Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Aleksandr Sigalov is requesting that his translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch be treated as a reliable source on Wikipedia. He has requested input from other editors, and started a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard: here. The first reviewer there stated that they could use some more input from some readers who have a good knowledge of the Bible. I thought maybe we could find some here at this project page. If you're interested in looking into this and providing outside opinions click the link. Alephb (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I went to My Cup Runneth Over looking for information about the biblical quote, and instead found an article that's almost entirely about songs and popular culture. I also found a comment on Talk:My Cup Runneth Over making the same comment, ten years ago! It would be great if somebody could write an article about the quote. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what more there is than what the lead says. It seems to be an idiom for abundance, like one's cup being filled with some presumably desirable drink so full that it's overflowing. What more is there to say? I can try to flesh out the lead a little bit, but I doubt there's legitimately enough to say beyond a paragraph's worth. Alephb (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Archive 7/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Bible.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Bible, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, FYI I added a link for "Popular pages" to this WP Project page, "Tasks" section. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I have added messages to the talk page on the Beatitudes indicating that it would make sense if this article were in the scope of your wikiproject. Thank you if you could consider this proposal, Vorbee (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I am having a bit of a problem with our Amalek article. Specifically, multiple editors keep re-inserting claims such as the claim that The Book of numbers (5th century BCE) talks about Adolph Hitler. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

As one of the "multiple editors" (there's just two of us) mentioned here, I think this is a bad mischaracterization of the situation. But I would ask anyone who has the time to drop by Amalek and take a look. Alephb (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

In case anyone's interested, there is a Wikisource partial translation of the Bible, over at Wikisource:WikiProject Wiki Bible.

There's some conversations occurring at Translation talk:Genesis and Translation talk:Exodus where a third opinion from someone knowledgeable (even moderately knowledgeable) about biblical Hebrew would be helpful here. The conversations are between myself an an anonymous IP -- the only two active contributors that I know of to the project. We're talking really basic stuff -- the editor I'm trying to talk to has only a partial knowledge of the vowel-points in the Hebrew Bible, but can apparently speak Modern Israeli Hebrew and thinks that this completely substitutes for any knowledge of biblical Hebrew.

For a sampling of what the new editor is brining to the table, see [1] and much more here [2].

Of course, for anyone who doesn't want to wade into this mess, there's also a number of totally untranslated sections that could use a look from anyone who knows their way around biblical Hebrew, ancient Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Alephb (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I am working on a total rewrite-- in my sandbox-- of an existing article that was flagged as needing it. I am wondering if I can put upon someone to give me a fair and honest assessment of the content before I go any further. I'm still pretty new here and haven't made any friends I can ask yet. The existing article is the Bible and Violence. I think the title needs changing because it is too broad, and it's meaning can be seen as ambiguous. I have gone with Violence in the Bible. That is actually what the article discusses. The article not only lacked sufficient inline references, it needed reorganizing. The entire existing article is subsumed in the rewrite. I left nothing out. I even checked and read up on his references. Everything he said is still there--it's just rearranged and either edited for conciseness or expanded and added to. I would especially like comments on including the section on apologetics--which contains the non-sectarian information--or combining them all into single paragraphs--or deleting it entirely...and whatever your reasoning on that might be. Please help me! I have already run into some vitriol on this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Jenhawk777/sandboxJenhawk777 (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, User:Jenhawk777. I'd be happy to take a look and give you some thoughts, and I'll try to be polite. I'm sorry to hear there's been some vitriol. Discussions of the Bible on Wikipedia (or anywhere) have a way of getting that way. Alephb (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, the link to your sandbox doesn't seem to lead to your draft. Has it been moved? Alephb (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

