet of Animals ("Here is a short study on thirty-three animals mentioned in the Bible. Some of the animals have alternate names as we know them today."), A Guide to Bible Study, Luther's 95 Theses
 * Copyright status can be found by clicking "Online Study Bible"
 * Annoying ads all over the place
 * Annoying "Buy Now" buttons next to everything you try to use... why? I can read Wesley's notes for free on your site!

Well, it's no easy decision. I think my vote is for BibleBrowser... lots of educational verse-related info right as you click the link... although it doesn't do anything for the copyright concern. David Bergan 07:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should be linking to a free source whenever possible, so the Wikisource option looks the best to me. However, if you look at the source it only shows you the King James Version. Surely there are other free versions out there, to compare and contrast. For now, if we link to that project, and if it requires a citation to a nonfree translation of the bible (such as a certain way of interpreting a verse), then that needs to be dealt with. Can we include other versions in Wikisource? Perhaps we could transitionally link to Wikisource for regular bible references, but work on the Wikisource:Bible project to include other free versions of the book, and to link appropriately to resources when necessary for an article? (say, for example, Church A only believes in Translation A of the bible, when citing the bible in articles about them, it would be best to link to that translation of the book.). Anyways, just my two cents. -Superbeatles 15:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, this is precisely the issue... Why is it more important to you to link to a free (GFDL) source than one that has a better range of translations, commentaries, and lexicons? I think that an encyclopedia's primary goal is to encourage education, and the secondary goal is to encourage GFDL links. External links are external links... there are all kinds of links to pages that aren't GFDL... so it's not like we're breaking any rule by sending Bible lookups to BibleGateway/BibleBrowser/Crosswalk, any more than cites of Time magazine include links to that magazine's website.


 * Therefore I don't see GFDL as the primary issue. If wikisource was on par with the other three mentioned in terms of translations offered, lexicons available, and easy of use, then certainly we would use it. But as of right now, wikisource isn't even a contender in terms of services, and until it is, I think that the other options meet our primary goal much more effectively. David Bergan 17:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll sum up what I said before. Citing a bible verse is no different from citing any other source. We don't tell editors that they can't cite the New York Times or Washington Post or AP or Reuters because there are other open source news outlets. I see no conflict of interest at all in linking to another site when it comes to bible verses. The fact of the matter is that there are a number of well researched, professional bible translations that are copyright protected. If we make a rule against citing these translations, we are basically saying the best, scholarly sources are unavailable. This makes no sense to me. Because wikipedia is not a primary source, we will never come across an instance where a bible verse is quoted to an extent where it violates fair use. Same thing with any other book. We don't forbid users not to cite Lord of the Rings because it isn't GFDL. We don't favor a particular translation of Plato because of licensing issues. Wikisource and wikipedia are two different things. Just because they share the same prefix does not mean we are forced to use wikisource before we go to outside sources.--Andrew c 17:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Andrew c's well-reasoned statements clarify and summarize the situation admirably. That said, my position is now to determine which of the listed sources would be best in the template. BibleGateway or BibleBrowser would be acceptable. Ads Galore would not be a suitable resource. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree - we can link to external websites - and no one is saying that you can't quote whatever translation you want to - in fact one can continue to quote a specific version the bible as appropriate in the appropriate articles - and I am sure that articles that relate to specific denominations will continue to point to their preferred version.
 * The proposal (subject to modification of the purpose etc through the normal wikiprocess - but this is what I see as the purpose right now) is to 1) identify what outside website to link to, 2) identify how the link should look, 3) provide the ability to link to different translations, and 4) document the use of the template. Then we can edit the template appropriately - provide error messages so we eliminate or reduce getting bad links, coordinate with template gurus (who know how to most effectively use the conditional logic available in mediawiki) where appropriate, and get the template working well. Trödel  18:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, whoever created this page did a great job. Very fair representation of what is at stake. That said (ahem!), of the issues in play:
 * (1) Use of external sources - This is something to consider (this is a wiki afterall), but is generally a negligible factor. Above all, a source is supposed to provide context for/verify the information being presented, and so where the source comes from is probably the least important of the issues, especially when there's little argument that the homegrown source is pretty much the worst. "Trödel and others have concerns that such extensive use of a source that is not compliant with the GFDL is contrary to the wikipedia's goals."  That is a valid concern, but since the Bible doesn't compete with Wikipedia as a source of commentary (but simply as reference), I think this issue is not a deal-breaker for using outside sources. Converely, if this were a template that outside linked to Encyclopedia Britannica or National Geographic, then maybe. But, I mean, the template is even more prolific than this one, and The Internet Movie Database argurably competes with WP - commercially!.
 * (2) Wikisource does not have sufficient material - Considering the plethora of translations in common use, this is a major factor to consider. Not only does WS only have 4 trans, but it is not easy to go between them to compare a single verse (which means 90% of people won't or can't - even if they want to). Even if we could prove that 99.9999999% of Wikipedians only use, say, the Rapper's Bible, why limit yourself to one when you could have 50? When it comes to availability of info, more is usually better. Which brings us to:
 * (3) NPOV - WP doesn't want to tacitly endorse one. More, easily navigatable options are better. Which, although BibleGateway looks the best of all, I would readily endorse BibleBrowser (because it instantly displays so many translation renderings) if the webmasters would show their faces and name their sources (and that lowercase-first-letter business is NOT an option). Crosswalk is all but out (it actually endorses a bible and encourages users to buy it!). Gateway is still looking like the best option.
 * (4) Current template does not always work - More of a logistical than policy issue. It seems that when some books are written grammatically correctly (1 [SPACE] Corinthians) the temp doesn't work. It has to be written incorretly (1Corinthians) to render correctly. I'm sure this can be worked out with some wiki saavy brain-power. Has anyone checked to see if it works better with BibleBrowser?
 * (5) Changing internal links to external links - Reading that does run a chill through me (yikes), but consistancy is important, and if we decide that one way is better, we shouldn't have a grandfather clause on bad policy. Everything should be "correct."--Esprit15d 19:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the best way to do it is to use the Bibleverse template, but prevent the template from linking directly to a version unless one is given. I.e. if its not a particular version that is being cited but just a passage, then it shouldn't go to a "default" version, but somewhere you can choose a version (in the same way that the ISBN thing doesn't go straight to amazon.com but to a list of alternatives). I value the Bibleverse template, or at least the site it links to (which is run by User:Jnothman), because it does truly provide a list of online sources for each version, and Jnothman seems amicable enough to add new versions as requested.

