Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanencimonav...@gmail.com wrote: Charles 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.) The really glaring exception to the chapter divisions tradition being hard and fast fixed is Book of John. In that case there is a scholarly argument that not only are the chapters not unambiguously divided, but that there is plausible evidence that the order of textual passages has been re-arranged. No problem, Rome just has to look at the edit history, revert to the last sensible version, and start again... ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
Charles 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.) The really glaring exception to the chapter divisions tradition being hard and fast fixed is Book of John. In that case there is a scholarly argument that not only are the chapters not unambiguously divided, but that there is plausible evidence that the order of textual passages has been re-arranged. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
In a message dated 7/8/2009 11:51:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, peter_jac...@gmx.net writes: There are two thousand years of struggling factions of christianity and libraries full of interpretations of bible verses. You cannot ignore this and propose that the bible verse can speak for itself. No, but we can call those two thousand years worth of interpretationalistic scribblings original research. :) -Steven ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
David Gerard wrote: 2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com: 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=Johnrange=3%3A16-3%3A18 :-O That would be more or less precisely what I was thinking of. Well done! The Qur'an could be treated in a similar way. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
David Gerard wrote: 2009/7/7 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com: 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=Johnrange=3%3A16-3%3A18 :-O That would be more or less precisely what I was thinking of. Well done! Feature suggestion: original untranslated verse (Hebrew or Greek) at top. Also links to corresponding pages in other languages. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:08 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/7/6 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com: 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 . Wikisource does this whenever someone can be bothered adding the necessary glue. e.g. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible/Jude/1/1 see here for more: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Bible/ -- John Vandenberg ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
Despite being at least semi off topic, I must comment on this: 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. But there is a widespread abuse of citing the bible and it will not get better by providing technical means to better cite the bible. What I mean is giving bible citations as reference for theological statements. There are two thousand years of struggling factions of christianity and libraries full of interpretations of bible verses. You cannot ignore this and propose that the bible verse can speak for itself. Peter -- Neu: GMX Doppel-FLAT mit Internet-Flatrate + Telefon-Flatrate für nur 19,99 Euro/mtl.!* http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
In a message dated 7/8/2009 11:51:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, peter_jac...@gmx.net writes: There are two thousand years of struggling factions of christianity and libraries full of interpretations of bible verses. You cannot ignore this and propose that the bible verse can speak for itself. --- The only thing that is being proposed is that in those articles where we have a bible verse citation, that we alter the way it's treated. Will ** Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals. (http://personals.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntuslove0003) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:29 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Funny Wycliffe is the only one who states clearly that God created everything from nothing. http://toolserver.org/~magnus/biblebay.php?booknumber=bookname=Genesisrange=1%3A1source=doit=Do+it created everything from nothing? Just like we did with Wikipedia! (burn, karma, burn) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
stevertigo wrote: On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: stevertigo wrote: ~65% percent of us are devoutly atheistic, and yet are dealing, somewhat accurately, with technical aspects that directly affect theological sourcing. It's always slightly ironic when atheists deal with theological topics, and myself being, by design, one of the other ~35%, I felt a bit compelled to bring that up in as flat and contrite a way as possible. Atheists who haven't gone so far as to make a devotion of their beliefs are perhaps in a better position to deal with certain theological subjects objectively. The atheist's faith is not committed to the truth of a particular version of the Bible. He disbelieves them all. Yet this allows him to view the Bible as purely a cultural and literary artifact. While I did say that there were point of view issues to take into consideration when dealing with similarly polarizing subject matter, I would never say that certain people were more qualified* than others. Especially not atheists. By the way, an atheist who [hasn't] gone so far as to make a devotion of their beliefs is called an agnostic - not an atheist. Atheists *hate agnostics. Qualified is you word, not mine. Your eccentric distinction between atheists is seriously unhelpful. It is one thing to believe that there is no god (atheist), and quite another for that person to treat it as a devotion to a cause. Your crude hypothesis that atheists hate agnostics imputes upon non-believers the kind of sectarianism that is such a comfort to Christians. [agnostics] are perhaps in a better position to deal with certain theological subjects objectively. Which ones? Even the moderately tricky ones like lapsed soteriological consubstantiation might be a challenge for them. That atheist just reports what he sees. Maybe he'll supply a few pin-heads to alleviate the crowded condition of angels, and to allow their vaudeville to entertain a larger population. The atheist's faith is not committed to the truth of a particular version of the Bible. What faith? If you are talking about the capacity to reject dogmatic interpretation, people of faith