On third thought, I don't see any evidence that you've been editing over at The Bible and violence at all. Are you editing under multiple usernames? I'm confused here. Alephb (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alephb: Hello! No it hasn't been moved and I won't submit it until I get other opinions. I apparently wrote the link incorrectly--should not have included the 'talk'. It's there in my sandbox. I have not edited any on the original article because I was attempting to Be Bold! and do the whole rewrite suggested in the flag at the top!! I kept everything from the original article within the rewrite--I just relabeled and rearranged and added to it. I would like to change the Title. The Bible and violence is ambiguous; it could refer to using the Bible to address violence and help create peace--which is not what the article is about. Violence in the Bible is more specific and limited in scope. I would like to know if you think the rewrite in my sandbox has a neutral pov, if you think content needs altering in any way--oh just anything you feel like saying! I am genuinely grateful for any and all comments. Thank you up front! Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Alephb, the draft is at User:Jenhawk777/sandbox. Jenhawk has mostly been editing (in article-space) Christianity and violence, but you can see her at the The Bible and violence talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: What would I do without you? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to extremely minor things like typos, do you mind I go change the problem directly in your sandbox rather than talking about them first? Alephb (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: I so far boldy made some improvements, but I acknowledge that this is a user space sandbox, and unlike mainspace or draft space, users can request that editors don't edit their personal sandboxes. I assume that you welcomed these edits starting this thread, but if not, feel free to say so. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 04:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I do welcome them! I do--this will be a true Wiki project before it evens gets sent up for approval! I am so relieved and grateful I could just about cry! I can't say thank you enough.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The truth is, I am not only genuinely grateful for what all of you have done to help me--genuinely help me--I am a little in awe of your knowledge and skills! This has been the best part of the whole Wiki experience as far as I'm concerned. You guys have really made a difference for me and I think if the article gets accepted, it will be your doing! A group effort--as it should be here--right? So edit away--do what you think is good--the only thing I have disagreed about so far was removing the section headings. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

As an electronics systems design engineer, my own understanding of the "light" in Genesis 1:3 is as follows:

1. Light is just one part of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, and when light was created then so were all the other forms- radio waves, heat, x-rays, cosmic rays, etc. [Wikipedia article on Electromagnetic Spectrum]

2. Albert Einstein discovered that Energy and Matter are related by the square of the speed of light (E=Mc^2). [Wikipedia article on Mass Energy Equivalence] Thus, light had to be created before any matter or energy could be created.

Jkaness (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, but views vary. Much depends on how literally one takes the Bible passage. Most Christians are not as scientifically literal as in your comment, and tend to be content with an interpretation that God did indeed create the universe without giving literal details (including scientific ones) as to how He created it. That approach looks more for the spiritual meaning and implications of God's creative act than for understanding the physical mechanisms. Evensteven (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your comments. I took the liberty of adding this point of view in a new subsection "Physics" under "Interpretations". That title seemed to me to offer differing viewpoints as opinions rather than hard referenced facts. I accept whatever Wikipedia wishes to do with it. PS, I cannot find how to write a superscript number (as in E=mc2)!Jkaness (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Note that unless you have a reliable source expressing this view about the Genesis story and physics, it would unfortunately be original research (WP:OR) if included in an article without such a source. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Bible

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 13:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Over at the Tribe of Issachar, there is a disagreement about the correct way to deal with disagreements between academia and religious authorities. In the interests of not getting myself into an edit war, I thought I would see if any project members would like to take a look and see what they think. Alephb (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Textual differences in the Bible. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

If anyone wants to look in at Rephaite and evaluate what's going on there it might be useful. We've got one of those What is Wikipedia even for sorts of discussions starting. Alephb (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

We now have similar issues at Ishmael. Having uninvolved editors who are familiar the area of biblical scholarship look in might be helpful. Alephb (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I hope you understand that normally any request from you would take priority from me, and I did say I would have your back, and I did mean it, but the idea of getting involved in another controversy makes me queezy. This is my field of study but I just can't. Please forgive me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Jenhawk777, I wouldn't think of asking you to. When I ask for other people to look into a conflict, it's best for me if they're not people I've had a lot of past interaction with. Otherwise it could take on the appearance of using personal connections to "win" conflicts. As it all shook out, the issue went to WP:ANI and resulted in a block by an administrator I'd never heard of, so it's no longer an active concern. Because of the role that consensus plays in settling Wiki-disputes, there's always the possibility that a group of editors would "have each other's back" and turn editing into a team sport, where a group of friends goes around beating up on other editors.

