When categorising biblical verses with a single digit, such as John 20:1 please categorise it like this: [[Category:Bible verses|John 20:01]]. The inclusion of the 0 ensures that the articles appear in numerical order. --Oldak Quill 21:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
With regards to what Wikipedia is or is not, do these articles really belong in Wikipedia, and are they truly encyclopedic? I think that in their current form, they are not. These articles are in the form of Bible commentary and exegesis, not academic or informative analysis. As such it seems they do not conform to Wikipedia guidelines with respect to POV and I'm not sure that it is possible to make them. Perhaps certain very famous verses deserve their own articles, but I wonder if there should really be an article for every verse in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Quran, Talmud etc. etc. with this sort of religious bent. Moreover, these articles contain the verses from the NIV translation, which is copyrighted and not free. A verse here and there is fair use, but extending this to the whole Bible translation is probably not legal—I have known Christian authors who asked permission from the publishers (Zondervan) and were told that they would have to pay license fees for such usage if it exceeded more than a few hundred verses total. NTK 04:08, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Note: I would specifically exclude, for instance John 3:16, which is a good and significant article. Most of these, however, are not. Certainly to many Christians every Bible verse is "significant," but that is no more a good reason to give them each articles than it would be to have an article for every line of Shakespeare, because he is widely considered the greatest English playwright.)
- As a non-Christian (an atheist infact) I certainly believe they belong here. They are encyclopaedic and informative. A similar discussion could be made on a larger level - should we have the Works of Dickens or articles on individual books? If you do not believe these articles are currently "academic or informative analysis" (I would disagree) then you must regard them as stubs and wish to improve them? This policy should not just be held for the bible but for other works also: religious or not. Keep in mind that we are not paper, we have the space and capacity - thus the more the better. They certainly will not get in the way as I doubt anyother article would be put at John 1:1. If you believe them to be currently lacking, please improve them. --Oldak Quill 15:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This is not analogous to Works of Dickens or articles on the individual books. I believe we have Wikipedia articles on pretty much every book of the Bible already—and most of them are not bad. This is more like, as I said, an article about every LINE of Shakespeare, or if you wish, every PARAGRAPH of Dickens. I do not find this content very encyclopedic. NTK 06:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- My assessment of the credibility of this opus and the process that creates it plummetted when I discovered these articles. Each of several articles on individual verses starts with an interpretive recitation of the otherwise obvious meaning of the nomenclature. Would an encylopedic article on Jan. 1, 2000 state it is "The first month of the first day of the year 2000"? The content of the articles for the most part represents doctrinaire declarations of a few writers' opinions. "Everything God created is good" states one article, subtaniated only by numerical references to several additional phrases from the same writing. "In fact" the writer continues, prefacing the next direct recitation of the content with an unnecessary assertion, "the conclusion states...". Who is it encyclopedic to repeat content. Would an encyclopedic article about this comment merely repeat the comment while declaring the obvious fact that the comment was made? As a reader, I am offended by the trivial recitation. The very concept of numbered verses is but the artificial construct of Christian scribes who sequestered the franchise to literacy in the Dark Ages so that nobody could challenge their intepretation of religious documents, many of which they forked without consent from Hebrew texts.
- "The creation was orderly and purpose, (sic) not chaotic and meaningless." "It is fairly evident..." the verse refers to what "true Chrisians" should do to prepare for "final judgement" states another. Does anyone expect editors not interested in promoting the doctrines of their particular sect will come along and convert these promotional essays into scholarly documents? I don't. As stated above, the extensive use of verses, where based on a particular translation, is incremental copyright violation. The inability of the governing process here to correct this opinionated forking of copyrighted material to promote religious doctrines is similar to the inability of some municipal governments to gain control of public spaces used by street gangs to declare their territory. We can only hope that Digital Universe does better while articles such as this lead a migrate of credible editors and concerned readers to the more substantive collection. Miramble 23:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)