do that anyway. Catholics, for example, buy and use condoms even though there are several fatawa against them. It's his absence of faith that protects him from such commitments. Rejecting dogma is only one aspect of the objectivity. Decrees about condoms derive from the temporal power of the Church. Jesus never wore them. The Jesuits have often been at odds with the church's dogmatism. He [the agnostic] disbelieves them all. Hardly an endearing trait, but anyway the ability to reject the dogmatic aspects does not mean disbelief. I know for a scientific fact that there are plenty of crypto-believers walking around. Of course, again, I said the atheist, not the agnostic. Nevertheless, neither panders his disbelief to be endearing. It's true enough that disbelief goes well beyond rejecting dogma; it rejects the foundations for the dogma that god exists. Yes, there are plenty of crypto-believers; somebody had to take over the closet when the gays vacated it. But how does scientific fact come into play. Those who follow scientific method are more likely to say that there is no such thing as scientific fact. Yet this allows him to view the Bible as purely a cultural and literary artifact. Artifact, as in obsolete? Purely cultural as in non-Divine? Purely literary as in purely fictional? Hence your hypothesis is only that non-believers can view things non-believingly? Ha! Artifacts are regularly being produced as long as there are humans to produce them, and a writing does not need to be fiction to be literary, though I am more willing to find non-divine acceptable. Your final characterization of my hypothesis is reasonably accurate., but then it's also very close to an understanding of NPOV. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
Magnus Manske wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:29 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Funny Wycliffe is the only one who states clearly that God created everything from nothing. http://toolserver.org/~magnus/biblebay.php?booknumber=bookname=Genesisrange=1%3A1source=doit=Do+it created everything from nothing? Just like we did with Wikipedia! (burn, karma, burn) De nihil nihil fit. In the beginning God-king created the heaven and the earth. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com: 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=Johnrange=3%3A16-3%3A18 :-O That would be more or less precisely what I was thinking of. Well done! - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
stevertigo wrote: On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:50 PM, David Carsoncarson63...@gmail.com wrote: 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. Your right. His message though was quite characteristically sophisticated, and I of course knew that he did not mean to suggest that we *not quote the Bible. Still I sort of took the liberty of interpreting his first statement a bit literally, and maybe out of context too, just to make a tangential reference to the fact that ~65% percent of us are devoutly atheistic, and yet are dealing, somewhat accurately, with technical aspects that directly affect theological sourcing. You did. If I get trolled I usually hope for something wittier. It's always slightly ironic when atheists deal with theological topics, and myself being, by design, one of the other ~35%, I felt a bit compelled to bring that up in as flat and contrite a way as possible. No irony at all, I think. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit includes medical pages, legal pages and even theological pages anyone can edit. In fact I think the absence of a WikiProject Religious History to match the awesome WikiProject Military History is a big lack. (I'm not great at starting WikiProjects so don't sofixit me.) There is nothing ironic about people editing on military history in ways that belie nationalistic beliefs or their absence, is there? Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
Carcharoth wrote: Since the rest of this thread is threatening to descend into a long discussion about theology, atheism and agnoticism, I'll chip in at this point where people are making theological jokes involving Wikipedia. I think Wikimedia needs a new deprogramming language, myself. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
2009/7/7 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: Take a look at the prediction in the Wikipedia eleventy billion article pool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Benjamin_Mako_Hill/11BP#The_Last_Article A brilliant rip-off of Asimov's The Last Question. Humanity: LOLBOT, CAN WE REVERSE ENTROPY? LOLbot: i dunno lol - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
Note: Yeah, this one's got snippy comments about irreligion and unscience in it. Skip it at your discretion, and don't complain about the magnetized aluminum grains it uses up on your free email host. On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote: Qualified is you word, not mine. Fine. More (perhaps) in a better position to deal with certain [things], then. Your eccentric distinction between atheists is seriously unhelpful. I don't suppose seriously unhelpful comment would be the same kind of criticism a Muslim might make of a Westerner who illuminated some basic distinctions between Sunnis and Shia? I understand the basic sectarian and 'united front' concepts, actually. It is one thing to believe that there is no god (atheist), and quite another for that person to treat it as a devotion to a cause. It has been my experience that atheist can be quite irate people - Dawkin's book for example is just an sophomoric screed. I've also been personally attacked by atheists: crude, vaudeville, and eccentric, are some examples. That atheist just reports what he sees. No, the *scientist just reports what he sees. The *atheist assumes that only what he can see actually exists. Maybe he'll supply a few pin-heads to alleviate the crowded condition of angels, and to allow their vaudeville to entertain a larger population. Huh? It's his absence of faith that protects him from such commitments. Well, note that yesterday you called atheism both a faith and a belief. I'm glad you now cleared that up. Rejecting dogma is only one aspect of the objectivity. Being objective is wonderful. Decrees about condoms derive from the temporal power of the Church. Hm. This expresses more of a fight the power sentiment than anything else doesn't it? Jesus never wore them. Actually he found them constricting. The Jesuits have often been at odds with the church's dogmatism. Well, they redeem us. Nevertheless, neither