The best route for handling conflicts is trying to find uninvolved editors, which is why I would post to a third-party board like that rather than turning to my Wiki-buddies. I'm trying to avoid even the appearance of WP:CANVASSING. So there's nothing to forgive. I wouldn't want you running around to disagreements I'm involved in and taking my side. I'd be concerned if you did. It would make us look suspicious to the community. Alephb (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing! I can see how that would be bad the way they describe it! I get it. It actually makes me feel better about Wiki. There can be team sports as long as we are working together well on a common project, but when conflict arises, everyone has to take a step back in pursuit of the neutral consensus. We don't get neutrality from our friends--and we shouldn't--because of course I would run around taking your side! Always! And think it was right to do! But I can completely see it now--no canvassing! Okay then. One more unique characteristic of Wiki-world! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It's possible that I personally am taking an overly strict approach to this no-canvassing thing. I think people probably draw these lines in different places. But I try to take a strict approach with myself. At the risk of blaspheming, we could compare to the proverbial fence around the Torah. If I can't convince uninvolved people who don't know me that they should take my side, I would hopefully take that as a sign that I'm either wrong or pursuing something too trivial to really be worth the time. Besides, I'm already tempted to argue more than is good for me. Knowing that I had someone who felt obliged to back me up would be altogether too much temptation. Alephb (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to canvassing, it's another example of an odd Wiki tendency: Often, the Wiki way is to simply take what an ordinary human being would do, and then avoid doing that. And, whenever I ramble about my high ideals, you should always take this as, This is how Alephb wishes he acted consistently, but probably is only how he operates on a good day.Alephb (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Anyone think maybe the time has come to start archiving this page? John Carter (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC) John Carter (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it might be about time. I wonder if there's a way to set it so that it leaves maybe six months worth of stuff or a year. Alephb (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

There were 4 archive pages already, but I've set up a bot to do the work from now on, leaving six months as suggested. – Fayenatic London 10:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Our article Moses includes a footnote that gives various ancient Semitic languages used variously by Jews and Christians starting with Hebrew, followed by Arabic, then Greek. I would have just moved the Greek before the Arabic myself but thought this might have come up before or I might be missing something.

Is the Arabic only there because of Islam? I know there are (and have been forever) Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians, but the same is true of Spanish, and the only difference I can think of is Arabic's being the language of the Quran. But since Greek was the language of both the Christian New Testament and various (most?) Jewish Second Temple texts, and was also the primary language of the Jewish diaspora for a long time (unlike Arabic, which I'm pretty sure only gained widespread use after a fair few Jews had spread throughout Europe and would have been much more likely to speak Latin or a European vernacular than Arabic), it feels to me like it has more "interfaith" relevance than Arabic.

Am I missing something?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd nitpick a bit about how many Jews ever spoke Greek, but I think you're basically right. I don't think you'll get any serious opposition if you move those around. I don't think the current order reflects any kind of deep thought or consensus -- notice how Syriac is currently ranked ahead of both Arabic and Greek. My impression across biblical articles in general is that transliterations are added in a pretty haphazard way. Sometimes they pile up into enormous piles that make the first sentence of an article all but unreadable. At least they're in a footnote in this case. Alephb (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This article has been subject to recent edit warring. Additional eyes are welcome. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC) John Carter (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've tossed in my two cents -- not an overall solution, but a thought on one aspect of the problem, over at the talk page. Alephb (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering if every single one of the titles listed at Lost work#Lost texts referenced in the Old Testament needs its own Wikipedia entry. Yes, Bible scholars have poured over every word of the Bible for centuries, so they have been name-dropped in thousands of sources, but that seems to be all she wrote (and all we can write) for most of them. Thoughts? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There are a lot of well written articles here. However, the author's should indicate who's bible they are using. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that when I'm looking for information, such as genres of the books of the bible and I see that not all books are listed, I'm concerned. I understand that Martin Luther did not like (and removed) the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, as well as additions to Esther and Daniel; but they are part of biblical history. (https://catholicexchange.com/catholic-and-protestant-bibles-what-is-the-difference).

