Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible/Archive 3

vote for Moses to become a featured article vote
Vote at Featured article candidates/Moses so as too get Moses into a featured article Java7837 23:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Assessment
I have noted that this project does not yet engage in assessment. I am a member of WikiProject Religion, which does engage in assessments. I was wondering if this project would have any objections to the Religion project setting up its banner in a way similar to WikiProject Australia, WikiProject Military history, and others, which have the "parent" banner on top with the assessment criteria and a section below indicating which particular projects have specific interest in the article. I could set up the Religion banner in a way to accomplish this. However, given the complexity involved, I would not want to do so and have things changed back later. Please inform me if this arrangement would be to your satisfaction or not, so I can know how to proceed. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Bible source templates
User:MonkeeSage/Bible templates lists an alternate way to make Bible references. Ideally, there would be one template to the most versatile and preferably non-commercial (until someone comes up with something better, its the usyd.edu.au site). The alternate MS-made templates boast some added functionality, but does this start the trend of using a particular commercial source, and more importantly, using different templates that promote particular versions, etc? Raising the issue here rather than del-listing the templates. -Ste|vertigo 23:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Religion
The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. Badbilltucker 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus nominated for Article Improvement Drive
I recently found that our article on Jesus is the first page that appears when anyone does a Google search of the subject. It is currently, regrettably, only at GA status. On that basis, I would request any individuals who might be interested in helping to bring this article up to FA status to indicate their support for the article being chosen as the AID article at Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles tagged as needing expert attention
Moreh, Mosaic Covenant, Shemhamphorasch and Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an have been tagged as requiring expert attention. Any such assistance in improving these articles would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Badbilltucker 02:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Lazarus and Dives RFC
An RFC has been filed to determine whether or not the position of the Jesus Seminar should be included in Lazarus and Dives. Your comments would be most welcome. --Joopercoopers 23:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Help
So, uh.. I went to Catholic school for 8 years, and I have no idea what this page is talking about: Son of Iniquity. It sounds a bit made-up to me, but is there any redeemable material there? --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 07:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've certainly heard of Son of Perdition - the article should be moved there, as that's the far more usual name. It is just a name though. Its a bit like having separate articles for "Odds bodkins", "Gadzooks", and "Zounds", all of which are swear words referencing Jesus - "God's body-kin", "God's hooks", "God's wounds", respectively. Clinkophonist (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

For Your Attention
There is currently a discussion about whether or not to rename/move Paul of Tarsus. -- Pastordavid 01:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy on Daniel
There is a fierce controversy raging between mostly myself, and about three other editors, at Talk:Book of Daniel over how much representation should be given to the view that it was actually written by the prophet Daniel. I don't know about other Churches, but my church definitively states it was written by Daniel, (at least in its original form). The other three editors are basically insisting that this is not a very significant viewpoint, and so the article should side with scholarly theories and conjectures on the authorship, and has no obligation to stay neutral to all viewpoints. They are at the point now where they are threatening to have me banned from editing the article, because so far I am practically alone in standing in their way of a one-sided hack job. Note that I am not trying to omit a full discussion of their view from the article, but I only think it is fair that they likewise allow some space to other sources on what is canonical even though they may disagree with them. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Up for deletion: the badly named "List of people who went to heaven alive"
This article was a list of three figures from the Jewish Bible when it was put up for deletion. The subject deserves an article, and I'm trying to flesh it out with examples from Christianity (where the concept is obviously important) as well as examples from Islam and other religions. Please help now and we can help a lot of readers with a useful encyclopedia article. As a side benefit, it would be useful to demonstrate (politely) that the subject is serious enough not to deserve the scorn that is part of the deletion discussion now. The discussion is here:

Articles for deletion/List of people who went to heaven alive

Noroton 18:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Labelling Noah's Ark as "Mythological"
There is a problem with a dispute at Noah's Ark with several editors who want to endorse the POV that the Ark is a "fictional ship" by putting it into a category "fictional ships", I said this is a POV but they are now adding the category "mythological ships" which is also obviously a POV-pushing category, and they say all those who do not agree with them are "insignificant" and so discount all opposition. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While the anonymous user who is pushing this topic does seem to be very much out of line, I think that it should be noted that Category:Mythological ships contains this disclaimer: "Ships that figure in traditional stories or legends. See Category:Mythology for the correct meaning of "mythological" in this context." This seems reasonable to me. The USS Constitution is in there as well. Alekjds talk 00:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not any more. I notice its getting rv'd out of that article and all the other historical ships Csernica added it to, because people take mythological ships to mean fictional ships.  He's proving my point. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Linking References
There are many article that reference a Bible verse or passage. Is there any on going effort or planned effort to try to search through articles and convert references to links to the passage on Bible Gateway or wikisource? I think that'd be a good task (probably for a bot). Akubhai 12:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that's a very bad idea. The reason is that Bible Gateway is very biased in its selection; it excludes all scholarly versions (like the NRSV) and all Catholic version of the Bible (like the NAB), as well as Septuagint-based (LXX) versions (whether Greek or English). The Bible reference template (eg. ) links to a site (maintained by a wikipedia editor) where users can select which version of the bible they wish to read the verse[s] in; since its maintained by a wikipedia editor, its much more comprehensive.

Unified Presentation?
As I am new to this project (and Wikipedia actually) please forgive me if this is a silly question or one that has already been addressed. I was reading over this project's goals and according to #2 we are to unify the presentation of the individual books of the bible. My question is, is there a certain structure that we are suppose to use (and if so is there an example of it already in place)? Thanks. Seraphim84 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, its just that there is a wide range of quality and completeness in the articles about the various books. Compare Books of Kings, which is fairly decent, to Leviticus, which is essentially just a content summary.Clinkophonist (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger
It seems to me that this differences in scope between this project and WikiProject Biblical Criticism are comparatively minor. Both effectively cover the same basic subjects and content, just from different perspectives. Also, at least it seems to me, that neither project is particularly active. (I could be wrong here, of course). Maybe merging the two together would be a way to rekindle interest in the activities of the existing projects and possibly improve the amount and quality of content related to the Bible and related subjects, which is I think the ultimate goal of both projects. And, of course, I think the potential of redundant banners and assessments, when there are only such minor differences between the projects, might be avoided as well. John Carter 22:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A merger sounds like a good idea to me. Vassyana 06:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC) (P.S. Barsoom!!)


 * If anyone's really against it, maybe BibCrit could be made a task force of Bible —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TimNelson (talk • contribs) 10:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Textual criticism of the Bible is an area I try to keep on top of, and is rather poorly covered at Wiki atm. I'm taking initiatives to get the basic data up and running, and would love assistance. Experts are very welcome, but it's a great way to learn, so welcome to all comers. Also, we're not writing for experts, we're writing for the general public, so articles written for the people, by the people seems ideal, and the whole point of Wiki. Please come and help us!
 * Anyway, after that word from the sponsor, back on topic. I support the merger for all sorts of reasons, including those proposed by John, Vassyana and Tim. Alastair Haines 14:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * PS hmmm, I also propose an archive of some of this talk page. Alastair Haines 14:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * PPS nice work warlord! ;) Alastair Haines 18:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Its a bit late to mention it, but I think its a good suggestion; the alternative was to make it part of the Anti-Systemic-Bias (in Wikipedia) WikiProject. --User talk:FDuffy 20:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see the connection to this project, but it looks more like a subproject of Anti-Systemic-Bias to me. Clinkophonist (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It was in fact already merged. And it didn't deal with "criticism" of the bible in the sense of being critical of it, but rather "biblical criticism" in the sense of commentary and the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Carter (talk • contribs) 18:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Bible-Sacred Geometry-Cheops Pyramid-Ark of Covenant -Astronomy
http://users.pandora.be/kenneshugo/index.html is a website containing translations of representative topics out of the 10 books in Dutch of Prof. Thijs, Engeneering , Belgian University and High School of Hasselt. This books describe the pyramids sacred geometry as full compatible with the laws of our positive sciences. He gives a mathematical and astronomical explanation of the pyramidal model.

He mainly decodes the explicit number metaphors in the Bible Ancient and New Testament, reflecting exactly the maths and geometry of the  Great Pyramid model, and also astronomical and astrological realities.

I suggested to put in your linktopics a link to my translations website above for : sacred geometry (talk page) pyramid (talk page)

Perhaps Your religion team like to see other references in articles or links in other wikepedia articles?

84.196.90.174 18:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No. That seems to be a self-published source. It doesn't look too notable either. Perhaps the people in the pseudohistory wikiproject (if there is one) might be interested? --User talk:FDuffy 20:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Change suggestions
First, we should have a newsletter. Second, we should put the NIV on here or Wikisource. I'll ask over there. Please respond to this on my talk page. Laleenatalk to me contributions to Wikipedia 12:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What should have separate articles?
There has been a recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psalm 83:18 about what "sections" of the Bible are sufficiently notable in and of themselves to have separate articles. My personal belief is that any major "tale" of the Bible should qualify as its own article, and that the Psalms in particular each probably deserve at least an individual section apiece. I frankly have no clue about how to handle the Proverbs. By "tale" above I am referring to the major coherent stories, such as Joshua at Jericho, Adam and Eve (which might itself get some subarticles), Jesus in the Garden at Gethsemane, and so on. I would welcome any discussion of this matter. Thank you. John Carter 13:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They would all have to conform to Wikipedia standards, most notably in this case having 3rd party reliable sources that point to it's cultural importance. By that I don't mean sermons or teachings based on them, but critical analyses of their specific impact on society. 24.4.253.249 19:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The question then becomes (1) how to we define their "specific impact on society" and (2) does having a large number of published works, such as sermons or teachings, in and of itself qualify as having a specific impact on society? I hope it is understood that I am not trying to lead the discussion toward a desired conclusion here, but am personally clearly not sure how to define this. I am assuming, however, based on the above, that if there are a number of artistic works (paintings, sculptures, dramas, what have you) relating to a given "story" that it would qualify as significant enough for it's own article, which is a start, but at this point only a start. John Carter 19:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good questions. Some stories, like the creation myth and the Flood, show their significance in that they are stories that transcend the Biblical accounts and have had many scholarly works written about them. Artistic works are another good indicator and would cover a lot of the Gospel stories. Another good example would be the Good Samaritan, because of the way it has impacted societal expressions of assistance towards strangers (although the article iteself needs to clarify this more). Sodom and Gammorah, obviously, have had an impact on language and attitudes towards gays. Any major archeology expedition could be used to show relevance of stories about specific sites, such as Jericho. And that's just off the top of my head - I'm sure that many other avenues exist to show their notability. 24.4.253.249 19:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So at least a rough beginning standards for qualifying for a separate article would be having a number of works, including artistic and scientific, which would relate to the specific "story", provided that the story significantly deals with that subject. In this case, I think merely mentioning an old known city whose existence has been proven wouldn't be enough. Also, presumably, a lot of the specific stories relative to the Gospels and Acts would qualify, given the plethora of movies, paintings, and whatnot about them. Provided, of course, that they are specifically relevant to the artwork in question. And, regarding the Hebrew Bible, those stories which have either significantly impacted the public consciousness, like Adam and Eve, David and Goliath, etc., would presumably merit articles as well. I'm also assuming that texts which have been subject of heated discussion between various Jewish or Christian groups regarding translation or interpretation might qualify, particularly if they were involved in some "real-world" activity, like maybe wars and the like. In the other cases, and here I'm thinking of things like Proverbs, any further articles beyond the parent one would probably only be created if the existing article gets too large. This is at least a good start for selecting what to create articles on. John Carter 20:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent)I had to laugh when I read the line, "some "real-world" activity, like maybe wars and the like." Yeah, that definitely qualifies as real-world activity. :) But overall I think you've got the basics of a fine standard for separate articles. 24.4.253.249 20:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

