Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/King James Version of the Bible/archive1

King James Version of the Bible
This article failed last time, mainly because of objections that it underestimated the KJV's influence on modern English. I believe those have been fixed. I did some work on this article, but at the most, I've contributed only a couple of paragraphs worth of prose to it. Johnleemk | Talk 09:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support now. Thanks to all concerned for acting on my objections so completely. Filiocht 13:25, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC) Object again. What is still missing from this article is the fact that the KJV set the standard for how literate English prose should be written, a standard that held good more or less until the advent of modernism. It also strongly influenced the writing of poetry, impacting on poetic diction and the range of images available to poets. Specifically, some discussion of the impact of the KJV on writers as diverse as John Bunyan, John Milton, Herman Melville, John Dryden and William Wordsworth would be a minimum requirement. This is, to me, infinitely more important than a discussion of how the readability level of the KJV fits into a foreign educational system's class grading structure. Filiocht 14:49, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * How is the article now? Johnleemk | Talk 18:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * FWIW, references to Milton and Bunyan may be wide of the mark; both men were Geneva Bible readers, and in the original all of Bunyan's quotations in Pilgrim's Progress are Geneva, not KJV. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * yeah, Milton, as a contemporary, will rather have had similar influences than drawn on the KJV. dab
 * I'm interested in seeing if Filiocht has alternative sources about the Bible of choice for Bunyan and Milton. I think it's likely the authors he cites are based on a commonly-quoted paragraph from the Merit Student's Encyclopedia. Johnleemk | Talk 06:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd never heard of the Merit Student's Encyclopedia before. Milton's rhythms are widely recognised as owing a lot to the KJV and the Bunyan reference is from EB. The others are from my own reading, and I could add any number of others. The fact is that every writer of English prose after 1611 was influenced to some degree by the translation, and the impact was immediate. Because it was addressed to the widest audience possible it provided authors with a model for writing prose that moved away from the existing model of scholars addressing scholars to a new paradigm; the author addressing the common reader. This, in turn, became one of the aspects of 'conventional' writing that the modernists were reacting against, though even James Joyce nods in the direction of the KJV. I suspect that part of the problem is that the editors involved in creating this article are coming at it from a religious perspective while I, having no interest in that view, see the KJV as a cultural artefact. As I said above, this objection was raised last time round and simply not addressed. Filiocht 08:56, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC) now addressed Filiocht 13:25, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * hey Filiocht, this may be unfair in reply to a FAC vote, but you would seem the perfect editor to insert your knowledge on this into the article. dab
 * I agree, but I don't think that's necessary as I've done my best to parrot his statements (and that of some other references I've found) in the article. :-p Johnleemk | Talk 13:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral Support: I agree with Filiocht; however, I think that the points he adresses can be shortly summarized with a link to a Main article (e.g. Literary impact of the KJV). Other things that I stubled accross:
 * the King James Version uses words such as "ye", "thee", "thou", "thy" and "thine", and uses phrases such as "Fear thou not/Fear ye not" (instead of "Do not be afraid"). "words/phrases such as" is a rather clumsy way of putting it. the articles focus cannot be to treat the grammar of Early Modern English. I suggest you just say that it uses the old 2nd person singular pronoun (instead of "words such as") and link to Thou and History of the English_language.
 * the quote: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.": are the pronouns referring to God really in lowercase in the original??
 * ok, sorry. Image:KJV Psalm 23 1 2.jpg. dab
 * the article is very long for a FA (not too long, however); other Main articles could be created to export stuff too, also taking some of the burden off this article, making it easier to reach FA standard consistently.
 * However, I think that the article is very fair compared with today's "FA" (Harappan civilization), and will gladly change my vote to support if these points are addressed. dab 15:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * How is the article now? I think the article is just right as it is; perhaps the names of the translators could be exported elsewhere, but other than that, I think there's a "just nice" amount of material right now. And yes, the quote is accurate; see it for yourself on Bible Gateway. Johnleemk | Talk 18:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "makes liberal use of old second person singular pronouns"? I would say it just uses a 2nd sg pronoun whenever the original text has one.
 * I still think you should accommodate Filiocht, and I'm not sure squeezing the authors into the intro is the way to go . A good example would also be the Book of Mormon which slavishly copies the (at the time of its composition archaic) KJV style ;o)
 * but these are trifles in my book. It's good enough for me to change my vote to support. After all "FA" != perfect. dab 19:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Support. Zerbey 23:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. PR IIS 14:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Great article; didn't notice any problems. Spangineer 21:02, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Even I, a bloodthirsty atheist, got quite interested. Answered all my questions. Dbiv 01:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)