Point being, when citing a biblical reference, tell the reader if you are using a Catholic Bible or a non-Catholic Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.108.183.4 (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

No, that's the difference between the pre-Reformation Christian Old Testament and the Jewish Bible and is less about Luther "not liking" certain books than them simply not being part of the Hebrew canon because they weren't in Hebrew. It's not simply "Catholic vs. Protestant"; there's also a Jewish bible. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Attempting to indicate that there are only Catholic and Protestant Bibles seems to ignore that the Eastern Orthodox and multiple Oriental Orthodox churches have even more books than the Catholics and Protestants have, as per our article on the Biblical canon. Also, although I don't know this absolutely, I have reason to believe that at least some groups some might call "Protestant" include specific books not in the so-called Protestant Bible, making the use of at least that term more questionable. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Are there any specific articles where the ambiguity has you worried, 192.108.183.4? Alephb (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I can see how it might be possible, probably even likely, that differing texts can lead to differing interpretations in some matters. One of Jack Myles' books I think indicated how the order of OT books leads to differing views' of when God became less active in human affairs. I know of at least two good reference works, broadly encyclopedic, about major Biblical interpreters and female Biblical interpreters. The texts of those works might be useful. When I finish what I'm doing now, I might try to add lists of their articles and references to project pages here. John Carter (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, WikiProject Bible.

Yesterday I created The Bible and humor. Someone placed an orphan-tag on it, so I started looking for good places to link it (I noted that there´s no Religious humour, Humour doesn´t mention religion and Religion doesn´t mention humour/humor).

I looked at the Bible, and IMO "The Bible and humor" is to obscure for "see also" in that article, which brings me to the templates at the bottom of the article, where it obviously doesn´t fit either.

So my question is, would the Bible benefit from an additional template for "Biblical topics", such as Alcohol in the Bible, Ethics in the Bible, The Bible and slavery, The Bible and violence etc? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Update: now added to Template:Bible sidebar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Project News: An admin is admonished
• Achievements: Ralph Abernathy promoted
• Featured article: Missionaries in the rainforest
• Did You Know: Ioan C. Filitti sentenced to death

* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel^(talk) 11:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Project News: Is Genesis History? See the RFC.
• Did You Know: Phineas Hodson’s wife dies
• Featured article: Jewish boy causes fall of Roman Catholic Papal States?

* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel^(talk) 04:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Additions to Daniel currently includes the text They are listed in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. However, most Protestant Bibles exclude these passages as Biblical apocrypha, with the last two words linked in a manner that appears to (inadvertently?) emphasize the text's status as apocryphal for "Protestant Bibles" as opposed to the "Church of England". I'm pretty sure that, in reality, Anglican (Church of Ireland, Episcopalian, etc...) bibles include these as apocrypha where other Protestant bibles exclude them as apocrypha, but I'm not a specialist and so don't want to implement the change directly on he off-chance that either I'm wrong or I'm right but am missing some reason why my change would be bad. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Do we have any conventionalized way of marking up (or removing, or whatever) the numbers in biblical material like:

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'I am the LORD your God. ... 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God...."

They're distracting and an impediment to reading, potentially even confusing. If we have a consensus to retain them, I'd like to at least minimize them in some way. But I don't want to just make up my own approach if there's something we're already doing (I wouldn't know; I almost never edit articles that require such quotes.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Policy (specifically NPOV) actually supports removing the numbers, since verse divisions differ between Jews and Christians and sometimes between different Christian denominations, even if some (including the ones you quote? not sure, but it doesn't really matter) happen to be universally accepted. Keeping the numbers gives the impression of promoting a particular religious group, and unlike the Wikipedia King James Only Movement (which is a legitimate concern about the copyright on more recent/accurate translations) I can't think of a valid argument for keeping them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This should probably be addressed at MoS somewhere, maybe in the section on quotations. I encounter stuff like this pretty frequently when I go reading in areas with biblical quotes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi. In the article Deuterocanonical books, Rafaelosornio (talk) changed information in an edit. I request that the new information be verified. Thanks in advance. Thinker78 (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

To avoid problems I will change the edition.Rafaelosornio (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• The Top 7 Report: The big news was the marriage of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle
• Did You Know: Sun of Unclouded Righteousness
• Our newest Featured list: List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events

* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel^(talk) 08:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I have proposed a change to Ethics in the Bible on its talk page involving restructuring the article topically to produce a more neutral pov and better content. I am looking for consensus on improving what everyone agrees is a poor quality article. Please come and comment.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Biblical criticism is up for peer review in preparation for Featured article review. Please come and comment. [3] Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Please comment on the talk page section of the article Noah's Ark titled "Existence of the ark" as to whether the given source verifies the text. Thanks! Thinker78 (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a huge discussion! How many of us have the stamina to plough through it? Could you summarise the aim, please? It seems that someone wishes to make an edit to the article using something referred to as "the source". Could you summarise who wants to make what point using what source, please? Then we might be persuaded to pop over there to invest some time to look into it. Thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