OMG. If you investigate this it looks like there's a huge amount of articles like this. There's already been a general consensus reached on this issue, but certain people seem to be ignoring it. Clinkophonist (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move of Circumcision in the Bible to Circumcision and religion
Please discuss proposed page move at Talk:Circumcision in the Bible. --Coppertwig 00:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

 * 26 September 2007 - expires 1 October

Bible summary of every chapter
I had an idea of creating 1189 pages of summary/commentary/issues of every chapter of the Bible. I actually started setting up the framework and got challenged two or three minutes in. Do you think that this would be a good project? My vision is for every chapter to be represented eventually. Say for example you want to know more about the third chapter of Ruth. That would be a page. Every page would have verifiable sources. Would this be a good idea for a project? If so, what would the index page be? Would this be a category page? Fusek71 22:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Fusek71
 * I would tend to oppose it, simply on the basis that the chapter delineations are somewhat arbitrary. We have discussed above creating separate articles for each major "story" within the Bible, regardless of number of chapters, and I think that that approach, which allows for the discussion of the entire "storyline" or subplot, regardless of chapter markers, would probably be the best way to go. John Carter 23:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is an ongoing discussion on whether individual chapters of the bible are in general notable and should have individual WP articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 Corinthians 14 (2nd nomination). DGG (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Currently, I am also opposed to creating 1189 articles just for the sake of having them. As John point out, at times the chapter creation was rather arbitrary, and there may be a more contextual way to break up the biblical books. For the synoptic gospels, there is a lot of repeated content, and I believe it is much better to discuss each story as one, and add what the different gospels say regarding each episode, instead of having possibly 3 different articles on the exact same episode. And on the other hand, we may have a chapter such as Luke 22, that covers multiple episodes, such as Judas' plot, the Last Supper, Arrest of Jesus, Peter's denial, and the Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus. I think what we have now in the "content" outlines in the gospels articles is sufficient. We don't need another article on Luke 22 to summarize the half a dozen spinout articles that already cover that content (not to mention the same episodes are retold in Mark 14, Matthew 26, and partially John 13 and 18). Finally, I do not believe that most of the articles on the other books of the bible are at the point where they are too long and would require spinning out. We should finish the individual book articles before starting individual chapter articles. Perhaps we should focus our energies for the time being in improving (and maybe even reaching FA status) on individual books.-Andrew c [talk] 14:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am opposed to creating the articles just for the sake of them. Although most of the Bible is notable, I do not believe that the chapters are notable as distinct units, particularly since they aren't original. We have articles discussing the subject matter in many biblical chapters, so any article about the chapters themselves would be a fork of these articles. It is also a very bad way to lay out an encyclopedia - articles should be about subjects, not arbitrary divisions of the text. For example, the sermon on the mount covers several chapters, and Christ the Logos covers just a few verses at the beginning of John. The only thing that covers things on chapter-by-chapter principles is a commentary; but this is an encyclopedia - it should be about subjects, topics, etc. Imagine if the Harry Potter articles had been arranged on a Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, page 1, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, page 2, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, page 3 basis. Clinkophonist (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It transpires that this matter is more prevalent than I had initially thought. I have arranged an AfD on this matter:
 * Articles for deletion/non-notable bible-division articles Clinkophonist (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Biblical original research
For a good while, User:Rktect has been making significant modifications to various biblical articles — for example, compare his/her changes to Stations list here. S/he has been blocked four times, twice in the last three months, after long insertions of original research. Please compare the current version of Elim (Bible) with the way it was before Rktect began editing it in July. I'd appreciate it if some of you in this wikiproject would watch a bunch of these articles, lest this OR be restored. Nyttend 23:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Bible article
A proposal has been made on Talk:Bible to split the current Bible article into two separate articles, Hebrew Bible and Christian Bible, with Bible becoming a redirect to Bible (disambiguation). Best, --Shirahadasha 05:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion has proceeded and proposals have been made to restructure and rewrite the Bible article. Please provide input into this discussion at Talk:Bible. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Specific policy needed on capitalisation
A debate has arisen today at Talk:Creationism regarding capitalization. It seems that on wikipedia, all proper adjectives are capitalized, eg. we are supposed write 'Vedic' when describing the Veda, 'Talmudic' for the Talmud, 'Lithuanian' for Lithuania, etc., that is, as opposed to "vedic" "talmudic" and "lithuanian". That is the normal rule for all proper adjectives in English. However, it seems that there are a few academic style guides that apparently make a single exception for the Proper Adjective to describe the Bible, and insist that it be written "biblical" rather than "Biblical". I advise that Wikipedia in order to maintain a semblance of neutrality, not adopt this style, which I claim is followed by a minority, but the editor debating me claims by a majority. It is inherently unfair and inconsistent to reserve a special rule for the Bible among all other books and insist its accompanying adjective be the only Proper Adjective in the English language to be written in lowercase. Til Eulenspiegel 14:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[BELOW IS THE DISCUSSION COPIED FROM Talk:Creationism Why repeat my points verbatim here?]

All proper adjectives in the English language are capitalized. For example, we write "Quranic" and not quranic, "Vedic" and not vedic, "Australian" and not australian, so why must "Biblical" be a special exception? It makes no sense at all. If you check the history of the usage of the word, you will see that "Biblical" has always been more common than "biblical" according to the OED, notwithstanding what a few recent style guides like Chicago may attempt to impose. Til Eulenspiegel 14:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Wikipedia generally follows "recent" (i.e., first published in 1906)style guides like Chicago (see the Bible article for examples). Also, the OED is not a style guide, it is a dictionary. Whether or not you agree with the rationale, its important to be consistent, hence the lowercase b on biblical and capital B on Bible. I noticed your spelling of "capitalisation" on the heading, and I'm wondering if this is yet another British vs. American spelling difference. Either way, don't go randomly changing from one to the other. Thanks — DIEGO  talk 14:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has no such specific policy to write "biblical" while at the same time writign "Vedic" "Talmudic" and "Koranic", etc. If you can, please show me this policy.  This is a grave injustice that needs to be dealt with, and it is perhaps indicative of the special vehemence certain POV scholars and academics hold  for the Bible alone, as opposed to the Koran, Talmud and Veda, to supposedly make "biblical" the only proper adjective in the entire language NOT to be capitalised. Til Eulenspiegel 14:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a guideline to maintain consistency within an article or related group of articles (WP:STYLE). The word biblical is simply not capitalized in the vast majority of printed sources published within the last 50 years. That counts for something. This is not a "Wikipedia-specific" issue, it is a matter of common usage. Like I said, you may not agree with the rationale, but that doesn't mean it is appropriate to go around adding a capital B to biblical. A quick Google search will reveal millions of examples of biblical (small b). These are not all errors, that is just the way it is spelled. I don't know why Vedic is capitalized but biblical is not. I'm neither a linguist nor a high school English teacher. But it doesn't really matter why, it only matters what is. Do you spell "quixotic" with a capital Q? Just curious. There are plenty of proper adjectives that are not capitalized. Where is the "grave injustice" here? This is just spelling. Capital letters are not an indication of inherent respect. Not capitalizing biblical is not disrespectful to the content of the Bible, it is simply a convention of language. Also, if you really believe this is a grave injustice, take up the issue with the style manuals, the Associated Press and the millions of people who write 'biblical. I repeat this is not a "Wikipedia" issue. The article simply follows actual English usage. — DIEGO  talk 14:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is prejudice and will obviously have to be dealt with to establish a specific, fair site-wide policy. I would also dispute that the uses of "biblical" as opposed to "Biblical" are or ever have been in the majority.  Siding with style guides that single out just one proper adjective is not neutral, and unfair.  BTW, "Quixotic" is capitalised when it is used as a proper adjective, that is, to refer to the accompanying proper noun, eg. "in Quixotic literature" perhaps.  But it is not capitalised when used as a common adjective, to describe an abstract quality. Til Eulenspiegel 14:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the prejudice? Whether I call something Biblical or biblical, the content of the statement does not change. Whether I refer to a man as Black or black, the content doesn't change. Please provide evidence that capital B is more prevalent today (not over the course of history -- that's not how style and usage decisions are made). Which current style guides (not dictionaries, which do not prescribe usage)recommend a capital B? Where are the examples of Biblical being used on Wikipedia (not in the first word of a sentence, obviously). I don't honestly understand why this is a problem, and I especially do not understand how you can find "prejudice" and "grave injustice" in a simple style issue. Please try to take the emotionality out and look at the facts. And by "facts" (see today's FA, Truthiness), I mean "how is the world actually spelled in the majority of recent publications?" If this were really a "grave injustice", why are you the first person to take issue with it so strenuously? Where is the Christian lobby demanding a capital B on biblical? I imagine they have more important things to feel insulted about. Thanks. — DIEGO  talk 14:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is obvious prejudice to single out one book from all the books of the world and give it special treatment in this way, while continuing to write "Vedic", "Talmudic", etc. This is now being taken up at WP:BIBLE. Til Eulenspiegel 15:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[ABOVE COMMENTS PASTED FROM DISCUSSION AT TALK:CREATIONISM]


 * Just pointing out, I am only representing myself as a neutral editor trying to ensure even-handedness across the board; I am not aware of any "Christian lobby" on this issue, but it may be that most editors at Wikipedia would agree with me on the neutrality issue here and not make any special linguistic exceptions in style for just one proper adjective that almost seems like it has been singled out from among all proper adjectives in English. Til Eulenspiegel 15:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Til Eulenspiegel, I completely agree that capitalizing Talmudic, Vedic, etc. while not capitalizing biblical is inconsistent. Also, Biblical is clearly an acceptable variant. However, I think you are making an error by assuming that this inconsistency is an indication of prejudice against Christianity. There are many inconsistencies in English usage, and they often have a relatively simple explanation that does not point to any "grave injustice". For example, personal pronouns are generally not capitalized, but in many Bible translations (even modern ones), pronouns referring to God are capitalized (e.g., Him, His, etc.). From a linguistic standpoint, this is inconsistent (why does one (three?) God(s) out of thousands deserve to have pronouns capitalized?), but it is nonetheless a convention that has become accepted, given the heavy influence of Christianity upon the culture of most English-speaking Western nations. It is not the job of Wikipedia to dictate usage based on a perception of fairness, when that usage is not widely supported in sources that are deemed reliable by Wikipedia standards. Generally, when disputes arise, general usage as determined by the MLA, AP, and various style guides usually wins out (although the recent Burma/Myanmar debate on Wikipedia is an exception, in which historical predominance of Burma was favored over the overwhelming current usage of Myanmar). The point is, despite any seeming inconsistencies, Wikipedia should not be the exception and should follow the same guidelines as other published sources (If Wikipedia chooses to capitalize Biblical when most other sources do not, it will indeed be the exception). As I have said above, this is a usage and style issue. If you want your argument to be heard, please support it with evidence, not emotional appeals to fairness and neutrality. In this case, please provide evidence that Biblical is more common than biblical in actual current usage. This is an encyclopedia, and "academic" sources are generally considered important, whether in the form of usage and style guides or actual primary and secondary sources.


