Talk:Bible (Wikisource)

From Wikisource

Contents 1 Translations 2 Redundant with WEB? 3 Standard Footnotes? 4 Is it supposed to be here? 5 (Wikisource) 6 blank pages 7 Proposal: Include the number of chapters in the Bible at the beginning of each book 8 Apocryphal books

This is really great that this is going on! Would it be possible though in some way to let people know what Greek source it is translated from? Or to set a standard Greek text that everyone will translate from? I imagine each book is done by one person in the beginning--if there is not a standard Greek text could this person mention which text he/she used?--Jdavid2008 04:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see that it is being done. Thanks a lot--and sorry for complaining before checking for the facts!--Jdavid2008 06:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Free translation is the best name for this translation, how about changing it to The Wiki Translation? Does anybody object?--Jdavid2008 05:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If nobody objects within a week from March 27, I'll make the move.--Jdavid2008 08:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts I'm not so sure whats best, and so I'll just leave it. Is anybody else still working on this project?--Jdavid2008 05:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I haven't disappeared! I have to admit that I lost a little wind but I could get rekindled.

As for your question about source... I use UBS Third Ed. I know that there is a Fourth but at my skill-level I don't think it makes much difference. Do you?

As for the name change. I kind of like "Free Bible". I didn't coin the name but it seems fitting to me. However, I have no problem with Wiki Bible. I think it would be a pain to change.

(BTW, "LiberalGrace" and "cAlan" are both me. Sorry for the confusion. I liked "LiberalGrace" better and think it is more memorable, so I changed it. No intention for deception.) --Liberalgrace 13:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey LiberalGrace :) As far as I can see you have always mentioned in the "discussions" tab what source texts you used. It seems the person who started Genesis, and the one who started Matthew did not though. As for the name I'm happy with The Free Bible, or something of that sort :) After being used to it I kind of like it too.

Thanks by the way for all your work!!--Jdavid2008 02:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translations

This work is being done by a number of people who are translating from various sources. Just as each and every original writer will have a distinctive style, so will translators. I see already that some of the style changes are obvious within a page of text. Eventually I think there ought to be an effort to make things more consistent, but for now I think the styles should be left alone. Sometimes a small change in wording can make a significant theological difference, and each translator is entitled to his/her opinion. Inevitably, some discussions will arise over these wordings, and perhaps the effort to arrive at a true meaning will actually improve the entire work. I would point out that even among Rabbis, there are arguments over the meanings of Old Testament passages. We can hardly expect to agree where they cannot, but we can expect to get more opinions and be more open to discussion. I wish to thank everyone involved with this project. It is an ambitious and extremely useful undertaking! -- Pinkfud (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant with WEB?

How does this effort compare with the World English Bible? It seems like it is redundant to me. I wonder if the effort would be better spent proofing and updating the WEB. -Amillar 23:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now, if translators had thought like that, what edition other than the KJV would have gotten done? Amillar, that idea is, simply put, stupid! You need to take a course in logic! Laleena 15:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that idea so stupid, actually rather sensible.

I like the idea of a all new translation myself, and really look forward to how this is going along, but proofing/updating might be nice also. Maybe we should start another project for that? To produce a revision of the WEB. We could correct stylistic problems, and whatever textual errors there are, and also maybe convert it to a more standard text, like the NA27.--Jdavid2008 05:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standard Footnotes?

Could we adopt another way to do footnotes in WikiProject Bible? I understand that those who put in footnotes have generally used the letter a, b, c, and so on with the Fn tags. However, as the Fn system is very inflexible when adding extra footnotes, and, at least in Genesis, notes are starting to pile up and not link right. I've had no success trying to make them work.

If no one objects within a week, I'm going to change the notes in fontwords to work with the simpler ref tags.

Fontwords 17:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Already answered over at Genesis :) I switched because other Bible translations used the Fn tag, but have noticed that it really doesn't work for this project. The ref tags sound great.--Jdavid2008 17:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is it supposed to be here?

This is a sort of 'original research', to call it so, that would rather fit into Wikibooks, not in Wikisource, where we should place original texts.diego_pmc 20:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is part of our project scope; see Wikisource:Translations or ... Romance of the Three Kingdoms. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is early days for us to understand what this project will become. I can see two important justifications.

• Practical justification: creating free content is often better than using free content otherwise available.
• Ethical justification: the Bible should be free.

