Jump to content

Talk:Bible citation/Archives/2021/September

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Essay

This page does not belong in article space:

Please clarify your objections:
  • It is self-referential.
I assume this refers to the fact that it contains _one_ sentence which seems to conflict with this policy:
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_self-references#Avoid_referring_to_.22Wikipedia.22
This means that while articles may refer to themselves, they should not refer to "Wikipedia" or to the Wikipedia project as a whole (e.g. "this website").
Where the text says:
The most common format on Wikipedia ...
As I noted in Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Roman_numerals_in_Bible_citation, the claim seems anecdotal to me. As an unsubstantiated assertion and a self-reference, the statement is a candidate for removal — not a reason to move the article to a different namespace.
  • The portion on Roman numerals is a WP:SYNTH
Please:
  • Offer suggestions on how to revise it
  • Provide additional text to provide a more balanced view if you object to what is said, aka: be bold and fix it.
  • it almost exactly resembles the chief example on that page.
I find only one example in the _section_ on WP:SYNTH, and it builds a conditional chain of logic:
If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual ....
There is no "if" here. The Chicago Manual of Style doesn't endorse the use of Roman numerals for chapter numbers or (with few and irrelevant exceptions) "other parts of a book".
One might reach a logical conclusion from the arrangement of statements that I presented, but I only reported available facts — I didn't build a conditional chain of logic. How is it "a novel conclusion" that writing chapter numbers in Roman numerals is in conflict with the Chicago Manual of Style?
Please move this content back to article space. - Ac44ck (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
And please remove the tag. -Ac44ck (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
No,thank you. The position is precisely parallel; both in the "plagiarism" case and here, the text quotes a general rule and applies it to a particular case, without any citation from outside applying it to that case. That's acceptable in Wikipedia space, but not in article space. Similarly, the (unsourced and unstable) claim on what is most common in Wikipedia does not belong in article space, but is acceptable here.
This was always an orphaned article. In Wikipedia space, it may find friends, and (to drop the metaphor) be useful to editors. It has no function on the article side. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
We could remove all this material, which would make it suitable for article space, but that would leave nothing but a stub. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Or it could be moved back nearly intact because it was mostly okay as it was.
Again, the presence of one sentence is not a reason to move the page to a different namespace. Unsourced statements are removed regularly. I have not seen an article banished because of one before. It seems like an extreme "fix".
As for the alleged WP:SYNTH issue, the bible is a "book". The CMOS applies directly to this case without additional sources making the same claim. How else might one use the Chicago Manual of Style's guidance in this case? Why might it not be appropriate to use the Chicago Manual of Style's guidance in this case?
The complaint that the CMOS doesn't mention the bible specifically seems absurd to me. The example in at WP:SYNTH is much more convoluted than the present case. The only "parallel" that I see is that they both involve a manual of style. I don't read that WP:SYNTH prohibits going from "a general to a specific". The intent seems to be quite the opposite — combining specifics, aka: "synthesis".
If needed, there are other sources which discourage the use of Roman numerals for this purpose:
Cite Bible verses with chapter and verse(s) using arabic numerals separated by a colon.
Use Arabic numerals (1, 2, 3), not Roman numerals (I, II, III), in biblical citations.
What I found and wrote is accurate and verifiable. There may be other manuals of style that say the opposite. Others are certainly free to find and cite them.
Here again, the alleged WP:SYNTH issue was no cause for moving this content to a different namespace without discussion.
This page does not show up as "orphaned article" here:
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Orphaned_articles_from_November_2008
or here (before it was moved from article namespace):
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Orphaned_articles_from_October_2008
The claim that it "always an orphaned article" seems to be false. How it "may find friends" by banishing it is a mystery to me. The claim that "It has no function on the article side" seems like an unsubstantiated judgement to me.
This move happened with no discussion and for (stated) reasons which can be fixed — to the limited extent that any "fix" may actually be needed.
Again, please move this content back to article space and remove the tag. - Ac44ck (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Those categories are for articles with the {{orphan}} tag; what articles linked to it in October and not in November? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to find the historical list you asked for, but the page got 1736 visits from somewhere in October according to this:
http://stats.grok.se/en/200810/Bible_citation
That doesn't seem like an "orphaned" page to me. The current list of active links is here:
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Bible_citation
and includes the following:
As it is part of a larger project, it is not an orphan.
Do you have a link that provides the historical list you asked for? If not, why would you assume that the items listed above didn't have links to here in October? If you did have it, why didn't you provide a link instead of sending me on a chase to find it?
Note that the link in Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Articles is in a list of _articles_ — not "essays" nor "policies".
Even if this page were an orphan, is that a capital offense? Are we in the business of banishing orphans rather than submitting a request for deletion — if we decide that it is necessary to kill an orphan for _being_ an orphan?
Do you have anything substantive to say on the other issues? The quips at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Roman_numerals_in_Bible_citation became tiresome. Why focus first on the minor point of the alleged (and seemingly false) "orphan" status instead of the larger issues here?
Here is the main issue: This page doesn't belong here (WP space). It belongs where it was (article space). It was moved for invalid reasons in a unilateral action without prior discussion. It needs to be moved back to where it was (article space). Please do so. Thanks. - Ac44ck (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

