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

I think views by different Christian denominations should be added[edit]

I think in the views section they should add what each Christian denomination thinks of the Bible. CycoMa (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I thinks that's what's called Biblical hermeneutics, but don't take my word for it. There may be other related articles. In general, I think they think pretty highly of it ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm just saying they add what Islam thinks of the Bible but never address what Christianity itself thinks of the Bible. CycoMa (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
The article is rife with references to Protestants, Anglicans, Catholics, etc. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, "Christianity itself" is a complex something, but don't you see anything relevant to that in Bible#Divine_inspiration? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I must ask why aren't they mentioned in the views section? CycoMa (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it's largely a Wikipedia:Summary style and perhaps somewhat WP:PROPORTION thing. The Bible topic is HUGE, and this article is the top of the pyramid. Stuff can be found in articles like Biblical inerrancy, Biblical criticism, Rapture and many others. But all WP-articles can be improved. If you make a suggestion of text to include with good sources, editors may agree with you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, CycoMa, and Tgeorgescu: The article names and quotes John K. Riches, a scholar from Glasgow, several times. His book cited is a contemporary pop-culture summary of the Bible, including in that "views" section. This person has no wiki article and may not pass WP:GNG, so name dropping this person in this article has little value. I agree - the section on "views" is omitting the Christian view, and in place of that, has this person's direct quotation. It would seem right to have quotes or perspectives from a leading voice from Christianity in this section. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

True, he has no WP-article, though his chair does. Seems a respectable scholar to me. What makes this OUP-book pop-cult? His quote seems relevant and on-topic to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Highly read little edited[edit]

I came from from Topviews, https://tools.wmflabs.org/topviews/, a service of Wikipedia:Pageview statistics which shows the most popular articles by readership.

This article, "Bible" was #11 in the list of most popular English language articles for 2019. Other reports show that, unusually, this article has few edits or editors as compared to other popular articles. Also strangely, 95% of traffic to this article is from desktop computers, when most of the other popular articles get 65%+ mobile traffic.

Although obviously the many people of the world get information from many sources, among the available sources, Wikipedia is probably the single most consulted source of information on this topic. I wish there were a way to draw attention to Wikipedia's reach and use that as a way to invite more people to edit Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe a high desktop % is normal for "serious" or "schoolwork/study" articles, where pop culture & sports (no doubt most of #1-10) get high mobile views. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
From one point of view there is a sort of collective intelligence between readers, editors, and articles. I've noticed this in art articles, space articles, and likely true for religious articles. You'd think hundreds of people would be editing them, getting into edit conflicts, breathing down each others necks. Bible students and academic scholars, ministers, writers, those "called" to edit, and the high school kid on lunch break who wants to toss a few grains of rice into the machine, should all be showing up and editing or vandalizing major biblical pages. Yet they don't, and editors and their friendly bots are not overwhelmed with edit and fact checking new additions or deletions. The "Wikipedia as common as sidewalks" concept (few think of where sidewalks come from, we just use them and don't go out of our way to build one), especially for young readers who know Wikipedia as "always been there", leaves major articles such as this one inexplicably manageable and in good shape, with incremental improvements weekly. This also relates somehow to average views of almost all pages, which, aside from promotional-based spikes, tend to base-level out around the same number day after day. As editors we ask why aren't there more of us, because it seems like a natural thing to do. But to the vast majority of people Wikipedia is there when they need it, like a sidewalk, and they never think of improving it. Until they do. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Cain_and_Abel#Is_KJV_version_better_in_this_article?[edit]

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bible&oldid=948226327"