 * Regarding the "Christian lobby": my point is that there is no vocal lobby on this issue because it is not that important. Here in the U.S., there is a vocal "Christian lobby" (e.g., Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, the Moral Majority, etc) and the capitalization of biblical is not a pressing issue for them. And for what it's worth, I learned in junior high English class many years ago (in a Christian school) that biblical is not capitalized, so clearly not all Christians share your view that this is an indication of prejudice. I don't know why biblical is one of only a few exceptions to the grammatical convention of capitalizing proper adjectives, but that is not really the issue here. By the way, would anyone actually write "Quixotic literature", given the ease with which the phrase could be misconstrued (capitalized or not) to mean "whimsical and capricious literature"? — DIEGO  talk 17:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems you are totally misrepresenting me, since I have never stated anything like "this inconsistency is an indication of prejudice against Christianity", nor have I even once used "Christianity" as an example in my argument. When I said "prejudice", I meant against the Bible (the title of a book) as opposed to all other book titles that are routinely capitalized. (Remember that Christians do not have a monopoly on the Bible, it is revered by various other faiths as well.)  It seems the wikipedia editors who use the term "biblical" will quite often also write the title of the book as "bible", even while capitalizing the title of every other book in the world.  This is also indicative of the same mentality because "Bible" is obviously a Proper Noun, not a common noun. I dispute your assertion that "most other sources" on Google favor "biblical", from what I can google it seems "Biblical" is overwhelmingly preferred. As for "Quixotic literature": Sarah Florence Wood (2005) in her treatise on Quixotic Literature always capitalizes Quixotic when used as a Proper Noun ("In her preface to Slaves in Algiers (1794), Susanna Rowson works to de-politicise her play [...], instead positioning her piece within the realm of Quixotic literature.")  However, here is an example from another work where it is clearly used as a common adjective (i.e., not referring to the book, but as a descriptive adjective, "quixotic"): "His sense of irony elevates the movie beyond the level of facile satire and into a fresh form of quixotic literature."  You will find this convention is nearly always adhered to by authors in detemining whether 'Quixotic' is a proper or a common noun. Til Eulenspiegel 17:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Plain Google searches don't ditinguish between capital and lowercase. So unless you've combed through the 47,000,000 hits... Also, it is capitalized at the beginning of a sentence (and on web page titles), so in this case Google isn't particularly helpful unless you comb through the actual articles. Also, Bible should clearly be capitalized, so adding that issue simply muddies this debate (you also seem to be attributing some sort of motivation to the use of bible that isn't apparent on the surface). Whether we're talking about "Christianity" or the "Bible", I still don't see any evidence of "prejudice" or "grave injustice". Again, all you have to do is provide some evidence that Biblical is more commonly used than biblical. There is not much point in continuing to debate in the absence of any evidence indicating that there is anything worth debating. If you can provide solid evidence, I will concede your point. I don't really have a horse in this race. I simply think Wiki usage should reflect general usage. — DIEGO  talk 17:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * True, but looking over the first few pages of results does not show anywhere near as many hits for "biblical" even when used in the middle of a sentence, what method were you using when you claimed it showed the exact opposite? Til Eulenspiegel 18:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Discounting page titles and usage as the first-word in a sentence. Go through the first two pages and take a look at the documents. Also, try a Google News search. It should weed out bad unrepresentative sources.


 * I don't think that this would ever rise to the level of "policy" as said above, but could be perhaps addressed on the appropriate Manual of Style page, Proper names. That would probably be the proper place to go to do try to include the capitalization of Biblical in the style guideline. John Carter 17:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here is a list of reliable sources (both religious and otherwise) that do not capitalize biblical, except in special circumstances (i.e., First word in sentence, part of title, part of a proper name [e.g., Women for Biblical Equality], etc.). Note that all of these sources capitalize Bible unless using the word generically (e.g., "...is the bible of conspiracy theorists"). Despite another editor's belief that biblical is the only proper adjective not capitalized (apparently an indication of prejudice against the Bible), these sources feature many other examples of non-capitalized proper adjectives (e.g., godly, scriptural, christological, french fries, bourbon whiskey, venetian blinds, quixotic, roman numeral, etc.):
 * Merriam Webster Dictionary – the preeminent dictionary of American English.
 * Biblica – Scholarly journal published by the Pontifical Research institute in Rome
 * Journal of Biblical Lierature – author’s submission guidelines (follows The SBL Handbook of Style & Chicago Manual of Style)
 * Theology Today – Journal published by Princeton Theological Seminary devoted to Christian theology. Submission guidelines specifically direct authors not to capitalize biblical (or godly, scriptural, etc.). Also refers authors to The SBL Handbook of Style & Chicago Manual of Style)
 * Beliefnet – Large site devoted to spirituality and religion
 * Christianity Today – Leading evangelical Christian magazine
 * The New York Times
 * Both Zondervan and Eerdmans - Large publishers of Bibles and Christian literature.

Style Manuals that specifically mention biblical as a non-capitalized word or direct writers to use the first example in Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged or Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (which do not capitalize biblical) when in doubt about capitalization: — DIEGO  talk 21:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The SBL Handbook of Style - leading style guide used in Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Published by the Society of Biblical Literature)
 * Chicago Manual of Style - Widely used American style guide for academic and trade publications.
 * The Publication Manual of the APA - The de facto standard for academic publications in the social sciences (published by the American Psychological Association).
 * The Associated Press Stylebook - Style used by the AP and adopted by the majority of print journalists in the U.S. (with notable exceptions).
 * I'm not sure about the The MLA Style Manual, which is the most commonly used style guide for scholarly work in the humanities (I don't have a copy).


 * Re: "these sources feature many other examples of non-capitalized proper adjectives (e.g., godly, scriptural, christological, french fries, bourbon whiskey, venetian blinds, quixotic, roman numeral, etc.)"  Even if those adjectives were ultimately derived from proper nouns, there seems to be something about every one of those examples in their usage that makes them more "common" descriptors rather than "proper" (like the Title of a book is obviously a proper noun, so we capitalise book titles). I don't think any of thise examples are comparable to taking an obvious proper noun like the title of a book and insisting it be treated as common for no given reason whatsoever.  Some sources do claim that both biblical and Biblical are acceptable, and it's true both forms seem to enjoy some currency, but I am not convinced that 'biblical' should be chosen or preferred on grounds that it allegedly has 'more' currency, especially because I am not convinced that it is the case that it has more currency.


 * But what I really want is for the guideline on this (okay, not a policy) to be nailed down in the MOS. If the de facto guideline of Wikipedia is actually and seriously that we should write "Talmudic" "Vedic" and "Quranic" etc. etc. for every other genuine Proper Adjective, but that we should make a special allowance for "biblical" while pretending we are "neutral", then I want this guideline spelled out on the MOS to reduce confusion and ambiguity. Til Eulenspiegel 21:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The other non-capitalised proper adjectives were not really the point. The point is that none of these sources capitaize the word biblical. Regarding biblical (in reference to the Bible) being treated "as common for no given reason whatsoever"; there is a reason. The reason is "these popular sources and authoritative style guides specifically use biblical rather than Biblical. That is the most common usage in print, and Wikipedia should follow suit by not capitalizing biblical. The "why" (from a linguistic/grammatical perspective) is not particularly important for the purposes of editing Wikipedia. You obviously think that knowing the reason for this inconsistency is important, and if you really need to know, I'm sure you can send an email to the Society of Biblical Literature (or Merriam-Webster, etc.) and ask them why biblical should not be capitalized. However, all we need to concern ourselves with here is actual usage, not the reason behind the usage. For example, does it matter why WP:STYLE insists that only the first word of headings should be capitalized? I think it looks ugly and I don't see any good reason for it, but my opinion is irrelevant; I am still expected to only capitalize the first word in article headings. I know you're probably thinking that article headings are not an apt comparison because there is and official Wikipedia guideline on that. However, the lack of a guideline is not the point. Wikipedia cannot possibly have a guideline covering every single usage variation (although I do not object to a guideline in this case), so the appropriate thing to do in the absence of a specific guideline is to turn to the sources deemed acceptable by Wikipedia and the academic community and ask ourselves, "what do they do?" In this case it is clear: they do not capitalize biblical and it really doesn't matter why.. — DIEGO  talk 22:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I do believe it is a type of prejudice or bias that would ultimately account for the reason that all other books get capitalized proper adjectives, but a special, unique exemption is shown for this one. There is no comparable case in English for such a proper adjective being lower case.  There are also many, many sources stating that Biblical and biblical are both acceptable variants.  In the vital interests of maintaining a semblance of neutrality, Wikipedia should not insist on enforcing a unique lowercase standard for one religious book.  I suggest we get some third opinions rather than let one editor pontificate that Wikipedia must adhere to select, carefully chosen style guides as, er, the gospel authorities for the (unofficially regulated) English language. Til Eulenspiegel 22:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not pontificating, I simply listed authorities in the field that use biblical rather than Biblical. Unfortunately for you, no one else seems to care. Prejudice? Then why do these organization (representing Bible-believing Christians and the majority of biblical scholars) continue to perpetuate this "prejudice" when they could simply use the acceptable variant, Biblical?


 * "Unfortunately for me, no one else seems to care" but that exactly is what WP:3o is for, when there is an impasse between two editors, to avoid making that claim, because we want a consensus, so now that i have listed this page there, we should be able to get more voices soon. Til Eulenspiegel 22:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This "dispute between two editors" has the potential to affect Wikipedia MOS guidelines, so I think an official Request for Comment on the RFCrel listing would be more appropriate. I can use AWB to post neutrally-worded links to the RFC on all article talk pages within the appropriate categories. That should generate a large response. Is the following RFC wording neutral enough for you?
 * Both Biblical and biblical are common and acceptable variants for the adjective form of the proper noun Bible. Should Wikipedia adopt a specific style guideline recommending one over the other? If so, excluding obvious situations requiring capitalization (e.g., first word of a sentence, part of a proper name, etc.) should biblical or Biblical be the preferred form?


 * If this works for (or if you don't respond) I'll go ahead and post the RFC. I think an RFC will provide plenty of opinions to help reach consensus. Thanks — DIEGO  talk 23:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that RFC wording passes the muster for being a neutral description of the dispute... Thank you, Til Eulenspiegel 00:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

3O response
Since a 3O was requested, I'll provide one even though you're also going to open an RFC. In my opinion, since modern usage (including the MLA - I couldn't find an actual link to their style suggestion, but their own website uses the lowercase format ) clearly supports "biblical", I'd suggest that become the preferred usage if a guideline is added to the MOS. I'm not going to suggest that Wikipedia go contrary to the Chicago Manual, the APA, MLA, and the Society of Biblical Literature by using a capital B when all of those style organizations suggest lower. Strunk & White do not address the issue in the Third Edition (the copy I have). --Darkwind (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad this will be going to RFC. This question will be illustrative of whether Wikipedia will slavishly follow the Chicago Manual et. al as the ultimate regulating authority for details of the English language (equivalent to the Sorbonne for French), in order to validate a sentence such as "a number of Vedic, Talmudic, Koranic and biblical scholars were consulted", as somehow showing the impartiality we are supposed to show.  I was taught all my life that the reason for capitalisation of proper nouns and adjectives is that it is a mark of respect -- being an actual name of something, book title, etc.. -- given even to our worst enemies' names.  The only argument or rationale we have seen presented for following Chicago Manual et al. is basically the one that says it simply has to be, because "That's just the way it is".  To which I respond, "Hey, ol' man, how can you stand to think that way? Did you really think about it, before --YOU-- 'made' the Rules?" So, Veda gets to have Vedic, Quran gets Quranic, Talmud gets Talmudic, but the accompanying adjective to describe the Bible has to be "biblical", "just because WE say so"???