If anyone can help untangle the mess at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#How_do_we_deal_with_a_RS_being_factually_incorrect.3F, I'd be grateful. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The subject page quotes "Thorn in the flesh is a phrase of New Testament origin...". I have someone on OTRS (ticket:2018092710005725) who says "It is found in the Old Testament in Numbers 33:55 ; Joshua 23:13; Judges 2:3; Ezekiel 2:6 & 28:24 which would render it as OLD Testament origin NOT NEW Testament origin" - could someone please advise? Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, User:Ronhjones. I'm not seeing any discussion on the relevant talk page, that the link to a "ticket", if I click on it, leads to a disambiguation page. So I'm not sure where the original discussion is found, so here's my two cents here. Numbers 33:55 refers to some kinds of thorns or barbs in Israel "sides" or "eyes", and the Joshua reference is the same. Judges 2:3 may have a thorn, but it's not stuck in any particular body part. Similar things apply to the references in Ezekiel. I don't see any "thorn in the flesh" phrase in those references, and therefore no reason to doubt that the English phrase came in via the N.T.

So my inclination is to say the objection can basically be dismissed, but if you can get a working link up to the original conversation I might be able to help further. Alephb (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Alephb: Sorry it's an OTRS e-mail, only OTRS agents can view them (and I mis-formatted the ticket number, doh!). They did not say much else. I'll tell them to comment here if they need more information. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, understood. I'd never heard of that OTRS business, and would be quite happy to stay out of other people's emails! I was only ever aware of an NT origin for the exact phrase, although the metaphor of something troublesome as a thorn sticking into a human body is older. If the person you're referring to wants to flesh that out in more depth in the article, I suppose I'd have no objection in principle, though the evil is in the details. The article is surprisingly well-sourced already for an article about a proverbial phrase, and I'd be very surprised if there's any reliable sources arguing that "thorn in the flesh" has a primary origin outside the New Testament. Let me know if there's any other way I can help. Alephb (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Below is what I just posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. Conflict is WP Christianity talk pages with Bible workgroups, plus a Bible WP line.

Greetings, Today I updated 10 Christianity WP pages, removing "bible" from the christianity WP because the talk page already contains WP Bible line. The duplication is causing issues with daily assessment WP 1.0 bot.

• 400th anniversary of the King James Version (talk)
• Bible in Basic English (talk)
• Farrer hypothesis (talk)
• Historicity and origin of the Resurrection of Jesus (talk)
• King James Version (talk)
• Mary Magdalene (talk)
• Pauline epistles (talk)
• Synoptic Gospels (talk)
• Textual variants in the New Testament (talk)
• Category:Historicity and origin of the Resurrection of Jesus (talk)

Going forward, whenever this type of conflict is discovered in other articles, please update to remove the conflict. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

In November 2018, Women in Red is focusing on Religion.--Ipigott (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

For your entertainment, ladies and gentlemen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bible page is rated C. It has almost no scholarship in the lede. I have several reliable reference works I could use. Unfortunately, certain editors oppose the mainstream scholarly view of the Bible, and they will stonewall me if I try to do anything alone. If someone would like to work with me to add modern scholarship to the page, I would be willing to do lots of the work. I just need someone backing me up. Otherwise I just get stonewalled. Anyone feel like working on the Bible page with me? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment: Talk:Tell es-Sultan.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

We are missing Genesis's we need to make more Logawinner (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

This editor needs someone who can assist them. They just added all the chapters of Genesis to a see also section of one chapter. Doug Weller talk 20:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

An isp seems to have messed up things badly in May with a series of hatnotes, which say the articles use the Masoretic numbering, when in fact we are using the Septuagint/Vulgate numbering. Has there been discussion of this? Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod, we do use the numbers in Hebrew (Masoretic), and the King James Version, and Wikisource. We give the Septuagint/Vulgate also, but a psalm number on Wikipedia without saying which system is the former. It's always confusing because composers who set a Latin Psalm from the Vulgate used that number for their titles, of course, see In convertendo Dominus (Nuffel), Psalm 125 for the composer, but Psalm 126 here.