Linking to BibleGateway means that only conservative protestant translations are available. The NRSV which is officially accepted by a number of major denominations, and the NAB which is the main catholic translation, are not available at all on BibleGateway. Jnothman's link thing (which can be accessed directly via this external link, or indirectly via template:Bibleverse) not only provides the translations used by BibleGateway (in fact it links to BibleGateway for most of these translations), but additionally links to the NAB and NRSV. Therefore I think it counts as superior to a direct BibleGateway link, since it affords a much wider choice of versions.

However, if we are to have a "default" version, I think the most neutral version should be chosen. Currently the Bibleverse template "default" version is the NIV, which is probably the most neutral out of those at BibleGateway. However, now that Jnothman has kindly added the NAB and NRSv, I think that the "default" should be the NRSV, since this has the most official consensus amongst major Christian groups (Presbyterian Church (USA), Anglicanism, semi-official in Roman Catholicism (it is used outside of services), some dioceses of Eastern Orthodox (its borderline in many), and Reform Judaism (as far as the Old Testament goes)), as well as support from secular textual scholars. 20:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ps - the current template can cope with 1_Corinthians (use an underscore instead of a space) correctly. Clinkophonist 20:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Solutions
The "maps" solution is interesting, but probably too much. If reading an article about, say, the Apostle's Creed, and I come across a verse that is referenced, in one click I want to read the verse... not click to get a spread of external links and then pick one of those to get to the verse. Sure I want all the tools at hand once I read the verse, and then get intrigued into further research (ie Deuteronomy 23:1), but I think it's an unnecessary waste of server CPU cycles and bandwidth (and users' time) to have a 2-click solution.

