Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religious texts/Archive 2

How best to organise articles about bits of religious texts
I have created a proposed guideline about how articles on the bible should be organised:
 * Organisation of Bible articles

Since it may indirectly impact on articles about other religious texts, I wonder if you would like to comment on it. Clinkophonist (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Book of Kells
Book of Kells has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

WikiProject Bible
Hello, I'm from the above WikiProject.

I have some concerns from reading this talk page that WikProject Religious texts seems to be concentrating almost entirely on the Bible and related apocrypha - ie. that it is duplicating WikiProject Bible.

There are many other religious texts in the world, like the Mahabarata, the Pali Canon, the Analects, the Tao Te Ching, Hesiod's Theogony, the Zend Avesta, the Four Branches of the Mabinogi, etc. I would hate to think that people coming to this project to work on general topics encompassing all of these would be dissuaded from doing so after seeing the interests of the project members.

I would therefore like to invite all discussions specifically about the Bible and closely related works to take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible.

Clinkophonist (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Bible version to quote?
Hello, I thought this would be the best place to ask this question. I'm currently writing an article on the Genesis Apocryphon (you can see a partial draft here), and I wanted to know if there is a preferred version of the Bible to quote or link to. In my article, I currently link to (but not quote) the New American Bible, which is under copyright. Is this fine, or is it encouraged to link to a public domain translation like the King James Bible? Thank you. -- Kyok o  15:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Copper Scroll
I would like to "own" the article Copper Scroll or have it owned by a similarly-minded editor. Here is my reason. After the initial thrill of finding it, researchers have been totally unable to discover what the heck the scroll refers to. Most likely they never will. True research, sensing a dead end, has stopped a long time ago. In retrospect, the poor folks copying it 2 millenia ago didn't really know either, but didn't want to jeopardize their heritage by not passing along what seemed like incredibly important information. The article is in pretty good shape, no thanks to me! It was pretty much that way when I found it.

The only changes that are made, unfortunately, are triggered by a rerun of a disreputable television program where pseudo professionals were paid to make outrageous speculation about the scroll, none of them substantiated by scholars. The reruns (when made) trigger a rash of "good-faith" but invariably spurious entries.

In the best of all possible worlds, the scroll should be permanently locked by an admin and opened only after someone convinced him that there was really something worthwhile to put in it.

Another way is to set it up for automatic (bot) revert for the article itself. The proposing editor could justify his reasons in the discussion, maybe convincing the "owner" that he had run across something really worthwhile.

I realize that this is a very unusual situtation. I watch over 900 articles and this is the only one I have run across so far. How can this sort of thing be done?

(BTW I ran across an admin who "owned" an article and had a bot setup to automatically revert edits. Without pointing out that I had noticed this, I asked him the same question. He blandly replied to post here! :) Student7 (talk) 12:13, 22 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 )  21:20, 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) 12:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 571 articles are assigned to this project, of which 147, or 25.7%, 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 the following 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) 16:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Religious texts
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 22:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)