 * Such a policy would be the clearest sign to the world yet, of impartiality totally falling by the wayside at Wikipedia thanks to editors who proudly wear their POV-pushing special interest labels like a badge and spill vast quantities of virtual ink, all the while pretending to be 'disinterested' (I fondly remember the very earliest days at Wikipedia, when our editing population was much tinier, and all editors were strongly discouraged from revealing any of their personal views or sympathies on their homepages, in order to promote thinking "neutral", and those few who did, were correspondingly taken less seriously as 'neutral' editors; but those days appear to be permanently a thing of the past now, how very sad) and now we are seeing the promotion of bias, singling out, and open condescension by using every trick in the book, picking and choosing our "authorities", just in order to have double standards and disguise an underlying POV as "neutral". Til Eulenspiegel 11:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Citing the major style guides, plus the Society of Biblical Literature, is hardly "picking and choosing our 'authorities'". Be reasonable. Vassyana 13:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For what little it might be worth, I think one of the major reasons "biblical" isn't capitalized anymore is that, because the Bible is such a present factor in Western, including English, life, it's usage has gone beyond simply referring to the Bible to a broader usage, and on that basis it can be said, when used more broadly, to not be directly referring to the Bible at all. None of the other scriptures mentioned have such a high reputation that their names have been used in this less accurate way yet. As a specific example, I remember having heard Tom Baker once talk about how he though he landed the job of Doctor Who because he knew the wife of one of the people involved in hiring the new actor for the role, and then added regarding knowing her, "not biblically, of course." It is inconceivable to me that anyone would every say "not vedantically" or "not koranically" or whatever in its place, and that this effective corruption of the usage of the world "biblical" in English is why the word isn't always capitalized. I know that's just apparently one opinion based on one particularly quote, but I think that the conclusion is one most people could understand. John Carter 14:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Those cases show that there is a common adjective "biblical", alongside the proper adjective that is clearly referring to the book, the Bible. (quite similar to the difference between "Quixotic literature" (P.Adj) and "quixotic literature" (c.adj.) as demonstrated above) There is also a common noun "bible" that does not refer to the book title and does not always need to be capitalized, like "This book is the bible of auto mechanics"... Hopefully, there is no disagreement that Bible is better than bible when referring to the actual title as a noun.


 * Should the style guide spell it out? "The corresponding adjective of Talmud is Talmudic, and of Veda is Vedic; however the corresponding adjective when referring to the Bible should be written "biblical", because these specific style guides say so." I thought common sense was supposed to prevail, but if a few select style guides can be used to trump neutrality policy and common sense, "just because that's the way it is, no other explanation or reason necessary", then there is something terribly wrong and biased. Til Eulenspiegel 14:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the style guide should not make inherently POV statements such as the one you made above. In this case, it might be argued that "common sense" is to follow the existing guidelines of the most universally followed style guides out there, which you above I believe possibly knowingly mischaracterized as a "few select style guides". I grant you we don't yet have knowledge of what the MLA guide says on the subject, and that information would have to be available before a real decision could be reached. But I do think it is fair that we let the bulk of the people who do seem to define usage of the English language today provide guidance on how the English language is to be used here. As state before, however, it is a bit premature to make any conclusive statement, pending the availability of the MLA information on the subject. John Carter 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, but since English is not an officially regulated language like French, I don't know how much we can claim any specific style guides are anything like "the most universally followed". That's pretending there is some consensus in the English speaking world on style matters, when there is often the exact opposite.  As I have said, there are a number of sources and authorities out there that admit "Biblical" right alongside "biblical", and common sense would hopefully suggest whether it is being used commonly or properly. Til Eulenspiegel 14:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, English ain't governed by no explicitly controlled authority, like maybe French is or isn't. That don't mean that we ain't supposed to follow conventions, so as we don't make it too hard for others to understand. In this particular case, I can and do see that capitalizing the word when specifically and explicitly using the word as an adjectival form of Bible would be reasonable. However, as noted above, that is not the only usage the word receives, and, possibly out of respect, it has become tradition to not capitalize it in those instances when it isn't clearly and explicitly referring to the Bible itself. There is of course a major grey area in the middle between those two poles, however, and that is the bulk of the problem here. John Carter 16:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC: "biblical" or "Biblical"
The RFCxxx templates below had no space between 'RFC:' and '"biblical"', this caused an incorrect link to be created in the RFCxxx lists. This has been corrected. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Both Biblical and biblical are common and acceptable variants for the adjective form of the proper noun Bible. Should Wikipedia adopt a specific style guideline recommending one over the other? If so, excluding obvious situations requiring capitalization (e.g., first word of a sentence, part of a proper name, etc.) should biblical or Biblical be the preferred form?

To read the debate up to this point, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible.

Support for Biblical (capital B)
I trust that every opponent of the Bible being capitalized is working overtime to ensure that the Qur'an be spelled qur'an, the Book of Mormon the book of mormon, the Five Classics the five classics, the Bagavadgita the bagavidgita, the Tipitaka tipitaka, Upanishads be upanishads, the Torah, torah, and repeat this for all of the hundreds of Religious texts that Wikipedia includes within it (Please check out Religious Texts if you doubt me).

The effort to use the lower case 'b' is laudable in that Wikipedia doesn't seek to promote a particular religion. But be mindful of the fact that this effort is only applied to Christianity normally, and is in effect giving Christianity special treatment, never mind the fact that this treatment is negative.

So long as it is considered normative to title books with upper case letters, it will be proper to title the Bible (and it's companion adjective "Biblical") with an upper case letter. Any other choice is inconsistent if not universally applied to all the, which itself would be a gross violation of the naming conventions of English literature.

If you're going to do this, be consistent.

Respectfully submitted by Signaj90 (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it should be noted that the question is not about capitalizing "Bible", but about capitalizing the word "biblical". In those cases in which the word Bible is used to refer to those books which are included in one or more of the books included in either the Jewish or Christian Bible, I am unaware of any efforts to remove the capitalization. The specific subject of the discussion below is the adjectival "biblical". And, yes, the capitalization of other adjectival forms of the names of religious texts has been considered in the discussion. John Carter (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm getting caught up fast - Anyways, in the decade to come, "Bushisms" will continue to be a word bounced around. Are you going to charge that this word should be lowercase? The popular press will continue to use the capitalization regardless of your preference. Signaj90 (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Qur'anic" is a word not used infrequently. I would submit it for parallel consideration. I'm more interested in consistency than upon the 'right' decision.Signaj90 (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Bible is captialized. Why wouldn't biblical? Every other religous text is. Not capitalizing it wouldn't be NPOV.

