Re: Bible websites

[Charles Matthews]

David Gerard wrote:

> 2009/7/6 stevertigo <stvrtg@...>:
>
>  
>> Hm. Of course, Tim is right - if its public/open domain then
>> wikisource should host it and we will then link to it. The issue with
>> the hebtools site/script is that most of its links go to BibleGateway.
>>  Obviously the current script's sources need to be changed to include
>> both other gateways like bible.cc and of course wikisource. A choice
>> of gateways would be preferable.
>> The current hosted translations/versions on wikisource are:
>>    * Bible (Wycliffe) (1380s)
>>    * Bible (Tyndale) (1526)
>>    * Douay-Rheims Bible (1610)
>>    * King James translation, or “Authorized Version” (1611)
>>    * King James translation, Oxford Standard (1769)
>>    * American Standard translation (1901)
>>    * Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917)
>>    * World English translation (in progress since 1997)
>>    * Wikisource translation (in progress since 2006)
>>    
>
>
> Is there anything that will show the same verse in several
> translations at once? That would be ideal - highly educational. That
> would require something less like wiki pages and more like a database
> at the other end. Or someone laboriously compiling wiki pages of the
> form en.wiki---.org/wiki/John/3/16 .
>
>  

The use of transclusion by section on Wikisource would make it
technically simple to bring the existing verses (or chapters) together
on pages for parallel reading. Of course it would be a lot of work ...
and I suppose it should be done chapter-wise. (Verses are at best a
convenience - chapter divisions have I think a wider acceptance, and are
at least historically older.)

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2009/7/6 Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews@...>:

>> Is there anything that will show the same verse in several
>> translations at once? That would be ideal - highly educational. That
>> would require something less like wiki pages and more like a database
>> at the other end. Or someone laboriously compiling wiki pages of the
>> form en.wiki---.org/wiki/John/3/16 .

> The use of transclusion by section on Wikisource would make it
> technically simple to bring the existing verses (or chapters) together
> on pages for parallel reading. Of course it would be a lot of work ...
> and I suppose it should be done chapter-wise. (Verses are at best a
> convenience - chapter divisions have I think a wider acceptance, and are
> at least historically older.)


Indeed - and newer translations that use paragraphs, with the verse
numbers as superscripts for historical reference.

Technically however we do this won't be hard. So it's a matter of what
bible scholars on Wikipedia and Wikisource think would present it
best.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:10 AM, Charles
Matthews<charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:

> The use of transclusion by section on Wikisource would make it
> technically simple to bring the existing verses (or chapters) together
> on pages for parallel reading. Of course it would be a lot of work ...
> and I suppose it should be done chapter-wise. (Verses are at best a
> convenience - chapter divisions have I think a wider acceptance, and are
> at least historically older.)

Transwiki transclusion translation discrete-level differential interface?
I think our techie lurkers just said kthxbye.

-Steven

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

Should be "discrete-section transwiki transclusion translation
differential interface" actually.

-Stevertigo

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

stevertigo wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:10 AM, Charles
> Matthews<charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:
>
>  
>> The use of transclusion by section on Wikisource would make it
>> technically simple to bring the existing verses (or chapters) together
>> on pages for parallel reading. Of course it would be a lot of work ...
>> and I suppose it should be done chapter-wise. (Verses are at best a
>> convenience - chapter divisions have I think a wider acceptance, and are
>> at least historically older.)
>>    
>
> Transwiki transclusion translation discrete-level differential interface?
> I think our techie lurkers just said kthxbye.
>  

It's as hard as pasting in markers like <section begin=Genesis 1/> on
pages translating Genesis 1, and creating a master page to marshall the
bits.

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Guettarda]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:20 AM, <WJhonson@...> wrote:

> I think what Tim was saying is that this magic link would only be for raw
> bible citations, not for templated ones.
> That is Gen 4:2 instead of {{biblequotex|Gen|4|2}}
>
> The raw citation would be magically linked to the wikisource KJV.  That
> would be super.  Then *if* someone feels the need to template it to link
> say to
> the NIV instead, then they could do that instead.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>

Most modern translations have known benefits and weaknesses, so the one you
pick is largely a matter of taste, albeit with a bit of politics mixed in.
The KJV, on the other hand, is perhaps the least accurate translation.  So
while I am hesitant to endorse an off-site script doing the picking, using
the KJV because it's (arguably) PD is like using EB 1911.   It's hard to
read up on the Rwandan genocide when your source thinks that Kigali is in
German East Africa.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

