 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[Untitled]
editThis page was one of a group of pages on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion; the result was to keep. For an archive of the debate, go here: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Matthew_1. Antandrus (talk) 7 July 2005 02:39 (UTC)
POV
editPOV issues of this article is discussed at another in the series. See Talk:Matthew 1 ~~~~ 20:18, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see where you mean. The POV discussed there is about the use of the source text, not the analysis. IMHO, the content of the commentary on this page is rather POV (biased toward a liberal Christian approach). It should qualify statements more and/or include representative thoughts from other view points (e.g., the evangelical Christians', whose theories are all but dismissed out of hand). I question the value of Bible commentary in the Wikipedia in general, as it will be inherently controversial and POV. Summaries of the text like John 15 seem like a better approach and avoids the vast NPOV difficulties. --Flex 14:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Do you have any suggestions? My personal bias is certainly on the skeptical side of things, but I try to present a balanced approach. The main difficulty is that often evangelical's don't have much to say. When the scripture is, on the surface, contradictory, such as Matthew 1:17, or describing the physically impossible, such as Matthew 4:8, there is a lot to write about because the evangelical explanations of these problems are generally quite complicated and quite plentiful. For section, such as this one, where the scripture is merely implausible rather than impossible they have much less to say. Evangelical scholars are perfectly willing to accept that the messiah did the implausible. - SimonP 22:02, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
survey
editFor a (now finished) July 2005 survey about whether or not the full source text should be included in the article see Wikipedia:Bible source text.
There were 36 non-abstaining votes, and 3 abstensions.
The result of the survey was a 70% vote that it should not be included in the text, and should be removed in favour of a link to the text at wikisource. ~~~~ 07:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)