The question came up for images which seem not necessarily attached to the right psalm, - please check Psalm 10 and Psalm 11. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to agree with the articles around that stretch, although some are pretty short & vague, & could be on almost any psalm. But look at Psalm 10 for example, which clearly uses the Septuagint/Vulgate numbering, but says it is using the Masoretic. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

″The flood narrative is made up of two stories woven together.[13] As a result many details are contradictory, such as how long the flood lasted (40 days according to Genesis 7:17, 150 according to 7:24), how many animals were to be taken aboard the ark (one pair of each in 6:19, one pair of the unclean animals and seven pairs of the clean in 7:2), and whether Noah released a raven which "went to and fro until the waters were dried up" or a dove which on the third occasion "did not return to him again," or possibly both.[14] Despite this disagreement on details the story forms a unified whole (some scholars see in it a "chiasm", a literary structure in which the first item matches the last, the second the second-last, and so on),[b] and many efforts have been made to explain this unity, including attempts to identify which of the two sources was earlier and therefore influenced the other.[15][c]″

This passage is taken directly from the article on Genesis Flood Narrative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_flood_narrative

It seems that the author has not even read the passage when stating it to be contradictory to itself and hence a result of two stories "woven together". My reasoning is as follows:

First of all, context requires that all the passage be looked at and not simply selective eisegesis.

6 Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came upon the earth. 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.

From this preliminary knowledge the Bible states the Flood began on the date 17/2/600. If we continue forward to the next verse it states:

12 And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights. 13 On the very same day Noah and his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons with them entered the ark,

So, again it repeats the entrance of Noah into the ark on the date 17/2/600. The length of the rain is 40 days, meaning it lasted 17/2/600 - 27/3/600.

17 The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters.

The waters are said to "prevail" upon the earth and increase, for 40 days. This clearly is restating the verse 12 40 days as the waters increase as the rain increases - a logical statement. Finally it says:

24 And the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days.

This statement is given to sum the number of days the flood continued, a separate issue from the number of days the rain fell, causing the waters to prevail in the first place.

The dates continue in the next chapter, the eighth chapter of Genesis:

3 and the waters receded from the earth continually. At the end of 150 days the waters had abated, 4 and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

The 150 days are stated once more and then equivocated with the date 17/7/600.

5 And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.

Currently the dates stand: 17/2/600 - Ark Entered +40 days 27/3/600 - Rain ceases +110 days (150 - 40) 17/7/600 - The waters cease to prevail +73 days the waters abated 1/10/600 - The heads of the mountains were visible

No contradiction whatsoever.

Of course the narrative continues to state times and days passed with the accuracy only desired of in historical narrative and not from an epic. There is no poetic pleasure to an audience who hears time and time again how many numbers of days between each event. I believe the current article to be in error with the bold assumptions made by its author and I hope this will be fixed, many thanks, Yasshur Yasshur (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I am currently involved in a dispute concerning newly created template Monarchy of Ancient Israel (see discussion), but as the discussion was progressing, it had me contemplating on the issues with older templates Kings of Israel and Kings of Judah. Both of these templates have created a common misconception of succession after Rehoboam's rule as the last king of the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy). In the template concerning rulers of Judah, it seems that the rulers of Judah are continuing the reign of a United Kingdom of Israel (Saul, where's Ish-bosheth?, David, Solomon, and Rehoboam) Likewise, the rulers of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (should've been called "Kingdom of Samaria") do the same. In the template, it seems like Jeroboam is succeeding Rehoboam when Jeroboam was the first king of a Northern Kingdom of Israel (Samaria).