Guettarda wrote:
> Most modern translations have known benefits and weaknesses, so the one you
> pick is largely a matter of taste, albeit with a bit of politics mixed in.
> The KJV, on the other hand, is perhaps the least accurate translation.  So
> while I am hesitant to endorse an off-site script doing the picking, using
> the KJV because it's (arguably) PD is like using EB 1911.   It's hard to
> read up on the Rwandan genocide when your source thinks that Kigali is in
> German East Africa.
>  
On the other hand, why is a Wikipedia article citing a Bible verse? In
the case I had this morning, at [[Gangraena]] (title of a book), where
the word itself is in the (Greek) New Testament at 2 Timothy 2:17 and is
being used as a book title in 1646, the point is certainly to track the
allusion as it would have had an impact on the readership in England
(mostly). In other words the point of the link is to allow the reader of
the article to see that Gangraena for a KJV reader renders as "canker".
And another interesting point is that (and I hadn't appreciated this)
you are probably supposed to read in verse 16 as well: "But shun profane
and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness./ And
their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and
Philetus."  There would have been a few English readers at the time who
would have preferred the Geneva Bible or even the Tremellius translation
(as Milton is supposed to have, but I suppose for the OT).

Anyway I like, in principle, the idea, of having as default a link to a
Wikisource page offering a menu of different translations or editions
(free text). Which could presumably link to various commentaries. All
done to an agreed template. I don't think this should be imposed, but
available.

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

We were actually dealing a bit with the idea of a heads-up verse
comparison/translation interface.
Its not just about linking, its about compiling a page that displays
the content of two separate articles (different selected versions) but
the same verses in parallel.

The Navpop tool can show text from a particular section when
mouseovering a section link, so I suppose a little of that would work.
Then what would a parallel link look like? Something like
[[source:Bible:Douay:Genesis|1|3|compare:Bible:KJV]] ?  And a url
scheme like
 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible:Douay:Genesis§ion=1&compare=Bible:KJV:Genesis

I guess templating could work too.

-Steve



On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Charles
Matthews<charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:

> stevertigo wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:10 AM, Charles
>> Matthews<charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The use of transclusion by section on Wikisource would make it
>>> technically simple to bring the existing verses (or chapters) together
>>> on pages for parallel reading. Of course it would be a lot of work ...
>>> and I suppose it should be done chapter-wise. (Verses are at best a
>>> convenience - chapter divisions have I think a wider acceptance, and are
>>> at least historically older.)
>>>
>>
>> Transwiki transclusion translation discrete-level differential interface?
>> I think our techie lurkers just said kthxbye.
>>
> It's as hard as pasting in markers like <section begin=Genesis 1/> on
> pages translating Genesis 1, and creating a master page to marshall the
> bits.
>
> Charles
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Goodman]

The current practice in many academic publications on religion  for
non specialists seems usually to use the NIV,  and often add the KJ V
if substantially different.

If however one is discussing English literature, one would just link to the KJV

I therefore do not see how we can find a uniform practice.


David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Charles
Matthews<charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:

> Guettarda wrote:
>> Most modern translations have known benefits and weaknesses, so the one you
>> pick is largely a matter of taste, albeit with a bit of politics mixed in.
>> The KJV, on the other hand, is perhaps the least accurate translation.  So
>> while I am hesitant to endorse an off-site script doing the picking, using
>> the KJV because it's (arguably) PD is like using EB 1911.   It's hard to
>> read up on the Rwandan genocide when your source thinks that Kigali is in
>> German East Africa.
>>
> On the other hand, why is a Wikipedia article citing a Bible verse? In
> the case I had this morning, at [[Gangraena]] (title of a book), where
> the word itself is in the (Greek) New Testament at 2 Timothy 2:17 and is
> being used as a book title in 1646, the point is certainly to track the
> allusion as it would have had an impact on the readership in England
> (mostly). In other words the point of the link is to allow the reader of
> the article to see that Gangraena for a KJV reader renders as "canker".
> And another interesting point is that (and I hadn't appreciated this)
> you are probably supposed to read in verse 16 as well: "But shun profane
> and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness./ And
> their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and
> Philetus."  There would have been a few English readers at the time who
> would have preferred the Geneva Bible or even the Tremellius translation
> (as Milton is supposed to have, but I suppose for the OT).
>
> Anyway I like, in principle, the idea, of having as default a link to a
> Wikisource page offering a menu of different translations or editions
> (free text). Which could presumably link to various commentaries. All
> done to an agreed template. I don't think this should be imposed, but
> available.
>
> Charles
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Charles
Matthews<charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:

> On the other hand, why is a Wikipedia article citing a Bible verse?