I like the "biblebrowser" solution the best. For verses that have an article in wikipedia, I think something like the combination proposal is better... better yet if you could make the superscript link go directly to BibleBrowser rather than the 2-click note and then link solution. We could make another brand new template for these kinds of articles.

Concerning the comment that the book has to be lowercase, it wouldn't be hard to write up a php script to normalize verse idiosynchronies... so that it automatically lowercases the book, interprets en- and emdashes correctly, puts (or deletes) the space between 1 Corinthians, etc. I could jimmy up a bibleversecleanup.php and put that on wikipedia.org so that the template calls bibleversecleanup.php, and then it immediately cleans the format and redirects to the proper BibleBrowser verse. It's the same process of the current template, just that his php script (view source) is hosted at http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/ instead of wikipedia.org... and I think he tried to get it posted on these servers, but no one gave him the permission needed. Actually, now that I look at his script more carefully, it's very well thought-out, and covers quite a bit. It does all kinds of input correction like I was talking about. The only change we may need to make is to ask him to make BibleBrowser the default except when a requested translation isn't on their site, then it would make BibleGateway #2 tier, and Crosswalk #3, etc.

Even though there has been a lot of discussion, that doesn't mean that the solution has to be equally immense. Tweaking a couple lines of his code is probably all we need to do. (And then we could also host his on wikipedia servers, which I'm sure php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au would appreciate!) David Bergan 21:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts:

There is one big issue with Biblebrowser that I noticed. Their hit counter says that they have had 366,625 total hits. This version from archive.org says that their hit counter started July 10, 2004. So in two years, they have had 366,625 hits, or, something on the order of 500 hits/day. If every single one of our Bible references links to them, I think we would easily give them in excess of 500 hits per day ... we would more than double their traffic. Dumping tons of traffic on someone is not a very nice thing to do if they are a free resource. If the template is used widely enough, it could even bring down their server. If they are going to be used, someone needs to at least ask their permission.

I would go out on a limb and assume that this isn't as big of an issue with biblegateway.com. Their alexa rating is 1648, so the traffic Wikipedia would add probably isn't as big of a deal. (It's still a good idea to ask, though.)

That said, I by far prefer BibleBrowser's layout. It avoids POV issues of what translation are we linking to. You know that if we link to just the KJV or just (anything non-KJV), then the KJV-onlyists or the anti-KJV crowd will get upset. Biblebrowser is great because it shows a diversity. I also really like the idea of expanding the list in the area.

I don't like using the maps solution particularly. If we can't show the full text of every translation (something that would be useful but can't be done because of copyright), then we're making someone click twice to see the actual text. That's annoying. The biggest thing I DON'T like about the current system is that it introduces an intermediate step in the process. I don't like that in principle - it would be too easy for someone to put malicious code in there and we would be feeding them thousands of customers for whatever they are selling.

BigDT 01:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

One Click, Onetime Selection
Strongly recommend keeping a very simple one click that takes you straight to viewing the text. Provide for a one time selection of the preferred site, language, version, (& display language.)

Excellent discussion of issues above. Biblegateway appears to have much more extensive selections on languages than previously noted. e.g., 25 languages, 70 versions. It also has added English or Spanish display option. See my additions above. The BibleBrowser is handy to compare parallel versions etc. However appears to only handle free versions. For copyrighted versions BibleBrowser transfers you to BibleGateway or Crosswalk (as noted). My preference is to use BibleGateway for clean efficient use. Others may prefer BibleBrowser or Crosswalk etc. Access to all should be provided.

Each organization has its own funding mechanism. Some by donation, some by advertising sales, some by licensing. While it is handy to offer free versions, it would be an a priori imposition restricting users to certain funding modes, to insist on free only. Compare Linux vs Microsoft. etc. It is more important to offer all options and let the user select with the least hassel and clicks. Wikipedia does not have the mission of translating Bibles. Thus please link to all avaliable resources from organizations with that mission. DLH 13:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Relative Traffic
From Alexa.com
 * Biblegateway.com top 1,679, Daily Reach 400-800/million
 * Crosswalk.com top 6,486, Daily Reach 100-300/million
 * BibleBrowser top 74,940 Daily Reach 10-20/million
 * Shamash.org/Tanach top 86,378 Daily Reach 10-50/million