On the templates themselves, they are a clutter of links and take an unnecessary amount of space in a article. Not only that, they diminish the purpose of Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel. I'm not asking suggestions to improve these templates, I'm asking for consensus to remove them. There is no need for multiple navigational boxes, Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel is very-well organized/sufficient and already resolves all the issues. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

After carefully considering the arguments above and checking the three templates involved , I could agree with a proposal to replace all instances of Template:Kings of Israel and Template:Kings of Judah with Template:Monarchy of Ancient IsraelTemplate:Rulers of Ancient Israel, and subsequently delete those first two templates. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Debresser You don't think Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel is sufficient enough? I do apologize if I confused you or anyone else if I was asking to replace the two with Template:Monarchy of Ancient Israel. It's nice but it's quite large and defeats the whole purpose of Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel. JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

That's what I meant. Fixed that mistake now in the above post. Debresser (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Reading all the comments, I support the removal of Template:Kings of Israel and Template:Kings of Judah, and the replacement with Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel. Very appreciate the works by JudeccaXIII and Debresser concerning this. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The article Gospel could do with a little help. It currently contains some contentious claims that are stated as fact, and any attempt to change them being opposed. Some extra eyes would be welcome. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Could you list here what these claims are?Achar Sva (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Currently the main problems are that the "content' section describes virtually nothing about the content of the Gospels, but instead focusses almost entirely on the discrepancies between the gospels. I believe both should be there. It also completely lacks any description of the significance of the Gospels to Christianity. A person could read this article and come away with absolutely no idea of what is in the Gospels, or why they are important to Christians. We should absolutely explain why the texts are important to Christians in an NPOV way. (There is also one person seriously arguing that all talk of the significance of the Gospels in Christian doctrine be disallowed.) DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

So to be clear: your concern is (a) to see more detail on the content of the gospels, and (b) something on their significance to Christians (or do you mean Christian doctrine -the first is contemporary and popular in focus, the second historical and theological)? Achar Sva (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

By long-standing practice and consensus, the entry upon the Bible, Quran and every other holy book has been added to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I noticed in many Biblical articles, there is an inconsistency in citing Bible references - sometimes linking to Wikisource and sometimes to the Bible Gateway website. Is there a preference for one or the other? Each source seems equally reliable. Skelta (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't really care. Just many more Americans are simply more familiar with the KJV when using the Bible. No other book has had quite an influence in the history of the world. So much so, that nearly every day one unintentionally references the KJV in normal conversation. Edding24 (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Edding24, Wikipedia's audience is larger than the United States. And Catholics - 20.8% of the US - are more familiar with translations like the NABRE and RSV-2CE. Elizium23 (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It's Edding24 (talk · contribs). Their rationale seems to be "I have edited the translation, not only because the King James Bible is more accurately translated and more beautifully written, but because Americans and English culture is simply more familiar and more accustomed to the style of the great King James Bible." - seems a bit like the KJ only movement. Is this ok? We can just go through and change to our favorite version? Doug Weller talk 19:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

What is the rationale for picking any translation in a Wikipedia article?Edding24 (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Probably depends on the editor and the article. AFAIK there is no guideline or essay that speaks about Bible-translations. My approach would generally be in the spirit of WP:ENGVAR, meaning basically if you create the article (or is the one who starts adding Bible-texts) you can pick, possibly there's an argument that on a catholic topic it's reasonable to use a translation Catholics like if such exist, and in existing article's the current translation should in general be left alone since bickering about it takes time and annoys people (MOS:RETAIN), though it's probably a good idea to have consistency within the same article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

There are currently two open discussions on whether templates Template:Kings of Israel & Template:Kings of Judah should be deleted or not. Both discussions can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 27. Jerm (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

At Aaron ^[1] goes to the Ukrainian Bible ^[2] to the Maori. Doug Weller talk 12:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Links formatting errors fixed to Numbers 6:22–27 and Leviticus 9:23–24, respectively. JohnThorne (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@John Thorne: thanks, but were they simply careless errors or vandalism? Doug Weller talk 17:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