panders his disbelief to be endearing. This is actually not true. For example, I once had a discussion with an online atheist wherein I threw in some jokes. The atheist did not get them. It's true enough that disbelief goes well beyond rejecting dogma; it rejects the foundations for the dogma that god exists. The funny thing here is that you illuminate the very concept of the existence of God as a dogma - thus eccentrically exceeding the bounds of agnosticism and transcending the actual meaning of the word dogma. Scientists in fact have dogmas as well, though these aren't usually called such. The notion that life is an entirely materialistic concept, is one example. And you've expressed the atheist dogma quite nicely: claiming that a merely quantitative discipline can and should be used to make qualitative distinctions about God and whatnot. This excess would be just as bad as the inquisition against Galileo, if it were not dressed in the same modernistic veneer that helped disguise eugenics for what it really was, and was expressed with currency. Anyway, it is a bit unscientific for a discipline with no substantive transmaterialistic concept of how God *could exist, would then state that natural human ignorance alone substantiates His inexistence. Those who follow scientific method are more likely to say that there is no such thing as scientific fact. And yet people feel free to base qualitative worldviews based on merely quantitative observations. I am more willing to find non-divine acceptable. Me too, actually. Saying there are serious untruths in the Bible doesn't really impinge on the truly divine aspects, but it's still a difficult subject to deal with. No Golden Tablets from the sky for us humans. [my thesis that non-believers = non-believer interpretations is] also very close to an understanding of NPOV. Actually it's not. NPOV doesn't deal with a person's interpretations at all - merely the artifacts of one's work in explaining things. -Stevertigo PS: I would have just kept this short, but I deal with things as they come in. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
Previous post typo correction diff: -suppose seriously +suppose this seriously -that atheist can +that atheists can -just an sophomoric +just a sophomoric -concept, is one example. +concept is one example. -nicely: claiming +nicely - claiming -dressed in the +dressed up in the -unscientific for a discipline +unscientific that a discipline -S ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: snip unselfdisciplined enough to feed the corrupted ent? Did you say ent? :-) Those loquacious, garrulous, verbose, lugubrious rambling tree-herders? OK, Charles is right, back to the bible link quoting stuff. I believe somewhere in all this, there was some working code. What more needs doing to make that go live, or to propose to take it live? Magnus Manske: 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=Johnrange=3%3A16-3%3A18 Where should that tool be discussed? Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: So you have your divisive discussion going now. Explain to me again how this improves the English Wikipedia. Do we have to have this stuff each time religion comes up, or is this is a one-off, or just when someone is unselfdisciplined enough to feed the corrupted ent? Hm. Let's break this down. So you have your divisive discussion going now. Its not my discussion. For one, it takes two to tango. Secondly, I finished it didn't I? Explain to me again how this improves the English Wikipedia. That would take too long. Do we have to have this stuff each time religion comes up, Are you complaining about the magnetized aluminum grains the last couple posts are taking up on your free email host? or is this is a one-off, Hopefully. or just when someone is unselfdisciplined enough What do you mean by this? Are you calling Ray unselfdisciplined for being a vocal atheist? to feed the corrupted ent? Do I understand this to be a personal invective directed at me? I will give you an opportunity to apologise for it, failing that, I will give you an opportunity to regret it. -Steven ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
stevertigo wrote: feed the corrupted ent? Do I understand this to be a personal invective directed at me? It's a Tolkien reference, but I suppose if Carcharoth didn't get it, it is fairly obscure. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: stevertigo wrote: feed the corrupted ent? Do I understand this to be a personal invective directed at me? It's a Tolkien reference, but I suppose if Carcharoth didn't get it, it is fairly obscure. Doh! Trolls. Of course. :-) http://lalaith.vpsurf.de/Tolkien/The_History_of_Ents.html Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: stevertigo wrote: Do I understand this to be a personal invective directed at me? It's a Tolkien reference, but I suppose if Carcharoth didn't get it, it is fairly obscure. Ah. So corrupted ent is just your sly way of calling me a troll, one that by mentioning Tolkien has the added benefit of making you look like a kind Tolkien-fan genius - even while making an undue personal attack. Which kind of troll, by the way, do you suppose I am? Stone troll, maybe? River troll? Just to amuse myself, I'm searching now for the appropriate fallacy to describe, categorize, and thus contain your vexatious litigation. Just flipping through my short list of fallacies, perhaps the classic do you still beat your wife? fallacy would be a good place to start. -Stevertigo I'll be on KGS as nako for a bit, if you want to understand what trolling really is ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
stevertigo wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: stevertigo wrote: Do I understand this to be a personal invective directed at me? It's a Tolkien reference, but I suppose if Carcharoth didn't get it, it is fairly obscure. Ah. So corrupted ent is just your sly way of calling me a troll, one that by mentioning Tolkien has the added benefit of making you look like a kind Tolkien-fan genius - even while making an undue personal attack. Sure. But not in a good way. I'll be on KGS as nako for a bit, if you want to understand what trolling really is So what's your KGS ranking? Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Sure. But not in a good way. I graciously accept your apology. So what's your KGS ranking? It's a new account, but I can give you one stone. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