I think quality control structures need to be thought through though (woops, never put those words together before).

Sourcing articles at Wikipedia makes them verifiable to anyone. Here though, translation can only be verified by other translators. Alternatively, people can verify against existing translations, but these don't explain how they derived the result, and if people have a translation they can use for comparison, they don't need a free Bible. ;)

Anyway, I'm in for the duration. Love to hear more discussion of the meta-issues. Alastair Haines 15:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You raise important justifications and concerns, but the key is that it is very early days. I would like to augment your ideas a little to throw the net further.

On the practical side of things, there is so much more to free/wiki content than just the words on the page. Each word has a loving author, who will often answer queries on the talk page, or can be contacted via email. And others will be happy to assist answer queries that are within the capabilities. Even on Wikipedia articles where the content is mostly bedded down, the talk pages are still alive. Even if the best translation possible was freely available, it would still not be a good as developing a living community of translators who are all working as a group to create a translation in full view of the reader. As an example, "[citation needed]" and w:WP:V/w:WP:RS is now a meme of it's own - these scholarly principles have been popularised. In the process of creating and continually revising a translation of the Bible (one of the most oft translated works every written?) in a public forum, the scholarly principles of translation will be popularised in the process.

On the ethical side of things, the result will be not just a free translation, but a living free translation. Currently the free English translations are not easy to comprehend for most readers, and the situation is often worse for non-English translations where new editions are commissioned less frequently. Also the updates to the PD translations are covered by copyright, so it is actually illegal to update them to use what might be the most appropriate wording. With a free translation, it cant be limited in that way, as each revision will be based on a free version so it is provable that it wasnt a copyright violation.

On verifiability, even on Wikipedia there is a difference between verifiable, and verifiable by a dunce without access to a state or research library. On Wikipedia, the process of adding citations that can be checked by other scholars is how trust is built. I trust articles on Wikipedia even though I dont have access to the journal articles mentioned, and even when I cant grasp the concept 100%. In most cases, I simple trust that there are people who review the content. Our free translations can do the same, and better. Not only can the sources be documented, we can increase their accessibility by hosting them on Commons and laying them out nicely on the appropriate Wikisource project (he:, la:, el:). In time, people will trust that our translation is sufficiently reviewed to be worth using. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] (Wikisource)

I think "Wikisource" should be the parenthetic, not "Free". it makes it more clear. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In the page title, or in the {{header}} ? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Page title. And, by extension, the header too. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That is the more common style in Category:Wikisource translations. Wikisource:Style guide does not mention anything about this situation.

I'll leave a note at Wikisource talk:WikiProject Wiki Bible. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, following lack of response. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've updated {{bible versions}}, and replaced the invocations of {{biblecontents|version=Free}} to {{biblecontents|version=Wikisource}}, which moves the pages from Category:Free Bible books to Category:Wikisource Bible books. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] blank pages

I have proposed deletion of four empty pages: Wikisource:Proposed deletions#Bible (Wikisource) blank slates. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Include the number of chapters in the Bible at the beginning of each book

Issue: I was reading the Samaritan entry at Wikipedia, which led me to want to review certain chapters of the book Deuteronomy. I bumbled through various wikis till I found a list of English Bibles in Wikisource. I chose the Wikisource translation, and clicked Deuteronomy.

Immediately, I was confused. I thought there were more than 9 chapters in this book of the Bible. I confirmed I was correct with the KJV. However, someone not familiar with the Bible might think that Deut only has 9 chapters, esp. if just skimming.

Proposed Solution: List all the chapters at the beginning of each book, with the ones that are not translated at all yet in red links. Also, mention at the top of the book whether or not all of all the chapters have been translated. I thought at first that Chapter 1 was completely translated, but just very small.

I hope this makes sense. Thanks for your hard work & consideration.

--Geekdiva (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent That sounds like a very good idea. Wonderful. Anyone else have anything to say about that. Arlen22 (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Arlen22

It is in effect. Arlen22 (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Apocryphal books

Sentence in Question:"Many bible scholars consider the Apocrypha as inferior both in quality and content." Has anyone heard of this. 1 people have heard of this.
If you have add 1 to the number. If the number reaches 10 I will add the sentence in question to the end of the description about the Apocrypha. Arlen22 (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Arlen22
If you have any objections please state them. I will add the sentance in question on or after June 20 if no one objects. I will put it on before that if there are 10 votes. Arlen22 (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)