: @Doug Weller: From the monitoring so far, it seems to be a careless error. The user thought to use "|" to separate the first and last verses, not knowing that the number after the separator actually points to "different Bible versions or translations". The numbers themselves are accurately meant for the last verse in the citation. JohnThorne (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@JohnThorne: that makes sense, thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there some form of consensus on how Psalms with different numberings due to variants between the Vulgate/Hebrew numbering schemes should be given in article text? It seems excessive to refer to Psalm 112 (111) each and every time it appears in the text. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 23:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: The Psalm numbering in the article is now standardized and a note is added in the leading section to explain the numbering convention. JohnThorne (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much needs rebuilding from scratch. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Could someone revert [4]? I have exhausted my reverts for today at Saul. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a proposal for a new subsection on ecclesiastical titles being conducted at MOS:BIO. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning a name like Yahuwéh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.189.216.21 (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I have significantly changed Module:Bibleverse which implements {{Bibleverse}}. The main changes were fixes for the links to a couple of sites. Another change is that the template now displays Template:Bibleverse with invalid book for articles in Category:Pages with Bible version errors to make it easier for people to notice and fix problems. Further explanations are at Template talk:Bibleverse#Bibleverse update. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Vulgate manuscripts has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Veverve (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lord's Prayer § NRSV. Elizium23 (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a requested move at Talk:Kingdom_of_Israel_(united_monarchy)#Requested_move_15_October_2020. Jerm (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Your input would be very welcome here: Talk:Ten Commandments#KJV_->_NIV ImTheIP (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I encountered the above brief stub on a Canaanite at the time of Nahor, son of Serug while patrolling expired drafts. It was contributed as the sole edit of its creator, and seems unlikely to be improved further. Is anyone here interested in adopting it? Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a name request to move article name Laszlo Bathory to László Báthory, who was the first translator of the Bible, into Hungarian on the subject's talkpage. Feel free to share your opinion. --Norden1990 (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Enoch (son of Cain) 22,793 759 Start--Coin945 (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there any systematic information in Wikipedia about the differing order of books in versions (Masoretic, Septuagint, etc.) of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)? I haven't found anything, although a few articles do mention the existence of ordering differences. I propose that we start an article on this topic, provisionally "Book order in the Hebrew Bible". Any thoughts? Any offers? Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I would like to draw attention to "Jesus and the woman taken in adultery" article. The article is extremely biased and its main section is completely dedicated to apologetics.

Statements like "Some "experts" have also falsely claimed that no Greek Church Father had taken note of the passage before the 1100s." or "Many modern textual critics have ignored the early church evidence that is available and have speculated that" undermine the entire modern scholarship and are out of place in encyclopedic entry. Views of the modern scholars are not represented in any form other than such grotesque strawmans as above.

Asocjates (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Non-canonical, Non-canonical books and one other. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 26#Non-canonical until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are urged to contribute to the discussion. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Dhruva Gamerx seems to be WP:RANDY. They have edited Edict of Milan introducing WP:CB. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there a default version of the Bible that Wikipedia uses or is it down to an editor's choice? Bermicourt (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that in articles specifically talking about the Jewish bible (the Tanakh, not the Old Testament), there were parts that were obviously written from a Christian standpoint. For instance, "Song of Solomon" was being used instead of "Song of Songs" and "Lamentations of Jeremiah" was being used instead of "Lamentations". No Jew (from my experience) has ever used these terms. I looked a bit deeper into it, and the term "Song of Solomon" is uncommon in Judaism because it is not a Jewish phrase. Any thoughts? Painting17 (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

They're not used in Christian circles either, so you may have jumped to the wrong conclusion. Bermicourt (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I have created Military activity in the Old Testament, but it is in more or less alphabetic order of the articles, rather than either order of coverage in the OT, or estimated chronological order of the events themselves. Someone who knows more about this aspect can order them accordingly, if they so desire. BD2412 T 01:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

At WP:RSN#Religious publishers, I've raised a question about religious publishers versus academic publishers for biblical scholarship topics. This affects many articles, and I'd welcome editors' input. Thanks, Levivich^[block] 02:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Have you seen the recent edits by Treetoes023? What do you think? tgeorgescu (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I should probably explain myself, the recent edits I made were because of inappropriate usage of tables on specific articles. I restored the newest version of the articles that did not use tables incorrectly. Treetoes023 (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I would like to help with this project i just don't know how to start most of the stubs and starts seem fine just short and i'm not sure what could be added CrazyEyeOah (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

hi there, just to inform you you're not the only one.please if you've gotten it please tell me Vaughn Alex (talk)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaughnalex (talk • contribs) 13:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 

Your comments and input on proposed changes to the lead section of the Psalms article would be appreciated at Talk:Psalms#Proposed_changes_to_the_Lead.

--Chefallen (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rachel#Requested move 24 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – MaterialWorks 11:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

After a brief Q&A at Talk:Saul#Why_the_infobox, dates have been removed from infoboxes on kings of Israel. [5] I am not sure whether there was sufficient consensus for these edits. – Fayenatic London 18:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Bible, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team