RJRocket53 (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Support for biblical (lowercase b)
I support biblical for reasons stated above. It seems to be the form overwhelmingly preferred by academic style guides (including the Society of Biblical Literature), print journalism (including the AP and evangelical Christian publications such as Christianity Today). I think that usage on Wikipedia should reflect the predominant usage in reliable sources, rather than an appeal to emotionality or grammatical prescriptivism. If this is basically a American/British usage difference, then I think we should follow current WP:STYLE guidelines (WP:ENGVAR) regarding spelling (i.e., be consistent within an article, don't change from one to the other without a good reason, American subject=American spelling, etc.). — DIEGO  talk 16:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to think that this probably should be the case, particularly as there do seem to be guidelines regarding consistent spelling, which presumably includes capitalization. In those instances when the word would clearly be used in a capital sense, the phrasing could be changed so that the word "Bible", which can reasonably be capitalized, is used directly. John Carter 17:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My vote's for biblical. (My personal preference would actually be Biblical, but The Columbia Guide to Standard American English&#39;s opinion is to the contrary, and I see no reason to flout it.) However, "Biblical Hebrew" should be still capitalized in its use as a synonym for "Classical Hebrew", as this is a proper noun, in the same way as we capitalize "Modern English". —Ruakh TALK 21:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I support biblical. The recent or current editions of OED, SOED, Chamber's, Collins, Macquarie, Longman, and Merriam-Webster Collegiate unabridged dictionaries all list biblical alone, and not the capitalised form. Some of these dictionaries are the ones recommended by major style guides (Chicago Manual of Style, for example, recommends M-W Collegiate as its adjunct); and all major style guides agree in preferring biblical – except in compounds like Biblical Hebrew, where the proper noun may automatically capitalise also the adjective that precedes it.–&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 00:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My personal usage would also be Biblical, but WP tends to use lower case when either will do, as they plainly will here. "Biblical Hebrew" is of course an exception. I'm not sure we need to do more than add this as an example of encouraging lower-case usage though; phrasing style guidelines prescriptively usually means that a half-dozen empty-headed editors take off harassing other people about "violating MOS" as though it were policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Lowercase usage for this adjective would be better. &mdash; Val42 14:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The SBL Handbook of Style votes for biblical, Bibliotheca Sacra, Westminster Theological Journal and many others vote for SBL. I, personally, do not vote. Alastair Haines 07:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously, it should be "biblical". I'm not sure why this is an RfC. I can't personally recall seeing the word capitalized in normal use. Shouldn't the use of "biblical" in all the guides and dictionaries listed above have decided this issue before it got to the point of an RFC? When I read the arguments above, it seems like only one editor actually cares and is refusing to acknowledge the valid opinions (and evidence) of others. Anyway, that's my two cents. 70.239.93.159 16:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't just me by any means. How can you honestly pretend that other thoughtful editors have not agreed with me?  I was really starting to let this issue go and tend to other matters, but now that you have attempted to single me out and make an example of me, I am going to have to pursue an NPOV complaint and appeal to the highest against the unfair policy that is being enforced.  There is clearly widespread tolerance for capitalizing Biblical in exactly the same manner that every other proper adjective in the language is capitalized; even the Chicago Manual Online who is the foremost authority cited in support of lowercase, admits some flexibility for capitalizing the word.  There is far more support and precedent to be found in the English speaking world for 'Biblical' than there is for 'vedic' and 'talmudic', two instances where this flagrantly biased policy explicitly allows for flexibility, while denying that same flexibility to the Bible.  This is an area where we cannot afford to look biased; it is already easy enough for detractors to point to examples of this kind of thing, but this gives one more example that is very easy to point to, and is very easily corrected. The reason 'vedic' and 'talmudic' look wrong is because they are practically never seen, whereas 'Biblical' is commonplace, endorsed by the US and Canadian government printing offices, American Heritage dictionary, and a number of less famous sources.  So the one-sided, double standard policy recently enforced by Noeta at WP:MOSCAPS not only makes little sense and is unfair, but appears to be a case of having Wikipedia yet again break new, original ground with a novel stance that no style guide I have ever seen - and I have been looking at just about every style guide there is available - has ever adopted. Til Eulenspiegel 17:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be useful if you could point toward specific statements made by others here to support your contention then. Personally, I wouldn't myself mind seeing both capitalized and uncapitalized, so long as one version is consistently used within any given article. However, given the different meanings the word has, referring both to the Bible itself as well as the entire "biblicaL" era, I think that it could be problematic to actually say that, as all it would be doing would be breaking up the argument to every page where such differences in capitalization occur. Again, though, I would welcome seeing your indicating exactly where specific editors agreed with your contention regarding capitalization, largely for the ease of reference of any other editors coming to this discussion and because all the comments immediately nearby seem to be basically disagreeing. John Carter 17:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, did you miss these other editors whose comments about this I totally agree with:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * Til Eulenspiegel 18:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. However, I think in the interests of full disclosure it should be indicated that one seems to have favored capitalization in all instances, and another to have agreed with your specific proposal. They do not necessarily fully agree with each other. John Carter 18:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Til said that "This is an area where we cannot afford to look biased." I agree and I think the best way not to look biased is to follow what other publications and style guides do, which is use a small "b" on "biblical". If wikipedia was to ignore the actual usage of the word in print and style guides, that would look like bias. I think you do need to let this go Til. When you can not accept strong evidence against your proposal, it starts to seem like you have a personal agenda. 70.239.93.159 18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's funny that you should recommend me to let it go; if you hadn't goaded me with your personal digs and comments, I might have done so, but now I am struck even more by the onesided unfairness of the policy allowing maximum flexibility to every religious book BUT the Bible, so I am now going to  have to appeal it all  the way.  Thanks, 70.239.93.159! Til Eulenspiegel 18:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Personal digs? What the hell are you talking about? Pointing out that you are a single user on an obvious crusade is not a personal dig. Anyway, good luck appealing this "all the way". I'm sure the result will be alot different than this rfc. That kind of attitude is what I was talking about. Why can't you accept defeat like a man? Who gives a fuck about your pet project. If 9 out of 10 dictionary don't use an uppercase "B", and I can read all kinds of magazines and newspapers who don't use it also, then who the hell are you to change that? YOU are the one trying to make an exception with "Biblical". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.93.159 (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And I suppose writing "Til is a douche" in your edit summary just now, is not a personal attack at all, according to you, right? Til Eulenspiegel 21:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not Til v World by any means - see my post above. I see that I reproduced some thinking in my above post, but so be it. In the circles I deal with (at a mainline seminary), it is convention to use the spelling "Biblical". As said before, it is consensus that matters, so let me spell it how I want - heck, let everyone spell it how they want. Why enforce something that is supposed to be about consensus anyways?Signaj90 (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Other
To sum up, my position is that we should follow common sense and prefer "biblical" when obviously used as a common adjective, but "Biblical" when used as a proper adjective (to accompany "Bible", and commensurate with "Talmud / Talmudic", "Veda / Vedic", "Quran / Quranic", and all other proper adjectives in English.) Also, while there may be some exceptions, numerous dictionaries and style authorities that find both "biblical" and "Biblical" to be acceptable forms, are not at all hard to find. Til Eulenspiegel 16:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you provide evidence of any style guides that specifically recommend Biblical over biblical, rather than simply acknowledge that both are acceptable? This could be helpful considering the reliable sources listed above which clearly use and/or endorse biblical (small b) in most situations. — DIEGO  talk 18:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, dictionaries of the English language, as far as I can tell, do specify that Biblical and biblical are both acceptable forms, similar to the position I am recommending. There are many cases of adjectives that can be either common or proper, depending on if they are capitalized, like "Catholic" / "catholic". As for style guides, *so far* I have found numerous style manuals and guides that do state Proper Adjectives are -always- capitalized in English without exception; but none of them includes "Biblical" as a specific example of this, except for this one: (This is the Canadian Council of Archives style manual) Til Eulenspiegel 18:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just now found another style guide with the example "Biblical" here, but I'm not sure how much weight a "gay writing style guide" would carry for our purposes; still, it is evidence you asked for...: Til Eulenspiegel 18:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A-ha, here is the clearest example of such a style guide yet: Til Eulenspiegel 18:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm back on the job of looking for style guides that recommend 'Biblical' over 'biblical' now; here's another example I just now found, the style guide of the US Government Printing Office: Til Eulenspiegel 21:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And here's one more: The style guide published by Canada's Athabascan University: Til Eulenspiegel 21:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's one last style guide featuring use of "Biblical" that I just turned up, I think I'll take another break from searching for now: (It's not immediately clear to me who publishes this one). Til Eulenspiegel 21:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Do these examples really compare to Chicago, AP, MLA, New York Times, and APA in terms of influence? For example, I have never been asked to submit an article or report in "Athabascan University Style" or according to the "Bret Harte High School Editing Guide". These examples seem like a stretch. But they are examples. I'll give you that much. — DIEGO  talk 22:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As I have just learned, Chicago also recommends writing "pope, president, and queen" in lowercase in *all* situations (unlike say, Wikipedia), but still admits that while they themselves try to use lowercase wherever possible, these are "words that you will often see capped elsewhere." (see link in below section). So, since we do not follow Chicago's recommendation to always write "president Bush" and "queen Elizabeth", it therefore still seems, even more, like we are going rather out of our way to claim special or unusual circumstances in order to create an exception just for this one case. Til Eulenspiegel 22:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm an uninterested outside party to this discussion. I think it may not be necessary to have any style guideline for this on Wikipedia, since the dictionary says both are acceptable. However, if any guideline is to be adopted, the one recommended by Til Eulenspiegel at the top of this section above seems to make the most sense and to be grammatically correct, i.e. use lower case when the word is used as a common adjective and upper case when used as a proper adjective. -- Really Spooky 00:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is "the dictionary" you refer to here, Really Spooky? As I write above: "The recent or current editions of OED, SOED, Chamber's, Collins, Macquarie, Longman, and Merriam-Webster Collegiate unabridged dictionaries all list biblical alone, and not the capitalised form." Some of these are the most comprehensive and widely respected dictionaries of English, for what that's worth.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 00:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Then there's also American Heritage and Random House, two of the most widely published today, supporting 'Biblical'... Til Eulenspiegel 00:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Til, my older edition of AH gives Biblical as a second option, and uses biblical regularly in its own text (for example study of bibical texts, in the entry "higher criticism"). Is this still the case in current editions of AH dictionaries? I haven't got Random House. What is the precise wording in its entry? So far where only one alternative is given, it is biblical (in those dictionaries I list that have most kudos in the world of publishing, like OED and M-W Collegiate). In some other sources Biblical is listed – but only as a second choice. This is understandable and correct practice, in some views of lexicography: report usage, don't prescribe it. But the support for Biblical must be admitted to be extremely weak, if we ourselves seek to make a prescriptive ruling. (That is what we're seeking to do, is it not?)
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 00:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The dictionary definitions I looked at were American Heritage and Dictionary.com (see here). So I think it's pretty well established that both are acceptable, even if one is more widely used.  So should there really be any rule excluding one or the other?  If one simply wants to attain a degree of consistency, Til Eulenspiegel's proposed solution seems reasonable.  To my admittedly uninvolved eye this looks like a tempest in a teacup.  Am I missing something deeper here? -- Really Spooky 11:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the evidence from the most respected dictionaries, and practically all major style guides (which themselves use those dictionaries as authorities), is perfectly clear. (I ignore those truly minor style guides that Til has retrieved, above. With effort, you can prove all sorts of ideologically driven points with the likes of those.) The important question is obviously this: What are you trying to achieve? If we are trying to establish a durable guideline for use in Wikipedia, we will certainly not get it by adopting Til's flexible solution, no matter how internally logical that solution may seem. We can't reinvent English usage entirely! While we should be bold in setting up new standards where existing usage is unclear, it is folly to push against firmly established usage. As I have pointed out, those few dictionaries that allow Biblical (normally as a second choice) are being descriptive – they are not offering a guideline. And they are certainly not lending support to the proposal that Til makes.
 * Such a minor point we are discussing! But has "political" implications concerning the status of the Christian Bible and therefore concerning a common Christian hegemonistic view of the world – implications that can be read either way, note.
 * Let me just boldly finish with a general point, by which I do not mean to give offence: When it begins to seem that no weight of evidence could make any difference to one's position, it may be time to stand well back and think freshly about that position and about one's motives.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 01:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, your comments have confirmed to me exactly what I was suspecting all along. I had a fairly good idea that "implications concerning the status of the Christian Bible and therefore concerning a common Christian hegemonistic view of the world" were really at stake behind this inexplicable move of the last 70 years to make "Bible" into the only proper noun in the entire English language that suddenly switches to lowercase as an adjective; simply because no other rationale was ever offered for this uniqueness. This raises another problem to me, which is that such "politically correct" formulations, often, tend to rely on just this machiavellian sort of solution, a prescriptive philosophy that selectively holds tilting the balance in favor of the perceived or claimed "underdogs", and against perceived or claimed "hegemonistic" forces, to be a more powerful driving force than maintaining strict even handedness and neutrality on sensitive issues, resulting in policies that are not only obviously skewed, but deliberately so with the selective application of this rationale.  By the way, note that I used "machiavellian" here in its popular meaning as a common adjective, so I did not capitalize it; it can also be a proper adjective when discussing, say, "the corpus of Machiavellian literature".  Til Eulenspiegel 21:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no evidence that the lowercasing of "biblical" is P.C. underdoggery; it seems equally likely to me that the reverse is true, and the lowercasing of "biblical" actually originated with Christians who considered it a sufficiently commonplace adjective as not to warrant capitalization. —Ruakh TALK 21:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I note that you have stated elsewhere that this page has become, to paraphrase, a full-blown argument, and yet the only person on this page who seems to be not only regularly casting aspersions on all those who disagree with him, and claiming that they are opposed by some sort of cabal, is you. On that basis, one can reasonably wonder who the instigator of the "argument" is. I do think that the existing policies and guidelines, particularly those regarding standardization of spelling and apparently capitalization, should hold sway here. While it is possible for references to "vedic" as in perhaps "vedic cooking" can exist, I sincerely wonder how often, if ever, such use has appeared here. Also, it seems to me that the entire issue could be avoided by simply using the word Bible in conjunction with some other word to avoid the issue altogether. I sincerely wonder whether this is becoming, at least to some people, something drawing much more attention than circumstances would apparently indicate it warrants. John Carter 21:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Those weren't my exact words, but I did say something on someone's talkpage to the same effect as "this is becoming a full blown argument". At the same time, as one of the two people who started the RFC, I don't deny being the "instigator" of it.  That is the whole point, to get more people to comment.  I sure wouldn't want to see a team of gung-ho wikilawyers now start trawling through every single article and replacing all instances of "Biblical" (there must be tens of thousands since this is a common variant that really ought to be tolerated like all other common variants are.) 'vedic' and 'talmudic' are not common forms at all, but seem to have been expressly permitted solely for the arbitrary appearance of it, with a original and novel, ground-breaking policy of selective inflexibility and selective flexibility, that is harsher against "Biblical" than any before ever seen; even the online Chicago manual of style (which if we were not so selective, would also dictate that we write "queen Elizabeth, president Hoover, and pope John Paul") admits that Biblical is frequently, and not wrongly, capitalized.  I am asking the uncompromising editors to at least be tolerant of the capital, because that is the way many people do indeed write it. Til Eulenspiegel 21:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There are at present 9904 pages which use the word biblical capitalized and otherwise as per here. The disadvantage I immediately see is that of the first 20 pages which come up, 5 use both the upper and lower case within sentences. If that is the case overall, then we've probably got about 2500 articles which fail to meet style guidelines on that basis alone. Tolerating one or the other would not be a problem, but the MOS had previously indicated it should be one or the other, not both in the same article. Also, I note that many people write in many different ways. That's why we have a MOS in the first place, to standardize usage for greatest possible comprehension by the greatest possible numbers. The MOS already doesn't "tolerate" such variant usages in the same article. And, yes, there are several of the major style guidelines that do say the lower case is the norm, seemingly more major style guides than say otherwise. Under those circumstances, I can see having the discussion, but accusing others of being in some way acting in bad faith is itself problematic and more likely to alienate everybody than actually prove at all successful in furthering discussion. John Carter 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But I didn't accuse anyone of acting in bad faith (except maybe that pleasant, anonymous fellow who wrote 'Til is a douche' was in bad faith for writing that, hey thanks!) What I just wrote is: "I am asking the uncompromising editors to at least be tolerant of the capital, because that is the way many people do indeed write it." In other words, I am asking you and all those editors so far who have voted for 'lowercase b all the time', to please reconsider their votes and be more tolerant of Biblical; because it gets added that way every day, it extends the exact same respect accorded to the Quran, Veda, Talmud, Avesta etc., and is often deemed acceptable; and as it has been before this RFC, it seems like a personal preference much like 'color' and colour' where one variant is not "enforced". Til Eulenspiegel 22:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What you have suggested here seems reasonable. However, I would hope that you could also be tolerant of the lowercase b. Remember that this whole thing started when you arbitrarily changed biblical to Biblical in the Creationism article . You were also the editor who insisted on a definitive guideline, rather than simply acknowledging that both are acceptable and allowing the editors of each article to decide which usage to favor. Now that it appears that such a guideline would probably not favor your usage, you're suddenly willing to compromise and hope that other editors will be tolerant to the capital B. Of course I can be tolerant of the capital B, but that will only work if you are also tolerant of the lowercase b and don't change from one to the other without good reason. However, it is definitely not a good idea to have both Biblical and biblical in the same article. How would you suggest we handle such situations? By the way, thanks for taking the time to investigate this issue, John Carter. — DIEGO  talk 22:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also note that I and several others have expressed agreement to the idea above already. It was only when we were asked to create one standard that it seemed to the bulk of us reasonable to follow what seems to be the existing consensus of major non-governmental style guides. As long as the capitalization is consistent throughout the article, I personally don't care which is used. Also, I once again note that there are various ways to use the word Bible in combination with other words which would allow capitalization even when the lower case "biblical" is used elsewhere in the article. John Carter 23:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are quite right Diego, and if I have learned anything from all this, it is to be tolerant of the little b, which previously I had mistakenly thought to be just an ignorant typo and error whenever I saw it, since I was more used to the big B. Til Eulenspiegel 23:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Here is the relevant section of the MOS, where the outcome will go: MOS:CAPS

Note the current status quo, it reads: "Scriptures like the Bible and Qur'an should be capitalized."