stevertigo wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Sure. But not in a good way. I graciously accept your apology. So what's your KGS ranking? It's a new account, but I can give you one stone. Well, settling it over the board would be good, but on the basis of http://www.gokgs.com/gameArchives.jsp?user=nako I kind of doubt that. Still, I'm rusty too. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Well, settling it over the board would be good, but on the basis of [my one game history] I kind of doubt that. Still, I'm rusty too. Rusty goes around. I had to default on that game actually. Something came up. -S ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
stevertigo wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Charles Matthews wrote: stevertigo wrote: Do I understand this to be a personal invective directed at me? It's a Tolkien reference, but I suppose if Carcharoth didn't get it, it is fairly obscure. Ah. So corrupted ent is just your sly way of calling me a troll, one that by mentioning Tolkien has the added benefit of making you look like a kind Tolkien-fan genius - even while making an undue personal attack. I didn't understand the allusion either until Carcharoth provided the link, but I would prefer to avoid having my ignorance of a concept as a foundation for perceiving a personal attack. Which kind of troll, by the way, do you suppose I am? Stone troll, maybe? River troll? A long-line troll with plenty of bait on the hooks. Just to amuse myself, I'm searching now for the appropriate fallacy to describe, categorize, and thus contain your vexatious litigation. Just flipping through my short list of fallacies, perhaps the classic do you still beat your wife? fallacy would be a good place to start. Litigation??? Once you have presumed fallacy it is only a matter of time before your short list is expanded sufficiently to find an including category. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
stevertigo wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Charles Matthews wrote: So you have your divisive discussion going now. Its not my discussion. For one, it takes two to tango. Secondly, I finished it didn't I? Are you standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier to proclaim this victory? Explain to me again how this improves the English Wikipedia. That would take too long. Hmmm. Proclaiming victory and admitting defeat almost in the same breath. or just when someone is unselfdisciplined enough What do you mean by this? Are you calling Ray unselfdisciplined for being a vocal atheist? Unselfdisciplined perhaps, though you do me an injustice to impute such a motive. I'm just happy to treat religious argumentation with all the ROTFL that it deserves. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:09 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/7/7 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com: 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=Johnrange=3%3A16-3%3A18 :-O That would be more or less precisely what I was thinking of. Well done! Feature suggestion: original untranslated verse (Hebrew or Greek) at top. Do we have that (in the fame format) on wikisource? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
Magnus Manske wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:09 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/7/7 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com: 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=Johnrange=3%3A16-3%3A18 :-O That would be more or less precisely what I was thinking of. Well done! Feature suggestion: original untranslated verse (Hebrew or Greek) at top. Do we have that (in the fame format) on wikisource? Following the Bible page on enWS leads quickly enough to http://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%9A%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%AC_%CE%99%CF%89%CE%AC%CE%BD%CE%BD%CE%B7%CE%BD which is actually the Gospel of John marked out in verses. Now, whether that is the original Greek is another matter: it seems to be the standard version for the Patriarchate of Constantinople? I got well lost trying the heWS interwiki. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
2009/7/7 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: I believe somewhere in all this, there was some working code. What more needs doing to make that go live, or to propose to take it live? Magnus Manske: 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=Johnrange=3%3A16-3%3A18 Where should that tool be discussed? Well, I mentioned it on my Wikimedia blog :-) Er, presumably the Bible-related wikiprojects would be a good place. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Magnus Manske wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:09 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/7/7 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com: 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=Johnrange=3%3A16-3%3A18 :-O That would be more or less precisely what I was thinking of. Well done! Feature suggestion: original untranslated verse (Hebrew or Greek) at top. I would also suggest a new option: When I typed in 1 Corinthians 13, I expected to get the entire verse, but instead got a blank item. Perhaps in the event of no : it will default to verses ALL? Cary -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpTnogACgkQyQg4JSymDYnzGQCfSPxGXErK3lV88PoVDAcPT2XJ ryYAn3jAExH2c4vESHYwz85UBRTpwcij =WpP9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
2009/7/7 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: Where should that tool be discussed? Well, I mentioned it on my Wikimedia blog :-) Er, presumably the Bible-related wikiprojects would be a good place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Bibleverse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Bibleref would seem a good place to go about it, since this is what it's effectively going to be replacing! -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Magnus Manske wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:09 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/7/7 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com: 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=Johnrange=3%3A16-3%3A18 :-O That would be more or less precisely what I was thinking of. Well done! Feature suggestion: original untranslated verse (Hebrew or Greek) at top. Do we have that (in the fame format) on wikisource? Following the Bible page on enWS leads quickly enough to http://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%9A%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%AC_%CE%99%CF%89%CE%AC%CE%BD%CE%BD%CE%B7%CE%BD which is actually the Gospel of John marked out in verses. Now, whether that is the original Greek is another matter: it seems to be the standard version for the Patriarchate of Constantinople? I got well lost trying the heWS interwiki. There is now Greek (where available), and a link to the NIV. I think I'll pass on the Hebrew for fear of putting my eyeballs in reverse... Magnus ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