Because in spite of their dominant representation, its the Wikipedia
and not the Atheistpedia.

-Stevertigo

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2009/7/6 David Goodman <dgoodmanny@...>:

> The current practice in many academic publications on religion  for
> non specialists seems usually to use the NIV,  and often add the KJ V
> if substantially different.
> If however one is discussing English literature, one would just link to the KJV
> I therefore do not see how we can find a uniform practice.


Hence the suggestion to link to all reasonable translations of a
verse. Since we're writing in English rather than Hebrew, Aramaic or
ancient Greek.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:52 AM, David Goodman<dgoodmanny@...> wrote:
> The current practice in many academic publications on religion  for
> non specialists seems usually to use the NIV,  and often add the KJ V
> if substantially different.
>
> If however one is discussing English literature, one would just link to the KJV
>
> I therefore do not see how we can find a uniform practice.

Yes, the NIV is both necessary and proprietary.
It simply means we need to deal with the portals - albeit to a lesser
degree than currently.

Summing up, people seem to agree that the bibleref tag needs to point
to a local tool, and that tool should do something a bit more tailored
and sophisticated about how to present Bible sources - particularly
free sources where available.

Where we can, simply replacing BibleGateway with Wikisource links will
make things more free.* And replacing most BG references with other
competing online portals will make things more fair.*

-S

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Magnus Manske-2]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:52 PM, stevertigo<stvrtg@...> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Charles
> Matthews<charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, why is a Wikipedia article citing a Bible verse?
>
> Because in spite of their dominant representation, its the Wikipedia
> and not the Atheistpedia.

Come to think of it:

The bible is either wrong, in which case it shouldn't be cited.

Or it's true, which would mean that it was dictated by God himself.
Wouldn't that make it original research?

/me ducks

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Matthew Brown-5]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Magnus
Manske<magnusmanske@...> wrote:
> Come to think of it:
>
> The bible is either wrong, in which case it shouldn't be cited.
>
> Or it's true, which would mean that it was dictated by God himself.
> Wouldn't that make it original research?

The Bible is a well-known ancient work with great cultural
significance.  Its status as fiction or fact is almost beside the
point.  It is accurate about what it itself says, which can be cited
as appropriate to inform articles where what it said was/is relevant.

(And I know I'm taking a joking suggestion seriously, prolonging the joke!)

-Matt

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Magnus Manske-2]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Matthew Brown<morven@...> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Magnus
> Manske<magnusmanske@...> wrote:
>> Come to think of it:
>>
>> The bible is either wrong, in which case it shouldn't be cited.
>>
>> Or it's true, which would mean that it was dictated by God himself.
>> Wouldn't that make it original research?
>
> The Bible is a well-known ancient work with great cultural
> significance.  Its status as fiction or fact is almost beside the
> point.  It is accurate about what it itself says, which can be cited
> as appropriate to inform articles where what it said was/is relevant.
>
> (And I know I'm taking a joking suggestion seriously, prolonging the joke!)

You're right. To atone for my sins, here the auto-comparing toolserver
tool I hacked since my first mail:

http://toolserver.org/~magnus/biblebay.php?bookname=John&range=3%3A16-3%3A18

Magnus

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Cary Bass-4]

Magnus Manske wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Matthew Brown<morven@...> wrote:
>  
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Magnus
>> Manske<magnusmanske@...> wrote:
>>    
>>> Come to think of it:
>>>
>>> The bible is either wrong, in which case it shouldn't be cited.
>>>
>>> Or it's true, which would mean that it was dictated by God himself.
>>> Wouldn't that make it original research?
>>>      
>> The Bible is a well-known ancient work with great cultural
>> significance.  Its status as fiction or fact is almost beside the
>> point.  It is accurate about what it itself says, which can be cited
>> as appropriate to inform articles where what it said was/is relevant.
>>
>> (And I know I'm taking a joking suggestion seriously, prolonging the joke!)
>>    
>
>
> You're right. To atone for my sins, here the auto-comparing toolserver
> tool I hacked since my first mail:
>
> http://toolserver.org/~magnus/biblebay.php?bookname=John&range=3%3A16-3%3A18
>
> Magnus

Magnus: that is awesome.