Give users the option first time to select. From these stats, my vote is to show BibleGateway as default as being able to clearly handle the traffic, and 3-4 times more popular than Crosswalk. Directing default Wiki traffic to BibleBrowser with 40 times lower traffic could cause major server throughput problems. DLH 13:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine that those numbers are right. BibleBrowser's hit counter, which gets fired with every page view of any verse, says under 400K hits in two years. That's a far cry from 10-20 million hits per day ... or maybe "daily reach" means something other than what I think it does. BigDT 14:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe Daily Reach should be read as "four hundred to eight hundred per million". These numbers could also be shown in percentages: .04%-.08% (I'm imaging percent of all internet traffic?).--Andrew c 17:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That is correct - reach expressed as a % of internet users that visit the site each day. For sites with far less traffic it is expressed as a people per million value. -- Trödel 21:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Background and proposal: Modifications to Template:bibleverse
I created the script that runs bibleverse for Wikipedia in early 2005 to solve a number of problems, among them:
 * allowing different versions to be used where appropriate
 * allowing multiple forms of passage reference to be used
 * allowing the mode of reference to then be consistent independent of the resulting source

Now, biblebrowser is pretty comprehensive at collecting together a number of freely available sources. There are, though, some important translations that are not included because they are available on the web only in Copyrighted forms. In particular, the only Jewish translation provided is the JPS1917 edition which, as discussed in the Jewish Publication Society of America Version article, is barely supported any longer within the Jewish community and is only popular online. The more current JPS edition is highly used within non-Orthodox circles (but is only available online in a Copyrighted and structurally limited form of the pentateuch), and Orthodox communities use a number of variations including the Judaica Press Complete Tanach available online only Copyrighted from Chabad.org; also the Artscroll Stone Edition, which is unavailable online, etc. Furthermore, many citations are made relevant only when the source provides an additional well-known commentary (the JPCT includes that of Rashi, for instance). Reference to such commentary should, where possible take the same form of link as other bible references for the sake of uniformity, and so that when WikiSource gets up to scratch, including commentaries, it will be easy to change to using it if everything has been making use of the same template. Biblebrowser also completely excludes the deuterocanonical material in the Orthodox and Catholic bibles. While GPL is important, it is not as important as NPOV and actually giving the information required- and the ability to change it when we need to, which my script and template provide for.

Finally, biblebrowser is simply too cluttered for the non-experienced user.

Now: I am willing to do three significant things, with the result that bibleverse in its current form will be retained-
 * 1) Add Biblebrowser to the list of sources available to bibleverse (but I don't recommend using it because it is simply too confusing); also add WikiSource.
 * 2) Creating a source option, or multiple, in my bibref script (which I have been working up to), which will list those sources available containing the particular book chosen, and thus allowing the user to choose their source. It may also give additional choices that allow users to limit the list of books and store their preferences in a cookie, or to choose a preference which will always be shown instead of giving a list. (Still, references, say, to a particular commentary will need to link to a particular source, though, but it can still use the same template.) I think this is potentially a very powerful option that puts the choice into the user's hand. I need suggestions for implementation and ideas.
 * 3) Moving my script to a Wikimedia tools server and adding a GPL, given their permission.

Comments?

jnothman talk 04:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Status update: I have started mocking up a listing of all sources for a referenced book. It will be the default link if no other source is given:
 * jnothman talk 05:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * jnothman talk 05:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * jnothman talk 05:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * jnothman talk 05:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * jnothman talk 05:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions
Hi - thanks for your comments on Citing sources/Bible, for the work you did on the PHP and the bibleverse template, and especially for your willingness to donate the work under the GPL. Just wanted to clarify that my concerns on the template were initiated by some replacements on pages I watch of internal links to articles about a chapter of the bible to external links. And at this point, I think the purpose of the discussion (or at least my purpose in starting the page) is not to get rid of bibleverse but to modify it so that it produces a result that better meets the NPOV needs of wikipedia (while favoring GFDL sources where possible).

I like your suggestions - though as a result of my review of stuff I am liking biblebrowser better, even with its cluttered design (for the non-initiate). There has been some concerns about how many hits adding link from wikipedia will add to the websites under discussion. Do you have any statistics on how many hits your redirect at *.edu.au is getting?