stevertigo wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: Your eccentric distinction between atheists is seriously unhelpful. I don't suppose seriously unhelpful comment would be the same kind of criticism a Muslim might make of a Westerner who illuminated some basic distinctions between Sunnis and Shia? I understand the basic sectarian and 'united front' concepts, actually. A Westerner with no particular interest in Islam is more likely to see the Sunni/Shia distinction as insignificant; he may be all too willing to tar these terrorists with the same brush. Similarly, a believer who sees himself under attack from atheists easily imagines those attacks as from a United Front. But when it comes what distinguishes co-believers the entire homoösis/homoiosis debate breaks out again. It is one thing to believe that there is no god (atheist), and quite another for that person to treat it as a devotion to a cause. It has been my experience that atheist can be quite irate people - Dawkin's book for example is just an sophomoric screed. I've also been personally attacked by atheists: crude, vaudeville, and eccentric, are some examples. Dawkin is certainly a proseltyser among atheists, but then not all Christians are preachers. On both sides of the divide most people quietly believe without ever setting foot in a common meeting place such as a church. Some atheists can be quite irate, but it is not logical to generalize this to all atheists. On-line one needs to exercise some discretion before interpreting the questioning of ideas as some kind of personal attack. Inflamitorily disembodying certain words from their contexts does not provide satisfactory evidence of personal attack. How is crude hypothesis a personal attack? How is eccentric distinction between... a personal attack? How is the vaudeville of angels a personal attack? That atheist just reports what he sees. No, the *scientist just reports what he sees. The *atheist assumes that only what he can see actually exists. A clear misunderstanding of science; science depends upon a continuing cycle of hypothesis and hypothesis testing. Your claim about atheists is plain fantasy. Maybe he'll supply a few pin-heads to alleviate the crowded condition of angels, and to allow their vaudeville to entertain a larger population. Huh? OK, my imagery was obscure. It's rooted in the notion that many religious arguments are about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. I was looking off that one pin-head for a solution. ;-) This is interesting in the light of your later comment that atheists don't get jokes. It's his absence of faith that protects him from such commitments. Well, note that yesterday you called atheism both a faith and a belief. I'm glad you now cleared that up. To simplify, we should be able to accept that faith and belief are synonymous. Read no more into this than is necessary. If there is a convenient word to express the absence of faith I would prefer that to semantic gymnastics. Decrees about condoms derive from the temporal power of the Church. Hm. This expresses more of a fight the power sentiment than anything else doesn't it? Somewhat. But I don't underestimate the power of faith, whether or not the foundation for that faith is justified. A charismatic queen bee is effective until the hive mind takes over to impose order. Nevertheless, neither panders his disbelief to be endearing. This is actually not true. For example, I once had a discussion with an online atheist wherein I threw in some jokes. The atheist did not get them. See the angels discussion above. There was more that I could comment on (Yawn!) ... but this is taking too long, and I'm getting bored. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
stevertigo wrote: On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Tim Starlingtstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: Wikisource has a complete translation in modern English, and it already seems to be annotated with IDs for verses, e.g. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(American_Standard)/John#3:16 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) Those are only the ones on English Wikisource. Note that one of the benefits of using the proprietary portals, aside from heads-up comparison and better navigation, is that they are licensed to publish the newer proprietary versions. Cutting off the proprietary portals means cutting off the proprietary translations. The NIV for example is highly popular and referenced (among Protestants). Hence we have to of course include but not depend on the proprietary portals. I'll happily concede the point about comparison and navigation. They may very well host the newer proprietary versions but they also engage in massive copyfraud about the many versions that are in the public domain. Is that the sort of site that a community dedicated to open access should be supporting? The NIV may be the flavour of the day, and if one of our references makes a specific reference to that version, then and only then should we link to it. Failing that our links should be to PD versions. We are certainly not in a position to judge the accuracy of any translation of the Bible. Even the KJV has serious limitations; nevertheless, it is a known quantity. Links to it carry an implicit note of caution that is not so evident in a modern translation. In addition, its long history make it the version that would have influenced many English authors of the past. It would make no sense in those cases to reference a version that was only published after their death. There is much to be said for having the KJV as the default version. I also question the value of having scripts and toolservers for this task when a simple wikilink would work perfectly well. The way this has developed is just another way of being too clever by half. It would be worth the effort to change most usages of this template to a simple link to Wikisource. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
2009/7/6 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com: 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 . - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