If consensus ends up opting to enforce lowercase in all situations for the adjectival form of "Bible", it will have to be made clear in some way:

'"Scriptures like the Bible and Qur'an should be capitalized. However, note that while the adjectival form of Qur'an is Qur'anic or Koranic, the corresponding adjectival form of Bible should always be spelled biblical''.

Of course, this would be ignoring virtually every English Dictionary in the world, that explicitly state 'Biblical' is acceptable spelling, but what do silly Dictionary writers know, compared to the true authorities, the writers of style guides? (The ones that agree with "biblical", that is, not the other ones I found, like the US and Canadian government printing offices style guides.) Til Eulenspiegel 21:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not so, Til. See my list of the major English dictionaries that list only biblical, above.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 01:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's something else I just found, and right from the horse's mouth: Chicago Style Guide Online's explanation of why they have preferred "biblical" since at least 1949, while at the same time admitting that "In house" style guides are entitled to differ, and concluding with a recommendation that seems to make it optional: "If you find that lowercasing it in your writing results in ambiguity, however, then by all means uppercase it." Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel 22:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, with the exception of the governmental guides, how many of these does anyone think have real acceptance in the larger community? Also, please note that there is now an existing discussion on this subject at Wikipedia talk:Proper names, and that might be the better place to make such comments about what are basically proposed to be changes to that page. John Carter 22:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Er, the last discussion there was two days ago, and only one person commented, making it clear his view that the relevant page is MOS:CAPS, which, as is, he feels, supports capitalization. Til Eulenspiegel 22:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that discussion has begun on the talk page of that page, as well. John Carter 22:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Just a little note regarding prescriptivism. This word is a very good word to avoid. It is normally used by people who think they know what is right, to avoid interacting with criticisms of their position. "Don't listen to them, they're prescriptivists." Prescriptivism is not vicious, it is helpful. All language is prescriptive or we'd not have common meanings for words, spelling, letters or sounds.

A question arises when people from different backgrounds want to work on the same project, "what will be our common terminology?" Appeals to various authorities are then made, but any authority is by nature a prescription, and the very discussion is about establishing a prescription.

If we're against prescription, we need to delete all Wiki policies (and specifically those to do with style). But we're not against prescription really, we're against prescriptions that don't suit our tastes. And that's OK, but it goes without saying and applies equally to everyone.

I think it's great people have compromised here. It's not a matter of right or wrong. It's more important that a decision is made, than what the decision actually is. It's all about going forward together. And we did it! Woohoo! Alastair Haines 00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Til writes above, concerning some of my analysis: Thank you, your comments have confirmed to me exactly what I was suspecting all along. But it seems to me that I could have written almost anything and it would have confirmed Til's pre-formed view. Til seems not to have observed this qualification: ...implications that can be read either way, note. Nor does Til seem to have taken much notice of the way I rounded things off: Let me just boldly finish with a general point, by which I do not mean to give offence: When it begins to seem that no weight of evidence could make any difference to one's position, it may be time to stand well back and think freshly about that position and about one's motives.
 * Why do we bother? The conversation becomes futile.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 03:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, there is a problem with this discussion. The problem is that there are good arguments for both sides. Where people have put a case for either side I think they've done quite a good job. When it comes to commenting on the opposing position, however, I think both sides have resorted to rhetoric that is more or less "put downs" of those who might hold that position.

Actually, there's probably a case to be put that lower case biblical actually discriminates in favour of the Bible over Veda, Qur'an etc. Words most amenable to being accepted as lower case are those that have become so much part of the culture that they are virtually common noun phrases, popular perception has lost sight of the Roman in roman numeral or French in french fry. We "own" the word so much, it's part of the family, as it were. Vedic and Qur'anic "feel" right because we don't quite know what to do with them, lower case suggests we'd be expected to be familiar with the referent. A young reader can gloss right over Melchizedek -- long name beginning with M -- capitals often signal -- specialized-specific-word-understood-from-context-alone-please-dont-panic.

One day, maybe, people will get to the point of saying "what a vedic train of thought that was," or "that was a lecture of rather qur'anic thoroughness," but until the day that the Vedas and Qur'an are widely understood household names, they are relegated to the capitalization English spray-paints on such unwelcome imigrants. Not for them the privelege granted to successful industrialists, honoured by, "give me half-an-hour I've got to hoover the carpet," or to war heros like, "you've got me in a full nelson with that one!"

PS Chicago MS first pub 1906. OED first pub 1928 (though A came out in 1888). Contemporaries unless we want to split straws, I don't, so who ever wants to argue about it can win, I surrender in advance.

Sleep on it, we want to be friends again by next week. Cheers everyone. Alastair Haines 05:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, AH. You write: Actually, there's probably a case to be put that lower case biblical actually discriminates in favour of the Bible over Veda, Qur'an etc. Note, I implore you, for the third time my own ever-so-even-handed qualification: ...implications that can be read either way, note. Am I condemned, Cassandra-like, to wail my truths stridently and often in the byways and wastelands of Wikipedia, and none will heed? Of course biblical can be seen as favouring the Bible-believers! To have names like those of the Bible, the Tripitaka, and the Granth Sahib capitalised but not italicised already sets those venerated volumes apart from all mere secular works, of base sublunary import. But if the adjective biblical alone gets lower-cased, does it not signal a salient and automatic cultural acceptance of the Bible, akin to the Islamic world's it is written being taken as an automatic reference to its central scriptures? I would prefer to see all those adjectives lower-cased, myself: koranic, dhammapadic, or what you will. But where there is a strong tide of common usage it should, in the end, govern such matters. At the moment common usage has only biblical lower-cased. It is written – almost everywhere.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 05:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Checking back, I think Ruakh made the point better than either of us. In two lines he addressed directly a major concern of Til's. He heard the issue, made no accusations, no appeals to authority, registered no vote, just demonstrated a sensitivity for usage and offered a new angle that helps side-line a red-herring.

How about, "always lower case b, except in lists, like Vedic, Qur'anic, Biblical, and other places where avoiding ambiguity or reader surprize may lead editors to judge a capital more expedient."

At the moment the discussion is Til v the World. If he agreed to this we'd almost have consensus. Alastair Haines 07:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I really, really wish you wouldn't frame it as "Til against the world"... That is disingenuous, because as I have already pointed out, I have been in agreement with several comments by other editors, governmental style guides, and the American Heritage Dictionary, so far. Heck, I even support the Chicago Manual of Style online recommendation, which is actually far more lenient toward Biblical than some people around here seem to be. Please do not resort to 'divide and conquer' type tactics which are a logical fallacy rarely producing positive fruit and extremely bad for assuming good faith. This includes the tactic of "let's use our strength in numbers to make an example of this editor and pillory him with derision for expressing his opinion, to intimidate future editors from speaking up", otherwise known as "bullying", a poor substitute for logic.Til Eulenspiegel 11:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No one really wants to use unfair tactics here, Til. No one is against you, or wants to pillory you. (Unless you'd enjoy that, of course... see me at my talk page if you're interested.) You must excuse our merry pranks! It's just that it seems you want to push a particular way no matter what. Step back and think about it again. The plain fact is that usage is settled, pretty well, out there in the World. It is they, out there in the world, who have strength in numbers. Heavens, I for one would love to see the language reformed (starting with punctuation!), but I'm only one of the billions who use this language. It's all about consensus, and realism. CMOS affirms, in the obiter dictum you cite, that CMOS style is plainly biblical. But at the very end it makes this concession: Since the word "biblical" is rarely used other than in reference to a book of sacred scriptures, I doubt that readers would misconstrue its meaning, especially in a religious context. If you find that lowercasing it in your writing results in ambiguity, however, then by all means uppercase it. Sure, that's common sense. Sometimes there will be exceptions. But we're looking for a rule, not an exception! Let that rule be the broadly accepted one. That is the only likely consensus here, as I read it.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 12:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Biblical" technically just means "book-related", so technically, it should be uncapitalised. In french, for example, "biblio" refers to books in general (eg. "bibliobus" is just a mobile library). Clinkophonist (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Authorized King James Version
Was a former Featured Article, but poorly referenced. Badly in need of in-line citations and a broader base of references. Anyone willing to tackle the article, maybe as a One featured article per quarter project? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems I have run into on the topic of the 1611 KJV, is heavy opinion. The opinion that KJV is somehow vastly superior to all other translations, is undeniably an opinion. If one tries to source that versions validity one would only be sourcing another opinion, so you are right where you started. Authorized King James Version seems to be a fairly decent account of the history of the translation. I'd like to know more about the 47 translators from the C of E. Knosisophile (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Bible errata
Hi. Please see Talk:Bible errata for a query concerning conflicting/proper sourcing, on this unusual topic. Thanks. --Quiddity (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Development of the Jewish Bible canon
> Tanakh ==

Discussion on Talk:Tanakh. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

against--Java7837 (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
I am nominating the newly created article Jewish-Christian Gospels: Patristic Citations for deletion, as I don't think it meets the criteria for wikipedia articles. I would however welcome input from any interests parties in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish-Christian Gospels: Patristic Citations. Thank you. John Carter 00:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Samson
Samson has been nominated for Good Article Review reviews are welcomed--Java7837 (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Jabesh Gilead
I found a lonely little article called Jabesh-Gilead on WP:CLEANUP. I had a stab at tidying it up, but thought I'd send it over here as it seems to belong in the domain of WP:BIBLE. Alert me on my talk page if you disagree. Manning (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Jephtha/Jephthah
I just undid a cut-and-paste move from the first to the second title. However, looking at the Bible Gateway site, all of the English translations they have uses the second spelling. Does anyone see any reason not to move it back to the second spelling, but properly?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The latter name looks more familiar, and seemingly is more frequent. So, I can't see any reason not to. John Carter (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy anointing oil merger proposals
There are two proposals to merge Holy anointing oil, one to merge it with Shemen Afarsimon and one to merge it with Chrism. Please see Holy anointing oil for discussion locations. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Spiritual use of cannabis states " Anthropologist Sula Benet claimed historical evidence and etymological comparison show that the Holy anointing oil used by the Hebrews contained cannabis extracts, "kaneh bosm," and that it is also listed as an incense tree in the original Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Old Testament. The early Christians used cannabis oil for medicinal purposes and as part of the baptismal process to confirm the forgiveness of sins and "right of passage" into the Kingdom of Heaven. The Unction, Seal, laying on of hands, the Counselor, and the Holy Spirit are all often synonymous of the Holy anointing oil.[2] Early Gnostic texts indicate that the Chrism is essential to becoming a "Christian." [3][4]"Knosisophile (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Toward Peer Review
Gospel of Mark could use some help tracking down missing citations to get ready for peer review. Thanks in advance. Ovadyah (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Are members of this project aware of the deletion debate on vast numbers of Bible chapters?
See it here: Articles for deletion/non-notable bible-division articles Noroton (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Following the suggestion of several comments there, this is now a proposed guideline:
 * Organisation of Bible articles