Finally - not knowing much about PHP or how it interacts with wikipedia. Is it possible to have something like the ISBN thing - where when you click on the link it takes to a page with links to different sources - similar to the combination proposal - and allow one to skip to a specific source based on a user setting in their .js or .css file. Someone suggested this - and it seems like a pretty good idea to me. Trödel 17:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Answer
I would've preferred, I think, if discussion was kept on the page or on the talk page of Citing sources/Bible, but I'll reply here anyway.

Usually if there is a Wikipedia article on the site being linked to it should definitely be used. I don't know that the templates we use can change that much.

I have no statistics on bibref.php use. I don't administrate the web server- it is provided by my university, and the script is open source so evidently has no counter.

Biblebrowser, as I pointed out has two main problems:
 * A protestant POV - no authoritative Jewish translation; no deuterocanonical books
 * Highly cluttered. Sorry, the page is simply overkill by a long shot for the average Wikipedia user wanting to check a bible reference.

An additional problem is that it gives no licensing and so potentially their product IS copyright.

What I was suggesting was to implement essentially the same as what you suggested regarding ISBNs, but not as part of the Wikipedia source code, instead on a tools server. You're right, the advantage is that the bypass system can be made as a User Script if it's on Wikipedia. The problem is that it's harder to include and make modifications if it's internalised as a MediaWiki extension. That shouldn't be a big problem, so yes, it's probably something we should consider.

A further problem is that it's English-specific (not in terms of its sources, but in terms of the current interface) and so will need some redesign if it is to more universally be incorporated.

An issue that makes this different to that with ISBN is that there has to be a little more discretion involved in user preferences, because users may want different sources for different collections of books. For instance, I would rather the Mechon Mamre parallel Hebrew-English version of "Old Testament" books, another source for NT and possibly another for the deuterocanonical. So the user JavaScripting will have to take a different approach: indeed, the current ISBN solution is a hack.

If you wish to transfer this conversation to the page I think it should be on, you're welcome to do so.

jnothman talk 15:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Now realising how Special:Booksources works- no, our PHP script would have to work differently. I'm not sure it would pass as an addition to MediaWiki, but it might pass as an external tool on Wikimedia servers. jnothman talk 15:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Question: what function does the script serve?
I don't question that it's a well-written script ... I'm just asking what it is used for that just a normal template can't do. BigDT 14:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Answer: It sends you places: It lets you input things like kjv or don to specify either the King James version of the bible or the Don King version of the bible, and also the certain place in the scripture. Takes you to the best (sometimes only of a particular translation) available source, we're just trying to find out how we can order them with "Best" favouring the goals of the Wikipublic! Superbeatles  00:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But that can be done with normal template code ... see example:


 * The template could be further refined so that as discussed above, if you click on the link, it will send you to whatever the default location is, but it will also add a that will have multiple versions available in the notes/references section. BigDT 02:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the point of the script is that your template simply won't work. Given a book name in any of the many forms it is used, chances are your ApockKJV link won't work. The biblegateway will work because it has a script within it that normalises the form of the reference passed in. The purpose of the script above is that you can use ALL sources through a common interface, without requiring a certain style of citation (ie Gn, Genesis, Gen and Bereishit are all welcome). For many bible web sites, particularly those that are not freely distributed, books are referred to in the URL by number and not by name (eg bible.ORT.org, Mechon-Mamre.org), or even by an id that is completely arbitrary (eg Chabad.org). It also handles the fact that "bible" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone: ie, none of those Jewish sources are relevant to NT books; Protestant sources won't be relevant for Wisdom or Baruch or the 3rd chapter of Maccabees. It thus is able to give you a wider selection of sources that are applicable to the current book. A script can do all that- a template is much more limited. Is that clearer? jnothman talk 03:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What about this:

(I'm using that as an example - I don't know what the UVA site calls its books.) It could also allow the source to be specified:

BigDT 03:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a very messy template, and I challenge you to use switches to do the same as http://www.ug.it.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibchabad.php does for the chabad.org text. Why not have a much cleaner template that just works through an external script? We're making external links here anyway- why should the burden be on a Wikipedia template and the Wikipedia server to make sure they work? Oh, and your example again requires the assumption that the book name is put in in that full form: see http://www.ug.it.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/biblebooks.txt for name variations. Sorry, but there are some things templates are made for, and this is not really one of them. jnothman talk 04:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe beside the point and/or wrong, but AFAIK a template has no way to determine the user (reader), it can't determine personal preferences. --&#160;Omniplex 09:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dead issue?
Since both edits in the last year were typo fixes, should I assume this issue is dead? I don't see any resolution, so I'm not sure why the discussion stopped.