Tim Starling wrote: A lot of bible references don't have a link at all. Maybe we could add a magic link feature, like we have for RFC and PMID. Then whenever someone types something that looks like a bible verse reference in plain text, MediaWiki would automatically convert it to a link. For cultural neutrality it would obviously have to be internationalised and support a number of other religious texts. Not impossible though. The technical hurdles are undoubtedly less onerous than the socio-cultural ones. For the English Bible agreement on one version would be tough. There are other situations where the desired version may be very specific. Wikisource also hosts the Qur'an. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
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
**
Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:08 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/7/6 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com: 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 . Try the online parallel Bible. If you are talking about a new skin or a separate CSS mode, such that Wikisource could use it for concurrent comparative reading, I dunno. We still use the same monobook we've had for over five years. -Steven ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
Here is the current list: http://bibref.hebtools.com/biblesrcs.txt Replacing BG links with wikisource links would be the first thing to do. Choosing other portals instead of BG would be the next - giving fair distribution, until the script can be modified to offer a selection. And when all else is in order, this has to go in: http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page -Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote: The technical hurdles are undoubtedly less onerous than the socio-cultural ones. For the English Bible agreement on one version would be tough. There are other situations where the desired version may be very specific. Hm. Techies might disagree - the socio-cultural hurdles can be just sort of swept away while engineering stuff takes actual work. What do we sociologists have to figure out? And technically speaking, Ray, neither the technical nor cultural aspects of the issue are actually onerous. -Steven ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
2009/7/6 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com: 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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
Should be discrete-section transwiki transclusion translation differential interface actually. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
David Gerard wrote: 2009/7/6 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com: 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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
stevertigo wrote: On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:10 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com 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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:10 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com 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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:20 AM, wjhon...@aol.com 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@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
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:Genesissection=1compare=Bible:KJV:Genesis I guess templating could work too. -Steve On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: stevertigo wrote: On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:10 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com 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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
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 Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com 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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com 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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
2009/7/6 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com: 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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:52 AM, David Goodmandgoodma...@gmail.com 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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:52 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com 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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Magnus Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com 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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Matthew Brownmor...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Magnus Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com 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=Johnrange=3%3A16-3%3A18 Magnus ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
Magnus Manske wrote: On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Matthew Brownmor...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Magnus Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com 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=Johnrange=3%3A16-3%3A18 Magnus Magnus: that is awesome. Cary ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Cary Bassc...@wikimedia.org wrote: Magnus Manske wrote: On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Matthew Brownmor...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Magnus Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com 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=Johnrange=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.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
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 magnusman...@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, Jul 6, 2009 2:40 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:52 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com 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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
