Talk:Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured article candidateBible is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 15, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 29, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article candidate


Rfc at Bible and violence please comment[edit]

Talk:The_Bible_and_violence#Rfc

Xhosa[edit]

I think Bible make us believe more 🙏 41.114.236.28 (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Believe in what? Dimadick (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Xhosa? Kaylahackman (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Trending Page Over a Month in 2021?[edit]

Any thoughts on why this article is suddenly so popular (especially for such an extended period of time)?

It seems like an anomaly similar to Cleopatra being a top ranked article for an extended period of time when Google Assistant recommended searching "Show me Cleopatra on Wikipedia" on their Android phones.


2600:1700:7D10:C130:F8E3:8B0A:2ED3:E9DD (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Previous musings at Talk:Bible/Archive_17#Why_is_this_trending?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Starting very suddenly on March 6, 2019, the number of views for this article exploded (with no matching rise on Google trends). This spike was driven entirely by desktop views, indicating this is likely some kind of bot activity. The views counts are large enough and sustained enough that the Bible has been the most-read article on desktop for months and months and months. The question is: why?

Dmildy (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead too short?[edit]

I noticed an editor recently substantially shortened the lead. I’m worried the new lead does not provide an adequate summary of the topic. Needforspeed888 (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed the contributions and reverted to an earlier version since I determined the changes weren't constructive. @Zzalpha: The lead (introduction) is supposed to summarize the main body of the article, and I think it currently does an adequate job of this. So taking the content from the lead and placing it in a separate section was not helpful as it diminished the purpose of the lead. Your shorter lead was also inadequate in part because it was far too Christianity-focused. Moreover, your new 'origins' section (which was largely unreferenced) unfortunately duplicated much of the information already found the § Development and § Textual history sections. Please read through the article beforehand to check whether the information is already present, and then add new information to the existing sections where appropriate. --Hazhk (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hazhk: @Needforspeed888:

Start a development process of the page - A well working page layout of the bible[edit]

Hazhk, please undo reverts[edit]

I think Hazhk is wrong to delete the new intro, when instead the rest of the article needs a thorough elaboration where the article is more clearly about the book and not its users (who have their own articles in Wikipedia, which of course this article should be linked to).

  • I ask you Hazhk to undo your reverts 08:42 and 08:52, 24 January 2022
  • Without, it is not even clear what bible we are talking about, in the present Hazhk article version.
  • This article should be about the bible defined as the common Bible canon by the Councils of Hippo in 393 and in Carthage in 397 AD, and nothing else
  • This edition translated is what is published today in 100 million copies a year.
  • Else we do not even have a definition of what we are talking about.
  • All other bible definition and use should be mentioned later in the article with a link to their own Wikipedia article.
  • The article should be based on the Septuagint and the Vulgate editions because every later edition has its path from here.
  • The Masoretic text it should be referred to because its books are the origins.
  • And certainly in Carthage in 397 AD it was only about the common Christianity and every other later such aspect should be mentioned lower in the article.
  • We continue this debate from there, in general talk about how we can enhance the rest of the article, else we do not know what we are talking about.
  • I have not edited in the previous text, just but a new title Context over it, so lets talk from an non-destructive state?

The edits[edit]

I have written the new intro (24 January 2022) to the article about the bible and the purpose is to start a process to make the article more accessible (regardless of who the reader is). An article should be organized so that the basic formalities and definitions should start the article and then come to content and detail, to make it possible to keep orientation and comprehend the later text in the article. The article on the Bible is long and needs a working layout.

I think

  • 08:52, 24 January 2022 Hazhk −9,223 WP: REVERT. Sorry but your recent changes stent constructive. The lead summarized the content Already in thevredtvof the article, and your new 'origins' section duplicates the existing 'Development' section. Please read the article first
  • No, the article is poorly written communicative and one should not have to read the whole article with lots of detailed elaborations to get its basic formal content and origin.
  • The article needs a very short intro about what it is and when it was defined. It needs a brief overview of who wrote it, when and how (which in this case is a little more complex than usual).
  • 08:42, 24 January 2022 Hazhk +30 The Bible is not significant in Christianity only. Some recent changes need discussing
  • No, the bible is significant in only Christianity as the main thread. The common Bible canon by the Councils of Hippo in 393 and in Carthage in 397 AD were certainly only Christian.
  • Those non-Christianity religions who use it should be mentioned later in the article, definitely not in the introduction, they are uninteresting to 99% of readers, but exist. That it is of religious significance is initially covered by "of very special significance and therefore called" the Holy Scriptures "." And may be clarified later in the article.
  • The article should be about the book not about its users, where the book is so large that there are articles about its users that the book article should link to.

Start a development process of the page[edit]

Without Hazhk undo reverts, this page about the bible:

  • Requires you to read the whole article (which is quite long) to get the basic facts about the book a reader is looking for.
  • In short, it is quite messy, difficult to read and inaccessible.
  • An article about the bible is too important to be messy
  • I'm not interested in having to read a lot of religious aspects/opinions (that should be communicated outside Wikipedia) to get formalities about the book out of the article.
  • If you are interested in knowing about the content of the Bible and its parts, the article is not very good either.
  • The article need in general editing, it need a plan over what the article should communicate and how.

I understand that the page is sensitive to edit in and I have tried to start a process to divide the page's themes into different sections that work communicatively well. I have started from my stable editing of the introduction of the Swedish page about the Bible (the same topic, previously that article was hard to get).

  • I saw editing (it's a lot of work) as the best way to initiate a process (but the article and topic is importanat).
  • I have written it as "dry" as possible (focus on basic formalities) as the page (initially) stated should not communicate religious messages but later in the article addresses its debate.
  • I have carefully not erased any previous texts only moved parts of one sentence.
  • The edit has been reverted and I continue under this title on the talk page
  • I hope the whole article can be redesigned to be accessible and communicative
  • I want to start a process to improve the article editorially and my editing of the intro is a good start for that.
  • I ask you Hazhk to undo your reverts 08:42 and 08:52, 24 January 2022
  • And we continue the debate on this topic from there

A well working page layout of the bible[edit]

A Wikipedia page should communicate its content to a reader of different interests in an effective way.

  • It needs a layout that gives you a good orientation and it becomes easily accessible
  • I'm not talking about its religious impact that other articles should stand for, this article should be about the book, the bible
  • I think the starting point for the article should be about the well-distributed book.

You do not have to be religious to be interested in a Wikipedia article on the Bible, and as such not to be interested in reading unnecessary religious commentary, as there should be room for in a separate sections of the article below.

The first thing to read should be:

  • Very briefly what type of book it is, how widespread it is
  • Who are the author and the circumstances surrounding its creation (which here is a little longer than usual)
  • Which versions of the book are displayed

// I have edited to this point, by adding the intro

  • What the books it contains, an introduction followed by an in-depth study (I think the text today in the article is weak even on this point)
  • I think the books of the bible should be listed in two sections (old/new) of each book in the Bible
  • With a short tweet about its contents
  • A link to a separate article about the book.
  • The Bible is so large that it qualifies for a single article on each of its chapters (books)
  • We can't have for ever continues articles and have to split them into sub-articles.
  • An in-depth study of the book's history (this book is old and little has happened over the years and there is room for in-depth study)
  • What are the opinions about the book

--Zzalpha (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Just as your lead edits were way too long and not an effective summary, so too your reply here. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)