This is to request a cross-namespace move back to its former location — where it existed prior to a unilateral action which was taken without prior discussion. -Ac44ck (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The action was contary to the guidelines for cross-namespace moves:

Generally speaking, other types of cross-namespace moves will be controversial and worth discussing with other editors. Wikipedia:Requested moves is the proper place for this. However, when proposing to move what appears to be an article out of the main namespace, it is strongly recommended that some form of Wikipedia:Deletion process should be used, preferably Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, as Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and Wikipedia:Speedy deletion do not build consensus. This is because the redirect that is created by such a move is subject to speedy deletion, which would effectively cause the article to be deleted from the main encyclopedia.

-Ac44ck (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

  • Support. The page was moved without discussion. The act of moving implied that it was permanently and irreparably broken — in the opinion of one editor. But their first hint of displeasure was to move the article. I fixed the one thing that I agreed was broken. The heading notes "accepted" not "acceptable" forms of citation. The word was chosen to match existing text in the lead. Maybe there is a better word for the heading. If an editor has identified other accepted forms, they are free to add them. The argument about WP:synth seems fabricated. And the call for additional sources stating exactly what is implied has been satisfied. All the stated objections for moving this content out of article space are now irrelevant. There was no justifiable reason to move this page from article space. The errant act should be undone. - Ac44ck (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    Nominator !vote Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    We could strip out the opinions, the sloganeering, the unsourced claims; but we would we left with a stub. I am perfectly willing to go that route, if the text changes. But as it stands, it is an essay - a perfectly respectable entity, to which anyone who shares Ac44ck's opinions is free to appeal. In article space, it would need massive revamping, or warrant multiple tags, for biased language, unsourced statements, and original research. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

  • Oppose. I moved this article because large parts of it do not belong in article space: a Wikipedia article should not declare which formats are "acceptable", per WP:NPOV; and the section on the Chicago Manual of Style is WP:SYNTH. This is a perfectly clear expression of Ac44ck's opinion about Roman numerals and other matters. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

WP:SYNTH says, about its Smith and Jones example:

This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor.

So here, the paragraph on the Chicago Manual of Style is original research, because it implies the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago manual's advice on Roman numerals, they should not be used in Biblical citation. To make the paragraph consistent with NOR, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on Roman numerals and makes the same point about the Chicago manual and the Bible. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor.