Funny Wycliffe is the only one who states clearly that God created everything from nothing. http://toolserver.org/~magnus/biblebay.php?booknumber=bookname=Genesisrange=1%3A1source=doit=Do+it -Original Message- From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, Jul 6, 2009 3:54 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Cary Bassc...@wikimedia.org wrote: Magnus Manske wrote: On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Matthew Brownmor...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Magnus Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com 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=Johnrange=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.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:52 AM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com 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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:50 PM, David Carsoncarson63...@gmail.com wrote: 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. Your right. His message though was quite characteristically sophisticated, and I of course knew that he did not mean to suggest that we *not quote the Bible. Still I sort of took the liberty of interpreting his first statement a bit literally, and maybe out of context too, just to make a tangential reference to the fact that ~65% percent of us are devoutly atheistic, and yet are dealing, somewhat accurately, with technical aspects that directly affect theological sourcing. It's always slightly ironic when atheists deal with theological topics, and myself being, by design, one of the other ~35%, I felt a bit compelled to bring that up in as flat and contrite a way as possible. Apologies to Charles for the out of context parsing. I'm hoping he didn't take it without a grain of salt and a read between the lines. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
stevertigo wrote: Still I sort of took the liberty of interpreting his first statement a bit literally, and maybe out of context too, just to make a tangential reference to the fact that ~65% percent of us are devoutly atheistic, and yet are dealing, somewhat accurately, with technical aspects that directly affect theological sourcing. It's always slightly ironic when atheists deal with theological topics, and myself being, by design, one of the other ~35%, I felt a bit compelled to bring that up in as flat and contrite a way as possible. Atheists who haven't gone so far as to make a devotion of their beliefs are perhaps in a better position to deal with certain theological subjects objectively. The atheist's faith is not committed to the truth of a particular version of the Bible. He disbelieves them all. Yet this allows him to view the Bible as purely a cultural and literary artifact. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote: stevertigo wrote: It's always slightly ironic when atheists deal with theological topics, and myself being, by design, one of the other ~35%, I felt a bit compelled to bring that up in as flat and contrite a way as possible. Atheists who haven't gone so far as to make a devotion of their beliefs are perhaps in a better position to deal with certain theological subjects objectively. The atheist's faith is not committed to the truth of a particular version of the Bible. He disbelieves them all. Yet this allows him to view the Bible as purely a cultural and literary artifact. While I did say that there were point of view issues to take into consideration when dealing with similarly polarizing subject matter, I would never say that certain people were more qualified* than others. Especially not atheists. By the way, an atheist who [hasn't] gone so far as to make a devotion of their beliefs is called an agnostic - not an atheist. Atheists *hate agnostics. [agnostics] are perhaps in a better position to deal with certain theological subjects objectively. Which ones? Even the moderately tricky ones like lapsed soteriological consubstantiation might be a challenge for them. The atheist's faith is not committed to the truth of a particular version of the Bible. What faith? If you are talking about the capacity to reject dogmatic interpretation, people of faith do that anyway. Catholics, for example, buy and use condoms even though there are several fatawa against them. He [the agnostic] disbelieves them all. Hardly an endearing trait, but anyway the ability to reject the dogmatic aspects does not mean disbelief. I know for a scientific fact that there are plenty of crypto-believers walking around. Yet this allows him to view the Bible as purely a cultural and literary artifact. Artifact, as in obsolete? Purely cultural as in non-Divine? Purely literary as in purely fictional? Hence your hypothesis is only that non-believers can view things non-believingly? Ha! -Steven ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
I noticed as I was fixing up one article that we appearently have a tag bibleverse that links to *one specific* website. I'm not comfortable with that sort of approach. It seems to highly favor a particular bible website over other similar ones. Don't we have a similar issue when linking to a book citation? That is, we provide several sources for the ultimate underlying book citation, not just a single link to amazon for example. Will ** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0005) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I noticed as I was fixing up one article that we appearently have a tag bibleverse that links to *one specific* website. I'm not comfortable with that sort of approach. It seems to highly favor a particular bible website over other similar ones. Where appropriate, links to Wikisource should be preferred. The Zondervan/Harper-Collins site has a TOS that claims copyright on everything; it applies regardless of whether your access or use is intended. Claiming copyright on every version of the Bible that they host vaguely resembles copyfraud. Some of the more recent versions may indeed be copyright encumbered, but it would be a good beginning if some of these 2000+ bibleverse links that are for the King James version or some non-specific version were pointed to Wikisource. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote: wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I noticed as I was fixing up one article that we appearently have a tag bibleverse that links to *one specific* website. Its not one specific website. See comment: (script being removed from deprecated site: http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610 to http://bibref.hebtools.com. See [[Template_talk:Bibleverse#PHP_script_moving]] -Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