I wonder if you would like to comment on it.Clinkophonist (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Project Scope?
What is the exact scope of this project? My question is prompted by having recently seen articles relating to such books as 3 Maccabees and the like. Would articles relating to these books, whose status as "biblical" is disputed by some, be included or not? I am operating on the assumption that 1 Enoch, which is considered canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, is included, but would those books which are no longer considered necessarily canonical by any Abrahamic religion, but are still, at least nominally, "Biblical", like the apocryphal book 3 Maccabees, be considered as within the scope of this project or not? John Carter (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If a significant religious group (like the Ethiopian Orthodox Church - which is the main form of Christianity in Ethiopia) believe that its part of the Bible then I would say that it is clearly within the scope of the project. The Goals section of the project page also includes Apocrypha within the project's scope. Clinkophonist (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Binding of Isaac article name change
Thanks for placing the article Binding of Isaac within the scope of your WikiProject. About 3 weeks ago, I proposed to change the name of the article to "Sacrifice of Isaac" at Talk:Binding of Isaac, but so far haven't seen any response. I plan to go ahead and rename the article on March 20, 2008 unless there are objections. I invite you to visit the article and submit any comments you have on the matter. Thanks! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Five editors have responded to the proposal described above. Four oppose and one is neutral. The consensus is opposed to the name change. I'll therfore leave the article as currently named ("Binding of Isaac") and consider the matter closed. Thanks to all who participated! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

How do I properly quote the bible?
... in Wikipedia. I would especially like to link to that specific bible passage. Is there a standard way to do this? Thanks. Maikel (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I came here looking for the same thing. Any guidance would be appreciated.  I notice that there's nothing at WP:CIT that's specific to the bible(s). Noca2plus (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Found something. See User:MonkeeSage/Bible templates. Noca2plus (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Christianity project coordinators election
We are currently holding elections for coordinators to help ensure that directly project related activity, such as peer review, assessment, portal maintainance, and the like, are done for all the projects relating to Christianity. For what it's worth, as the "instigator" of the proposed coordinators, the purpose of having them is not to try to impose any sort of "discipline" on the various projects relating to Christianity, but just to ensure that things like assessment, peer review, portal maintainance, and other similar directly project-related functions get peformed for all the various projects relating to Christianity. If there are any individuals with this project who are already doing such activities for the project, and who want to take on the role more formally, I think nominations are being held open until the end of the elections themselves. And, for the purposes of this election, any member in good standing of any of the Christianity projects can either be nominated or express their votes at WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 1. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Please could someone take a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Judah and Special:WhatLinksHere/Tamar and help fix links to disambiguation pages? I've tried, but don't know enough about the characters involved to do any more. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move: Lazarus and Dives
I have proposed a move from Lazarus and Dives to Rich man and Lazarus. At the moment, there are only two participants in the discussion, so it would be helpful if some folk here could have a look at this, and join the discussion, so a consensus can be reached. StAnselm (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Project banner
I have created a new version of the project banner at User:John Carter/Bible. It can be found with all the drop-downs displayed at User talk:John Carter/Bible. I think that, if it were to be used, the talk pages of the various articles relevant to this project might be made substantially less cluttered. It is I hope understood that the simple fact of having variant options does not mean that they will necessarily all be used each time, however. Anyway, I would welcome input on whether we should perhaps alter the banner to include the additional specifications or not. John Carter (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Templates
Shouldn't Template:WikiProject Biblical Criticism be merged with Template:WikiProject Bible? Does the workgroup really need a separate banner? Richard001 (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Dating the Bible -- seriously inadequate
The article Dating the Bible seems embarassingly inadequate.

For example,
 * the discussion of the Ketuvim discusses only the book of Daniel and nothing else;
 * the discussion of the Neviim discusses just the book of Kings and the book of Isaiah -- no mention, eg, of the book of Amos, considered by many scholars to be the earliest of the prophetic books, and according to many scholars likely to be earlier than any of the books of the Torah as we now have them; nor any of the other prophets.

In comparison, consider this series of articles from from The Straight Dope, despite its name quite a responsible and solidly researched column from a Chicago newspaper. Even at quite an informal and cursory level, the treatment still runs to five articles:
 * Who wrote/compiled/edited (and when) the first five books of the Bible, called the Torah or Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses?
 * Who wrote/compiled/edited (and when) the various histories in the Old Testament (such as Judges, Kings, etc.)?
 * Who wrote/compiled/edited (and when) the various prophetic books (Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.) and the wisdom literature (Psalms, Proverbs, etc.) in the Old Testament?
 * Who wrote/compiled/edited (and when) the various New Testament Books?
 * Who decided which books should be included and which excluded from the Bible(s)? Why are there differences in the Bibles for Catholics, Protestants, and Jews?

It seems to me that, at a minimum, Wikipedia should be aspiring to give at least the level of detail of these articles. Our current coverage, especially for the Hebrew Bible, falls very far short.

Can I suggest that the present Dating the Bible needs to be massively expanded? And that, better, each of the five questions above deserves its own separate article; with Dating the Bible changed to summary-style, to act as a central starting point and distributor to the other articles? Jheald (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"Book of the Law"
I'm looking for an article to describe this document which is mentioned in Deu 29:21. Trying to look up the term on Wikipedia only yields a Thelemic and a Mormon text which aren't it. __meco (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the translations on this page and my own previous acquaintance with the subject, I've always gotten the impression "this Book of the Law" is supposed to refer to Deuteronomy itself. However, there is at least one academic source here which seems to indicate that at least a few people think it refers to something else. I've always favored the first option above myself though. I however am a Chrsitian and it might be useful to contact the WikiProject Judaism and ask the members there if there are different ideas within the Jewish community. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your answer and I have also asked at the Judaism WikiProject. __meco (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  22:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Torah
I'd appreciate some more eyeballs at Torah, (which is also where Pentateuch and Five Books of Moses redirect).

has been re-writing the article, on the basis apparently that it should be "essentially an article in the Jewish religion subject area". 

I think this is unacceptable. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV, covering all angles in an informational scholarly way. In particular, as is clear from the redirects, this is supposed to be the article on the first five books of the Bible for all perspectives, not just Judaism.

Particularly unacceptable, IMO, are
 * removing any mention of "Pentateuch" and "Five Books of Moses" from the Lead, when there are extensive links to the article under those titles; and
 * rewriting the section "Torah and Islam", which is meant at least to kick off with a discussion on the Islamic perspective on the Torah, changing it into in effect a discussion of a Jewish perspective of an Islamic perspective on Torah.

I don't know whether you would all agree with that take, but some more views would be very welcome. Jheald (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Dating the Bible
There is discussion on the talk page of the above article regarding how much weight should be given to traditional dating of Biblical works relative to modern academic conclusions at Talk:Dating the Bible. All input is welcome. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

WT:NPOV
Because this issue comes up often and can be a source of contention, I am proposing adding a paragraph to the existing WP:NPOV/FAQ with a more careful and clearer explanation of language to use and how to present the subject to implement WP:NPOV in articles involving disputes between religious views and historians/scientists etc. Doubtless the proposal can be improved. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 834 articles are assigned to this project, of which 270, or 32.4%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:BibleAsFact
I have proposed this template for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please see the discussion at Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 30. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments on Naming conventions (Hebrew)
Hi! A request for comments has been made for this proposed guideline. Please comment at WT:Naming conventions (Hebrew). Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it neutral to describe the Bible as "mythology"?
Several editors hold the POV that the Bible is "mythology" and dispute that any other opinion could be valid. History clearly shows that this term has been used in an antagonistic and polemic sense to attack the believers in the Bible. I contend that it is not neutral for wikipedia to declare the Bible, or any part of it, as "mythology", simply because those who resent this rhetoric are significant in number, and that a more neutral compromise wording should be found to express what they are trying to say. The problem is that such a neutral compromise would defeat their purpose which is to have a POV article that is inflammatory to the millions who choose to believe the Bible is factual; therefore they have declared that the concerns of all those editors who disagree with them is invalid, and only their own POV counts. Even the Pope has written a book asking people to stop referring to the Bible as "mythology", so the disagreement and the existence of other POVs can easily be sourced. I am overwhelmed and fatigued trying to explain at Talk:Noah's Ark why it is inflammatory not neutral to declare any part of the Bible as "mythology" and would appreciate some fresh voices. Once they succeed at declaring one Biblical article "mythology", they will use exactly the same arguments to declare all other Biblical topics "mythology" no matter how one-sided this POV is. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree that attaching the tag 'mythology' to the whole Bible is non-neutral. But attaching the tag 'factual' to whole Bible would also be non-neutral. (Example 1: Can the sweep of the psalms be described as either 'mythology' or 'factual'?  Example 2: Can Revelation (loosely, a vision of future, not yet occurred, events) be considered 'factual'?) I would suggest that both terms could be considered biased (non-neutral).  And that both terms are far too broad and "clunky" for detailed discussion and understanding.  Countering someone else's blanket, scatter-gun 'mythology' with our(?) own, similarly blanket scatter-gun, 'factual' would seem to be unproductive. Most Biblical scholars today (leaving aside the small "Jesus seminar") would recognise significant historicity in (say) the Gospels; but they would equally recognise significant, probably majority, mythological aspects in (say) the early chapters of Genesis (including Noah and Babel). Hope that helps. Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Mythical in Biblical studies does not mean non-factual. It relates to the way the narrative is important to the self-understanding of a community, or it's understanding of the cosmos. As confusing as it may be to the non-scholar, something may be mythical and factual simultaneously.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to this, I have created a user sub-page showing that there is extensive debate with many points of view and that reliable sources are not quite so unanimous about whether or not the Bible is "myth", or whether it s proper to deliberately redefine "myth" so broadly just to be able to include the Bible. Please see User:Til_Eulenspiegel/Religious_narratives_as_sacred_canon.  However those editors who are of the opinion that the Bible is a "myth", wish to present this as an indisputable, "fact" as if there were no disagreement or debate, are do not seem to be willing to face any of these reliable sources.  This has come up on several pages.  I also added a neutrality dispute tag to Creation according to Genesis because the article is totally one-sided, but it was removed by an admin who curtly informed me that I lack the standing to dispute an article, because "there is no dispute" that the Bible is a myth. Several editors besides have complained about this refusal to present all sides of view, but those who insist on declaring the Bible a myth, no question, will not listen to any reason.  I am asking for admin help as I fear this serious neutrality violation can only be  solved by an arb com decision.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yahweh
Is there a policy regarding the rendering of the Tetragrammaton in articles? I feel that the use of "Yahweh" in Biblical quotes and references is POV, since this is not the common name found in English Bibles, and is only one possible transliteration, of which the correct one will probably never be known. In such cases, I usually use either "God of Israel" or "the Tetragrammaton." Thoughts? --Eliyak T · C 15:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about actual quotations, you clearly follow the translation you're quoting. The Jerusalem Bible & New Jerusalem Bible use Yahweh. Peter jackson (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yahweh's just the modern majority consideration of the likely vowel completion for 'YHWH', while it was earlier scholarship that had it as 'Jehovah'. I can't see why that is POV.
 * seems more POV to me, as its expressing a view about significance/dominance/ownership.
 * Similarly 'God of Israel' has issues as well, since that suggests that 'God of France' could be something entirely different, and that Israel never had any other God (such as a distinct El, for which it fought ['isra']), which is very definitely a POV.
 * And linking to Tetragramaton is very POV, as that literally is about four letters. It covers interpretations of those letters, beliefs about them, about pronouncing them, and about attempted reconstructions of pronunciation. What it doesn't cover is discussion of the deity itself - that's what Yahweh is for. Clinkophonist (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Bible
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What is a Bible?
Is the Koran a bible? Is the Book of Morman a part of a bible? How do you define the word bible within the scope of this project? Phil Burnstein (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bible with a capital B. This is not the french Wikipedia; Bible either means The Bible or is a very general term (including technical documentation about the character backgrounds in a soap opera). Try WikiProject Religious texts. Clinkophonist (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Synoptic Gospels needs much love and attention
I just stumbled upon Synoptic Gospels, and I was shocked at the quality of the article. I was embarrassed. I completely cut away the last "paragraph" of the article because the author didn't use any punctuation, and I couldn't figure out what they were trying to say. Much of the rest of the stub is in bad shape, lacking references, poor phraseology, poor grammar, etc. I tried to fix a few run on sentences, but I finally decided to call in the experts in the field for a major overhaul. So I come to you, WikiProject Bible, and present to you an article in your area in great need of some help. Gentgeen (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Call for participation in discussion
Please review the discussion here
 * Wikipedia_talk:Bible_citation

and comment on whether the page should be moved back to article space. Thanks. -Ac44ck (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Roman numerals in Bible citation
Members of this project may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