Is it too late to consider another source? I'm personally fond of The Blue Letter Bible, as it has a wide selection of translations and commentaries. It also gives one-click access to compare about a dozen versions of individual verses. I'm not sure how easy it is to link in from the outside, however. If there is any interest, I or someone else could check on that. Mdotley 18:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Optimum solution? NETBible: A Wiki Approach to the Bible
The NET Bible, a Wikipedia-like, collaborative Internet Bible with extensive footnotes and numerous supporters has a ready-made solution to our woes: As the Wikipedia page for this Bible states,
 * Consider: the NETBibleTagger

"The translation is most notable for an immense number of lengthy footnotes (which often explain its textual translation decision), its open translation process, its availability on the Internet (both during its beta process and in its final form), and its open copyright permitting free downloads and use for ministry purposes."

Naturally, the best Bible citation technology for Wikipedia to use will be a Bible that is co-adapted with the Internet itself. Here is the preface for this Bible so you can see for yourself how this Bible is ideally suited for Wikipedia's purposes.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr magnolias (talk • contribs) 06:02, 17 February 2010
 * Deciding which Bible to use is only part of the issue (and why limit it to one Bible translation?) The construction of a template that would make citing the Bible easier and more Wikipedia friendly is paramount to making this idea work. The idea is that by doing something like, you could get a link and a verse automatically. It isn't only about which translations to use... do you have ideas to suggest how a template should be constructed to make this possible? My preference (I'm assuming others' as well) is for a template that allows the user to specify which translation. e.g.  or something like that.
 * -- Joren (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (P.S. I moved your proposal down here and added your name to it so people would know it was from you. Hope that's ok!)


 * After updating the three sources at the top of the page, I noticed that none of them even have the NET translation. That's unfortunate, as it would be nice to have everything in one place. Actually, the "NET Bible Learning Environment" stands pretty good on its own; it has a fair set of tools (and a text-only mode!!!) but sadly it appears to not have the capability to display a range of verses from non-NET translations. Oh well :) I guess it's possible to use a template that directs the user to different sites depending on the translation desired... e.g. if user says "NET" then go to net.bible.org, if user says "NIV" go to BibleGateway, if user says "parallel" go to bible.cc, etc...
 * -- Joren (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Joren, Thanks for your help and insight. Actually, if you look up a single verse on the NET Bible it's default mode displays a large number of translations for convenience. see for example, John 3:16 on NET Bible:


 * http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Joh&chapter=3&verse=16
 * (i.e., versions included: NET, NIV, NASB, NLT, MSG, BBE, NRSV, NKJV - most are fetched/retrieved from Bible Gateway, so this is already integrated in a helpful and meaningful fashion..)


 * (I do this by just typing in "John 3:16 netbible" into google but damn, I wish it were easier, especially in the context of Wikipedia). What I especially like about the NETBibleTagger technology they have developed, however, is that it just "pops up" the relevant Bible verse, without even having to go to a different webpage. I think this would be especially helpful (and appropriate) for Wikipedia's purposes.) BTW I pinged Jimmy Wales about this on Facebook and this is what he had to say:


 * " I would be happy to campaign for including some default way to link to this - but only if it follows a less abusive copyright policy."


 * I don't fully understand this, however, since (from what I can tell) NETBible has an exceptionally open Copyright policy - again, IMHO, ideally suited to Wikipedia's purposes (and, like Wikipedia, a collaborative/open effort of its own accord):


 * http://bible.org/permissions vs.
 * http://bible.org/ministryfirst
 * From that site:


 * "By making permissions easier, it becomes far easier to post, share, and publish works which quote the Bible.
 * It should be easy to say “yes” to all requests to quote and use the NET Bible (both charitable and commercial use).
 * The “yes” should be automatic for the vast majority of requests,...Let us know how we can better serve your needs."