2009/7/5 wjhon...@aol.com: I noticed as I was fixing up one article that we appearently have a tag bibleverse that links to *one specific* website. I'm not comfortable with that sort of approach. It seems to highly favor a particular bible website over other similar ones. Don't we have a similar issue when linking to a book citation? That is, we provide several sources for the ultimate underlying book citation, not just a single link to amazon for example. Our ISBN links go to a page which generates about twelve thousand links to different booksellers, libraries, etc. For things like biblical quotations, it would seem that this is a marvellous niche for Wikisource, if we can figure out an elegant way to do it and keep the user functionality. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 11:02 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: http://bibref.hebtools.com is one specific website. How is that not one website ? Hm. But is it a local sort of website? From [[Template_talk:Bibleverse#PHP_script_moving]]: I have to move the PHP script dependency from its current location at http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibref.php. It will now be available at http://bibref.hebtools.com/. I will try to avoid removing the old location for a few weeks. jnothman talk 01:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC) PS: The new server is slower than the previous, and ideally, we should hope to acquire space on a **Wikimedia toolserver,** etc., as requested here. Assistance in moving the script to Wikimedia servers would be appreciated. **Toolserver hosting has been approved!** Let me know if you need any help with the toolserver. And it would be nice if Wikisource was used where possible; BirgitteSB and I can help with that. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC) --- -Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
In a message dated 7/5/2009 11:10:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk writes: For things like biblical quotations, it would seem that this is a marvellous niche for Wikisource, if we can figure out an elegant way to do it and keep the user functionality. Right. I'm not comfortable with a script which lives off-site, the details of which are hidden and unknowable, and I'm not comfortable with a script which is evidently choosing, without wiki-input what next site to link the user forward. All of that functionality should be brought in-project. Will ** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0005) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
In a message dated 7/5/2009 11:12:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, stv...@gmail.com writes: Hm. But is it a local sort of website? What are you implying by that? I have no idea what you mean. Will ** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood0005) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
stv...@gmail.com writes: Hm. But is it a local sort of website? wjhon...@aol.com wrote: What are you implying by that? I have no idea what you mean. The discussion I quoted from a few months ago says something about moving it to a toolserver, and then someone indicated there had been approval for that usage. From there, I suppose the questions are 1) did the move take place and is it now on a toolserver? 2) is only the work end on the toolserver such that the interface itself is on a private site - and thus we are sending traffic to a private site? -Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Monday, 6 July 2009 2:30 am, stevertigo wrote: From there, I suppose the questions are 1) did the move take place and is it now on a toolserver? 2) is only the work end on the toolserver such that the interface itself is on a private site - and thus we are sending traffic to a private site? The toolserver is a Wikimedia DE hosted project, with approval from the WMF. People who wish to develop tools for WMF projects can apply for webspace/shell environment on it somewhere on Meta. (I have webspace at http://toolserver.org/~fl/ for example). Plenty of enwiki projects are run off it, for example the account creation requests interface is located at http://stable.toolserver.org/acc/. See [[m:Toolserver]] and http://toolserver.org/ for more details. -- fl administrator @ enwiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user_talk:fl ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
Andrew Gray wrote: For things like biblical quotations, it would seem that this is a marvellous niche for Wikisource, if we can figure out an elegant way to do it and keep the user functionality. Wikisource has a complete translation in modern English, and it already seems to be annotated with IDs for verses, e.g. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(American_Standard)/John#3:16 Bible links on Wikipedia don't uniformly use the bibleverse template, editors just link to any random website. I think the vast majority of links could go directly to the most recent PD translation on Wikisource. The relevant template can be updated once every decade or so as new works come into the public domain. A lot of bible references don't have a link at all. Maybe we could add a magic link feature, like we have for RFC and PMID. Then whenever someone types something that looks like a bible verse reference in plain text, MediaWiki would automatically convert it to a link. For cultural neutrality it would obviously have to be internationalised and support a number of other religious texts. Not impossible though. -- Tim Starling ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
In a message dated 7/5/2009 8:32:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, tstarl...@wikimedia.org writes: Then whenever someone types something that looks like a bible verse reference in plain text, MediaWiki would automatically convert it to a link. For cultural neutrality it would obviously have to be internationalised and support a number of other religious texts. Not impossible though. - I think that's an excellent suggestion. Do we have this type of magic link for an ISBN ? WIll ** Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Tim Starlingtstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: Wikisource has a complete translation in modern English, and it already seems to be annotated with IDs for verses, e.g. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(American_Standard)/John#3:16 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) Note that one of the benefits of using the proprietary portals, aside from heads-up comparison and better navigation, is that they are licensed to publish the newer proprietary versions. Cutting off the proprietary portals means cutting off the proprietary translations. The NIV for example is highly popular and referenced (among Protestants). Hence we have to of course include but not depend on the proprietary portals. -Steven ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