Original research is not prohibited in Wikipedia space, least of all in essays. If Ac44ck can gain consensus for his opinion (I do not endorse it), this could even become a guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Restating a claim doesn't make it true. Did you read what I noted above about the meaning of "synthesis"? Do you have counter-arguments to the points I made? Why do you mention making a guideline? Whether one decides to follow the CMOS is a personal choice. That choice does not alter what the CMOS says about Roman numerals. -Ac44ck (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes. It demonstrates you do not understand the concept; other editors will. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Again with a hit-and-run quip. What do you have against discussion? Maybe other editors won't understand. Why don't you enlighten us? You have yet to engage my arguments. The intended application of a clear statement is not what WP:synth is talking about. If your interpretation were correct, we couldn't apply the concept of addition to "2+2=4". You would call this "original research" unless one cited sources that present the identical calculation verbatim. That is clearly an unreasonable position — contrary the to purpose of _having_ mathematics. It is absurd to assert that it is WP:synth to understand that the CMOS includes "Bible" where it says "book". You would require the CMOS to mention every genre of literature individually. That is an unreasonable expectation. The whole CMOS issue is irrelevant anyway: I cited a source which specifically says "Use Arabic numerals ... not Roman numerals ... in biblical citations", which is what you said you wanted. - Ac44ck (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
What Ac44ck calls a quip, I call eschewing needless words. Even this has been long-winded. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
This was yet another failure to engage in discussion. You have not made an adequate case for why the nonconsensual action by a rogue editor should not be reverted. - Ac44ck (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Copying a reply in the 'survey' section that belongs in the 'discussion' section:
We could strip out the opinions, the sloganeering, the unsourced claims; but we would we left with a stub. I am perfectly willing to go that route, if the text changes. But as it stands, it is an essay - a perfectly respectable entity, to which anyone who shares Ac44ck's opinions is free to appeal. In article space, it would need massive revamping, or warrant multiple tags, for biased language, unsourced statements, and original research. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC),
Copying a statement from below lest it get lost in the rest of the reply:
It would be a horrible precedent to condone movement of an article to a different namespace to appease one editor who finds a fact stated in the article to be unpalatable for some reason.
Back to our regularly scheduled reply:
Please substantiate your buzzwords.
The section on Roman numerals contains six sentences that are not direct quotes. Three of those sentences introduce direct quotes. On what planet do they call three independent sentences an "essay"?
The section on Roman numerals contains six links. How much more sourcing do you want in a section that contains six original sentences?
We have dispensed with the allegation of "unsourced claims".
I have no idea to what you refer in your assertion that the page contains "sloganeering".
As for inciting fear that the article might be reduced to a stub, the current page is already a stub.
I changed the heading from "accepted" to "common". It apparently triggered a politically-correct knee-jerk reaction because it was too close to "acceptable". What is gained by making "gray" the only tolerable adjective?
You keep claiming "original research" by repeating your own interpretation of an irrelevant example and failing to engage any of my counter-arguments.
If you have something to say in support of using Roman numerals, please do so. I devoted _half_ of my original sentences to the recognition that people use them. I am not going to say that they are more generally accepted in modern use than they seem to be. What is wrong with that? Inflating their acceptance in modern usage would be POV-pushing. If you want Roman numerals to be used more in modern texts, that can be cured by writing a bunch of texts that use them.
It would be a horrible precedent to condone movement of an article to a different namespace to appease one editor who finds a fact stated in the article to be unpalatable for some reason.
Much better alternatives for an offended editor:
  1. Drop a NPOV tag, discuss the issues, and live with the result if it was a false charge; or
  2. Fix it — "To criticize is to volunteer."
Wikipeida is a collaborative effort. It is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia for a lone editor (perhaps disappointed with how they fared in a prior discussion elsewhere) to seemingly follow another editor (WP:STALK?) to a page (which has existed for four years and was viewed 1700 times in the previous month) which is relevant to the prior discussion and the second editor tried to make a constructive contribution; then, dissatisfied with the contribution made by the second editor, for the lone editor to:
  • Make the unilateral judgement that the article is irreparably broken and its continued presence in article space cannot be abided
  • Banish the article to a different namespace without discussion
  • Expect the rogue act to be irrevocable.
Is it not "recognizing reality" to note that most people in the 21st century are not using Roman numerals? Why do you want to relegate the observation to mere "opinion"? Would you prefer that Wikipedia report on the world as you wish it were? Isn't that a NPOV issue?
Why did none of this discussion happen before the content was moved?
Can you say, "I was wr... wrrrr... wrong?" -Ac44ck (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The move of this article to a different namespace was performed without any regard for consensus. Consensus should not be required to revert a rogue act.
Other means for bringing attention to perceived problems with the content were available to the editor who moved this content. They chose not to make any use of those means.
I believe that it would be a mistake to reward the rogue act of failing to seek consensus before taking extreme action by failing to revert the nonconsensual move. - Ac44ck (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't we really have two articles: one a set of guidelines for biblical citation in Wikipedia articles, and the other a non-prescriptive, non-proscriptive, but descriptive article on the various ways in which the Bible has been, and is cited? Right now we have neither. Clean it up and move on. No punishments, no recriminations, no rewards, no kudos, just some hard work. --Bejnar (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Right now, we have a mess. Through failure to follow established procedure, a redirect now exists where there was a "non-prescriptive, non-proscriptive, but descriptive article on the various ways in which the Bible has been, and is cited". I would argue that the section on Roman numerals is also descriptive -- it acknowledges that they are used and it does _not_ say "you should not use Roman numerals for biblical citation in Wikipedia" or anywhere else. Maybe we can start a page for "a set of guidelines for biblical citation in Wikipedia" after the mess is cleaned up.
But back to the mess that was made. Creating a new article to replicate what was there before is contrary to this:
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Help:Moving_a_page#.5Bedit.5D_Wikipedia-specific_help
Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so destroys the edit history. (The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires.)
The page has four years of history. The way to preserve that history for the "non-prescriptive, ..." article is to move the page back to where it was. I have made conciliatory edits to the page since it was moved here. There is little, if any, reason to oppose moving it back to where it was. The admonition to "move on" is hindered by obstruction of an effort to have the page moved back to where it was before (which will require administrator assistance because the target page name is now "in use" by a redirect). - Ac44ck (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What else needs changing