New page for your Wikiproject
I've made this page, a sourced analysis of Mt 10:16-23, and believe it to be under the scope of this wikiproject. If members agree, please be so kind as to add it to your wikiproject. Thanks! Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Lists of individuals and groups mentioned in each book of the Bible
I was thinking of creating lists of individuals and groups (tribes, nations, etc.) mentioned in each book of the Bible. I would start with Genesis and move through the rest of the Bible over time (unless other people decided to complete lists for other books of the Bible, in which case I could skip them), at least for the books this makes sense for. I know there is already a list of Biblical names but I think creating a list for each book of the Bible is a good idea because some people may find a list for each book more useful that the vast alphabetically-organized list that already exists. Each book of the Bible can be considered a unique literary work so a list for each book makes sense. The list of Biblical names can be regarded as a comprehensive 'master list' while each new list can be considered a more manageable 'sub-list.' The list of Biblical names is also more general than the lists I am thinking of making because it covers every noun listed in the Bible (i.e. names of persons, places, things, etc.). A person may instead want a more manageable and specific list such as 'tribes mentioned in Exodus' or 'individuals mentioned in Joshua' instead and this is where the shorter and more specific lists come in. I would also include more information on each name than the big list provides (i.e. relation to other persons, tribal or national affiliation, chapters and verses they appear in, etc.), although I would be aiming for brevity rather than completeness (which is what an article is for). I would make each list as comprehensive as possible. I was also thinking of making lists of places named in each book as well. Does anyone have any thoughts on this idea? --Schnurrbart (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You do realise how absolutely huge that list will be?

And how controversial - for example, - is that ....Manasseh... or ...Moses.... You might find most translations give 'Manasseh', but these derive from the 'MNShSh' in the Masoretic text, where the N is very unusually inserted (with a caret), suggesting to scholars that it originally read 'MShSh', which is Moses. So is that Manasseh some new individual, to be added to your list, or is it Moses who definitely is listed as having a 'Gershom' as a son.

Is 'Reuel' another name for 'Jethro', itself being another name for 'Hobab', who may have a father named 'Reuel', or are these actually different people in some way?

Jehoiachin (YH+YH+ChN), Jeconiah (YH+ChN+YH), or Coniah (ChN+YH)?

What about Ishbaal ('man of baal') - do you list it as that (which appears in some places in the Bible) or as the POV-but-biblical 'Ishbosheth' ('man of the shameful one'), which appears in physically earlier places?

Is Jesus' step-paternal grandfather to be named 'Jacob' or 'Heli' or are they different people entirely?

Clinkophonist (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that this would take time and do not plan to complete it anytime soon (unless other people joined in, possibly). I was thinking of taking a particular version of the Bible written in English (i.e. King James, New Revised Standard, etc.) and compiling the lists from that. Scholarly controversies like the ones you mentioned could be addressed in individual articles.-Schnurrbart (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

style standardisation
I've been looking around for some manual of style for Bible quotations and articles about Bible verses. I've found the following:


 * WikiProject Judaism/Manual of Style
 * Organisation of Bible articles
 * Bible verses (notability poll)
 * User:MonkeeSage/Bible_templates
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religious texts
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible

One of the main aspects that I would like standardised is which translation should be preferred for quotations. Obviously if there is a reason to quote a specific translation, different translations should be used. However we should have a project page which clearly indicates which is preferred for various situations, even if it means we need to define our differences in a WP:ENGVAR-like fashion. i.e. Topics about Judaism may be better served by using a preferred translation like JPS1917, and Christian topics may be better served by using a preferred translation like KJV or ASV.

One important issue that is not religious in nature is the use of quotations from copyrighted translations, which should be minimised, and specifically the UK copyright of the KJV.

With regards to articles about bible verses, I am a big fan of removing Wikipedia content which is within scope of Wikisource unless it is critically discussed on the Wikipedia article (i.e. removing the full text of long poems). In that vein, most Wikipedia articles about bible verses contain a section with many different translations. Wikisource has been slowly growing a complete interlinear bible (e.g. Bible/Obadiah/1/1) and I believe it would be beneficial to use this Wikisource resource rather than having many translations on the Wikipedia article. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If the version is pertinent to the interpretation, in the context of the article's reference to the text, then give one example of each pertinent variation. For example, on an article about homosexuality and leviticus 18/21, you have:
 * Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin (Living Bible)
 * Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin. (New Living Translation; note that the word 'homosexuality' is interpolated - its not translating anything in the original)
 * Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination (KJV)
 * It is disgusting for a man to have sex with another man. (Contemporary English Version; note that 'toebah' has been translated as 'disgusting', even though its 'piggul' that translates as 'disgusting')
 * And with a 'zakar' [not translated] you shall not lay layings [insert preposition] a woman, for it is ritually objectionable [toebah not piggul]. (literal translation of masoretic text, with uncertainties indicated; note that its 'esh' that means 'man', while 'zakar' can translate as 'pointed' - in the sense of 'having a penis' - but may have additional religious connotations)
 * And with an 'arsenos' [not translated] you shall not lie with in the marriage bed [insert preposition] a wife/woman [ambiguous], for it is nauseous. (literal translation of Septuagint, with uncertainties indicated; note that its 'andros' that means 'man', while 'arsenos' means '(the) virile')

All of which are quite different, and range from very broad (all homosexuality is a detestable sin) to very narrow (if you're married [to a woman] and want to have gay sex, don't do it in your wife's bed, that's just sick). I picked this particular passage precisely because its one of those with the widest variation in translations.

Here's another - part of :
 * ...the screech owl also shall rest there... (KJV)
 * ...there shall the lilith repose... (New American Bible)
 * ...the night monster also shall rest there... (New American Standard Bible)
 * ...the night-demon Lilith, evil and rapacious, will establish permanent quarters... (The Message)

Some mention Lilith, a demon which Jewish legend considers to be Adam's first wife (before Eve), while others don't mention it.

Essentially you'd have to show a fair sample of the translations, rather than just picking the one that suits your opinion best. If the article is talking about a specific occasion where one translation has an issue (eg. 'thou shalt commit adultery'), then just quote that, but if its about a translation controversy (or on a subject where the translation is controversial) - eg. 'presbyter' verses 'priest', then list all significant variations (only one translation each would be necessary).

And don't limit this to just variations between modern English Translations. Other languages translations may have significant variations too (the difference being obscured by the fact they are in other languages). And even though most modern translations are based on the masoretic text, you should still consider the Septuagint/Syriac Peshitta/Samaritan version/Dead Sea scrolls/Hexapla texts/etc. if these have a significant difference to the Masoretic text.

Basically, don't quote if you don't have to. And if you need to refer to a verse, use the Bibleverse template, rather than linking to one particular version. Clinkophonist (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Christianity project organization
Any comments regarding the structure and function of Christianity related material are welcome at WikiProject Christianity/General Forum. Be prepared for some rather lengthy comments, though. There is a lot of material to cover there. John Carter (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:52, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Noah's Ark FAR
nominated Noah's Ark for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Vassyana (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Enoch
I would like to create category called Category:Enoch in order to re-organize the material in the Enoch series. Enoch is a very mysterious character that would still need to be de-mythologized for the sake of ancient and modern studies in religion. Is there anywhere I can propose or discuss the creation of this category ? ADM (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are a number of folks named Enoch; any particular one? --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  20:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (e/c) I imagine that you could just start adding the category to relevant articles (WP:BEBOLD maybe?), but of course there is no guarantee that the category would remain if other editors disagreed. Are there other, similar categories already in existence for Biblical figures? I tried looking for some, but my already sparse religious knowledge seems to have deserted me! You could try looking through the sub-categories under Categorical_index for a precedent.
 * For discussion, perhaps the best place to begin might be the talk page of Wikiproject Religion, or alternatively the talk page of one of the articles mentioned at Enoch (I wasn't sure which Enoch you meant), although a discussion there may not get as many contributors. -- Kateshort forbob  20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The son of Jared is by far the most famous one, known simply as Enoch, there is merely a problem in the disambiguation which I would like to fix. ADM (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Open call for individual Psalms articles
This is an open call for anyone interesting in building up the collection of individual Psalms articles. There's a lot of work to be done but I think every one is notable for their own article. See template here if you're interested. - Epson291 (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Tree of Life
Is the Tree of Life Acacia, specifically the Shittah-tree, or Acacia seyal? The Spiritual use of cannabis states "Elders of the modern religious movement known as the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church consider cannabis to be the eucharist,[28] claiming it as an oral tradition from Ethiopia dating back to the time of Christ.[29] Like the Rastafari, some modern Gnostic Christian sects have asserted that cannabis is the Tree of Life.[30]" After reading the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church webpage that links as reference number 28, I don't think I will change from my current form of Christianity, but have become etomologicaly (I'll officially take credit for that word if it doesn't already exist) confused. Since I don't speak read and write all of the languages in question, and there would be serious doubts of anyone speaking all of the languages (with knowledge of idioms and so forth), this forum seems to be a great way to pool that knowledge. Tree of Life (Judeo-Christian) is a great article on the subject, but modern Christianity is multifaceted. It would be nice to be able to reference all the various points of view on this topic. Could this be an aspect of the descendants of Japheth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knosisophile (talk • contribs) 23:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new navigation boxes for Biblical material
I want everyone to note that we weren't trying to step on anyone's toes here. Some of the people at the WikiProject Christianity, including me, have come to the conclusion that it might make things a bit easier for us, with our roughly 30,000 articles, to have navigation boxes to link some of the articles which most directly link to the topics which are of highest importance to our project. This includes some biblical material. I want everyone to know that we are not seeking to lay some sort of "claim" on the material. All the templates, including the Biblical ones, that currently exist can be found at WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Templates. Anyone who would wish to make any comments or suggestions on any of them is free to do so there. And, yes, most of the ones I've recently created aren't real pretty yet. I figured I'd wait till we knew what all was in them before I tried to make them more appealing. John Carter (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm all in favour of rationalising. Many thanks for taking on this challenge! Can I offer a suggestion? Many of our articles have fully -expanded navigation side-boxes occupying masses of screen "real estate" from the top downwards, almost as if they were adverts. Can I suggest that we consider avoiding such side-boxes and instead try to use simple footer templates? (See the good examples at the bottom of Christian music.) Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All the ones I've recently created are of the kind you suggested. It might be a bit of a problem to try to change the existing ones, though. John Carter (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Article to be rated
Just to say I've created an article called The Children's Bible Story Book which I did a while ago, and it has not been rated by the WikiProject. I think it should be.  Ross Rhodes (  T   C  ) Sign!  20:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Textual variants
I have created the article Textual variants in the New Testament. If someone wants to help, please edit. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Bible
I am attempting to help make it easier for all the various portals which relate to Christian subjects do not disproportionately use certain articles relevant to their subject and in the process find other good articles relevant to the subject not being used as often as they could. Toward that purpose, I have started the page User:John Carter/Christianity portals. I realize that this portal listed above is not exclusively related to Christianity, and acknowledge that. However, because the subject material is related to a fairly large extent, it makes sense to have it included anyway. If anyone here is involved in the upkeep of the above portal, please feel free to look at the page above and offer any input you see fit. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)