 * (ie. I am sure NET Bible would be more than willing to cooperate with Wikipedia)
 * Mr magnolias (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. I have seen the parallel capability, and it is good; however, what I am talking about is the ability to cite one translation alone other than the NET version. e.g. in an article on the Ten Commandments' public use, I might want to cite the King Jamaes Version translation of Exodus 20:2-17. Does the net.bible.org interface allow this? Now, if it's possible to cite other translations, then yes, net.bible.org would be an excellent candidate. However, it seems like you can only cite a range of verses (e.g. Ex 20:2-17) with the NET translation. If I'm missing something then please show me how to link to Ex 20:2-17 KJV using their interface.


 * This isn't an all or nothing issue either. We can certainly have a template that allows linking to the NET site if the requested translation is NET. We may even pick them as a default, that's certainly possible depending on consensus. But we absolutely need the capability to cite more than one translation. Not all articles are best served by a modern translation. And consider too that articles about the NASB are going to need NASB verses, articles about Tyndale might want to cite his translation, etc... certainly these can be done manually, but it would be nice to have a template supporting multiple, selectable translations.


 * One more thing... the net tagger looks nice. However, I'm not sure how Wikipedia feels about having off-site Javascript running on Wikipedia pages. Furthermore, it appears to just link all verses without being able to customize how its presented. I personally would prefer a non-Javascript solution; or at the least an on-site Javascript we can program ourselves with more flexibility. BTW - Have you familiarized yourself with template programming at all? They're very powerful! :D
 * -- Joren (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. I don't think Wales was saying he believes their policy is abusive; his message sounds like he just wanted people to check and make sure it isn't abusive - what he means by "abusive", I'm not sure. I'm assuming we don't want them to come sue us for linking to them or quoting them or other such legal nonsense :)
 * -- Joren (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Joren, Regarding Exodus 20:2-17 in KJV. The NET Bible does allow this (specifically for the KJV anyway, I'm not really sure about other translations). "You mean like this?"


 * Exodus 20:2-17 in KJV on NETBible
 * You will note that it also has Strong's concordance integrated... do you see why (for so many reasons) I love this Bible? (To me anyway) it is clearly the most technologically - as well as etymologically - advanced Bible currently available on the Net.
 * As I stated previously (ie in my original post), this is literally a Bible that has co-evolved and is co-adapted, synergistically, with the Internet itself - in so many ways, a non-profit, Wiki-like, collaborative effort much like Wikipedia itself. In all seriousness, check out the preface for the NET Bible and tell me this is not the most advanced, serious, collaborative Bible translation effort of the 21st century. (And no I do not work for them (even as a volunteer, yet), nor am I associated with them in any way aside from being their most vocal advocate, at the present point in time, on Wikipedia.) I just discovered this Bible and thought 'Wow! More people need to know about this. Especially Wikipedians and like-minded open culture collaborators.
 * Mr magnolias (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Not familiar with template programming at all. We need to have a template-programmer have a look at this issue, and consult as appropriate.
 * PPS I absolutely agree with you: "it would be nice to have a template supporting multiple, selectable translations." I am going to look into this and see if I can help make this happen. Do you know anyone who would know how to do this, from a template-programming perspective?
 * I guess I do know somebody after all ;). Check this out: User:Joren/Netbible. It's just an idea, it's a NET-gateway specific template that takes advantage of its tabbing and its mode options. I'm still tweaking it. This template only uses the NET interface; what we'll need in the end is a template that can handle multiple interfaces (since there isn't a single interface with *every* translation needed). In the end if the template is good enough I'd like to move it to Template:Netbible. (note that using this template, regardless of the results of the discussion here, you can cite the NET bible all you want :) only the syntax will be instead of  )
 * -- Joren (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. - I was mucking with the API interface earlier, and then after switching back to the main interface, I did find out (after writing that : that using the tabs feature it does support King James and Hebrew/Greek. Would be nice if the interface had gateways to other translations but it's a good start.