What else needs changing in order to create a "non-prescriptive, non-proscriptive, but descriptive article on the various ways in which the Bible has been, and is cited"? --Bejnar (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that as a regular article, it would be substantially improved by (1) starting with a definition, (2) having a historical section showing various forms (assuming that one can find works that talk about such citation forms and not just WP:OR examples, and (3) having a modern section that shows the various forms, and again if sources are available, discusses the pro and cons of each. The current format does still look to me like a prescriptive one despite recent changes. I believe that the problem is "organizational and lack of source"-based as much as anything else. --Bejnar (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The following may be useful as models:
Other models may also be useful.
A corresponding model may be useful for "a set of guidelines for biblical citation in Wikipedia":
But it should not be forgotten _where_ we are discussing this — outside of article space, where the page resided for four years until the nonconsensual action by one editor.
A cross-namespace move is a poor and needlessly disruptive alternative to fixing, discussing, or tagging as a means of expressing displeasure with the contents of an article. The state of this page didn't seem to arouse anyone else's ire until I made one addition to it. My attempt to address a previously ignored issue seemed to prompt rogue action by the other party in a prior discussion — who seems to have followed me here.
The request to revert the move remains active — and important for precedent. In my view, that is the larger issue at the moment. - Ac44ck (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
If you believe that some larger issue, not about the content, is important, please take that to the appropriate Wikipedia space. You made your case above, it does not belong here. WP:POINT suggests that an edit, move or reversion should not be made to "prove a larger point". --Bejnar (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Done. -Ac44ck (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
For somebody who knows how to link articles about the same topic in different languages: the German page at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wie_zitiert_man_Bibelstellen covers generally similar topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.128.250 (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Bifurcate ?

Should this article be bifurcated with one guidelines version here, and one non-guideline version in article space? --Bejnar (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be perfectly acceptable. Not much would be left in article space when the neutrality and synthesis problems are removed, but the stub would be useful and harmless. (It would still be an orphan.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverted move and article-ified

I've restored this article to article space, removed the unnecessary project-space content, and expanded it using sources. Everyone please note that we already have a project-space discussion of citing the Bible. It's Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible. Uncle G (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

What is not neutral about this article? --Witr (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviations, revisited

The article says that “There are two commonly accepted styles for abbreviating the book names, one used in general books and one used in scholarly works.” Can somebody please provide a table of abbreviations for the book names, including both the general and scholarly abbreviations, or is this list copyrighted? Bwrs (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

One list is here
http://www.ptc.ac.fj/fastpage/downloads/ReferencingStyleGuidePTC2013.pdf
Appendix A, "This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0" - Ac44ck (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: On religious text citations

Doesn't most of the article's contents also apply to other religious texts with book-chapter-verse systems? And if so, shouldn't this fall under a more agnostic title, such as "scriptural citation"? --RayneVanDunem (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Referencing a range of two verses

I was hoping to find in this article how to deal with referencing a range of two verses, whether it should be, “Gen. 1:1, 2” or, “Gen. 1:1–2.” A number of sources use the former, but I have also seen the latter. Does anyone know the answer so we could add it to the article (and help my future writing)? —The Sackinator (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction inline

Greetings! I placed a couple of {{contradiction-inline}}'s at the article in last March:

  1. The lede[1]: "A common example: Genesis 3:5, TLB" (Reason: Common formats says that abbreviations should not be used but be written out)
  2. The Common formats section: "Translation/version names should not be abbreviated (e.g., write out King James Version instead of using KJV)." (Reason: The lede, Punctuation, and Editions say that one should use abbreviations)
  3. The Punctuation section: "For example:" (Reason: Common formats says that abbreviations should not be used but be written out)
  4. The Editions section: "One should simply use the standard abbreviation of the version of the Bible (e.g. "KJV" for King James Version, "RSV" for Revised Standard Version, "NIV" for New International Version, and so forth)." (Reason: Common formats says that abbreviations should not be used but be written out)

Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

For clarification: now the information about abbreviations is fragmented in four different sections, where the statements might appear conflicting and hence confuse the reader. For example, Bible citation#Editions is referring to the "Student Supplement to the SBL Handbook of Style", whereas Bible citation#Common formats makes a reference to the APA style of citation.
I think one solution would be to gather all the different citation styles (pro- and con-abbreviations) into one single section, e.g. Bible citation#Abbreviating book names that already exists. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

History needed

No where in this article is the history of this mentioned. Who came up with this idea? Or when did it first arise? Etc. Kingturtle = (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Notability of the article?

Greetings! Are there any sources discussing the various ways of citing the Bible as such? So far, the article is a mishmash of different ways of citing, but the common thread seems to be missing. Moreover, the article itself contains several contradictory statements about the proper ways to cite — which in turn emphasizes the very issue that the current article is more of a patchwork quilt without any grand design or focus. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bible_citation/Archives/2021/September&oldid=1059892650"