Cary

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[George Herbert]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Cary Bass<cary@...> wrote:

> Magnus Manske wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Matthew Brown<morven@...> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Magnus
>>> Manske<magnusmanske@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Come to think of it:
>>>>
>>>> The bible is either wrong, in which case it shouldn't be cited.
>>>>
>>>> Or it's true, which would mean that it was dictated by God himself.
>>>> Wouldn't that make it original research?
>>>>
>>> The Bible is a well-known ancient work with great cultural
>>> significance.  Its status as fiction or fact is almost beside the
>>> point.  It is accurate about what it itself says, which can be cited
>>> as appropriate to inform articles where what it said was/is relevant.
>>>
>>> (And I know I'm taking a joking suggestion seriously, prolonging the joke!)
>>>
>>
>>
>> You're right. To atone for my sins, here the auto-comparing toolserver
>> tool I hacked since my first mail:
>>
>> http://toolserver.org/~magnus/biblebay.php?bookname=John&range=3%3A16-3%3A18
>>
>> Magnus
> Magnus: that is awesome.

I didn't know we were allowed to end silly discussions here with
actual working cool code.

I second Cary - that's awesome.  Thanks, Magnus!


--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@...

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

 We can quote autobiographies in terms of what the deity has to say about themselves.
It's a primary source, not original research when quoted.? Only original in the first-form.
That is, we can't publish it by itself, but we can quote it, with other sources.




Or it's true, which would mean that it was dictated by God himself.
Wouldn't that make it original research?



 


 


 

-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Manske <magnusmanske@...>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 6, 2009 2:40 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites










On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:52 PM, stevertigo<stvrtg@...> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Charles
> Matthews<charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, why is a Wikipedia article citing a Bible verse?
>
> Because in spite of their dominant representation, its the Wikipedia
> and not the Atheistpedia.

Come to think of it:

The bible is either wrong, in which case it shouldn't be cited.

Or it's true, which would mean that it was dictated by God himself.
Wouldn't that make it original research?

/me ducks

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l



 

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

 Funny Wycliffe is the only one who states clearly that God created everything from nothing.
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/biblebay.php?booknumber=&bookname=Genesis&range=1%3A1&source=&doit=Do+it




 


 

-----Original Message-----
From: George Herbert <george.herbert@...>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 6, 2009 3:54 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites










On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Cary Bass<cary@...> wrote:

> Magnus Manske wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Matthew Brown<morven@...> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Magnus
>>> Manske<magnusmanske@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Come to think of it:
>>>>
>>>> The bible is either wrong, in which case it shouldn't be cited.
>>>>
>>>> Or it's true, which would mean that it was dictated by God himself.
>>>> Wouldn't that make it original research?
>>>>
>>> The Bible is a well-known ancient work with great cultural
>>> significance. ?Its status as fiction or fact is almost beside the
>>> point. ?It is accurate about what it itself says, which can be cited
>>> as appropriate to inform articles where what it said was/is relevant.
>>>
>>> (And I know I'm taking a joking suggestion seriously, prolonging the joke!)
>>>
>>
>>
>> You're right. To atone for my sins, here the auto-comparing toolserver
>> tool I hacked since my first mail:
>>
>> http://toolserver.org/~magnus/biblebay.php?bookname=John&range=3%3A16-3%3A18
>>
>> Magnus
> Magnus: that is awesome.

I didn't know we were allowed to end silly discussions here with
actual working cool code.

I second Cary - that's awesome.  Thanks, Magnus!


--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@...

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l



 

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Carson-5]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:52 AM, stevertigo<stvrtg@...> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Charles
> Matthews<charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, why is a Wikipedia article citing a Bible verse?
>
> Because in spite of their dominant representation, its the Wikipedia
> and not the Atheistpedia.

Did you actually read Charles' message, or just stop after the first
sentence to fire off a reply? He wasn't saying "why on earth would
Wikipedia be citing the BIBLE?!", he was saying that you need to look at
the reason for the citation because that may well affect your choice of
which version to cite.

Cheers,
David...

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l