Talk:Matthew 1

This article survived a vote for deletion, as recorded here.

Full source text? Why?

What's the point of having the full source text of the chapter of the Bible in this article? Since there are 50+ English translations, the selection of any one is biased, and including all translations would bloat the article (not to mention being a massive copyright violation). Further, Wikipedia is not a collection of source material. --Carnildo 6 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons the source text is a good idea. The main reason for me is that it acts as a useful table of contents to the verse article. For instance, few would know the exact verse of Mathew 1 that deals with divorce, but by reading through the text they can find it is Matthew 1:19 and go there to read about the issue. When I originally began these articles I did not include the full text. One complaint made about the verse articles was that they failed to put the verse in context, adding the full text of the chapters helps remedy the situation. Adding such texts is also standard procedure on Wikipedia, as long as the source text is relatively short and public domain. Page on national anthems, short poems, or public domain songs has the full text or lyrics. Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources permits this.

As to the POV concern, it is impossible to write about the Bible without citing the text. Whether citing a few lines, as in Resurrection of Jesus, and handful of verses, as in Massacre of the Innocents, or an entire chapter, as here, the POV concerns are the same. Of public domain versions the KJV is the best known and most popular so it is a reasonable choice. What we should have is a prominent link to a page that provides multiple alternate versions. Unfortunately I have not found the ideal site for this. Bible gateway can show five versions on one page, but that is still only a small subset of those available. It would be great if Wikisource could get assemble a few dozen public domain versions of each chapter, but that would be a huge project. - SimonP July 6, 2005 23:51 (UTC)

I've replaced the full text with a link to the chapter on BibleGateway in the King James version. Other versions are one click away. This solves the problem of having a source text in the article, and gives easy access to a wide range of versions. --Carnildo 7 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)

But it loses the TOC functionality and makes references more difficult. Are you going to go through Wikipedia and replace every Bible quote with an external link? - SimonP July 7, 2005 12:31 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources ~~~~ 9 July 2005 17:51 (UTC)

Please read what you link to. That page states that "Smaller sources and samples are perfectly acceptable in articles. Pages on national anthems should contain the lyrics, and short poems are also included in their article, e.g. Ozymandias." Just last week there was a discussion of this issue on the Village Pump and the notion that small sources are acceptable was reasserted. - SimonP July 9, 2005 18:12 (UTC)

An entire chapter of an extremely widely available source text is not a small source or a sample. ~~~~ 9 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)

It is no larger than the amount of primary source material at La Marseillaise, and certainly just as widely available. - SimonP July 9, 2005 18:26 (UTC)

The Marseillaise is significantly less available than the Bible. The Bible is the most printed and copied text in the whole of (recorded) history. ~~~~ 9 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)

The opening line of La Marseillaise gets 11,000 Google hits, the opening phrase of Matthew 1 gets 5,000. For our readers they are equally accessible. - SimonP July 9, 2005 18:58 (UTC)

That's because there are different versions of the first line, and you were only looking for one, and in english. Ask someone in the street to get a copy of Matthew 1 by the end of the hour, and its virtually guarenteed. That isn't true with the Marsaillaise, particularly if you forbid them from using a PC or a phone. ~~~~ 20:58, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

How is including the full text a POV issue? Are you going to add a POV box to Resurrection of Jesus, Sodom and Gomorrah, Massacre of the Innocents because they quote from the Bible? - SimonP 20:20, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Because you are pushing the POV that the full text itself must be included in an encyclopedic discussion of it ~~~~ 20:57, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

That is not a POV, that is what is called a formatting issue. - SimonP 21:01, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Edit warring is bad, talk is good

Please stop edit warring. It does no good and will end up getting people blocked and/or the page protected (which is plain daft. I've removed the NPOV tag as it is clearly innapropriate. Please discuss the issues here and come to an agreement before editing the article. Anyone edit warring will find themselves with a short block from me in order to cool off a bit. This war is, stupid. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:32, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Simon has explained why he wants the full text. Perhaps if you could explain why you want it gone? Also could you explain why you added the split tag? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:40, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I had assumed Theresa was a woman's name? Is there any particular reason you are writing in the 3rd person? ~~~~ 22:09, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

It was a computer glitch I put four tildes instead of your user name. (I've changed it now)Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:16, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

KJV

Regardless of copyright, Wikipedia is not a text source, this is what WikiSource is for, and this is where you will find the full text of the KJV. Place links to each chapter if you like, but do not put the full text on Wikipedia. On the point of the copyright, even if your discussions have led you to ignore the fact that the work is protected by Crown Copyright, doesn't mean that is still is, and so is not GFDL-able in the UK. ed g2s • talk 16:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

As mentioned above the verse articles are almost impossible to use without a textual guide. It is also wrong to rely on Wikisource. Almost none of our mirrors also copy wikisource, if Wikipedia ever is released on DVD it is unlikely Wikisource would be included, and the same goes for the projects installing Wikipedia on computers in Africa. The copyright issue does not matter. We cannot obey every copyright law in every country. We only need to follow U.S. and that is Wikipedia policy, consider the thousands of fairuse images that cannot be used in any country outside the United States. Also UK fair dealing law is quite liberal with commentaries, even more so than American fair use, so these articles should be fine even in the UK. - SimonP 16:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

The UK is one country out of almost 200 and almost everyone of those has some law that Wikipedia routinely violates. For instance Saudi Arabia insists that any image of a person, no matter its copyright, needs the permission of the subject before being published. On the European continent moral rights are strongly upheld whereby any writer has the right to object to the modification of their work, irrespective of if they sold the rights or licensed them under the GFDL. We cannot hope to follow the laws of every nation, so we stick to only those that apply: those of the United States.- SimonP 17:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Not only that, the KJV isn't really the latest in Bible scholarship. 213.78.102.202 08:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Survey

For a (now finished) July 2005 survey about whether or not the full source text should be included in the article see Wikipedia:Bible source text.

There were 36 non-abstaining votes, and 3 abstensions.

The result of the survey was a 70% vote that it should not be included in the text, and should be removed in favour of a link to the text at wikisource. ~~~~ 07:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

If you include the abstentions it was 65%. Unfortunately that poll failed to mention what number was required, but the standard is 70 or higher percent. Also that poll was explicitly not a policy proposal and violated pretty much every survey guideline. There has been barely any actual discussion of this issue, so actually talking about the matter should be the next step rather than launching another round of edit wars. - SimonP 11:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I was a little late for my vote to be included -- it might have tipped the scale to 70%, but I am not sure that is really the point. I have read the article with and without the full text, and find the version that simply links to be stylistically superior. Placing the full text at the end doesn't really help the reader navigate the article. After all, the reader can always click on the link if interested. As for the above argument about off-line versions of Wikipedia, I find them unpersuasive. Wikipedia contains thousands of external links that will need to be dealt with in case of such action.Robert A West 18:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on the style issue, but have you tried to search for a specific verse article without the full text? Very few people know the specific verse in which Joseph is instructed by an angel, but with the full text they can easily find it and click on the associated link. - SimonP 20:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Several respondents infavour of including argued that as much text should be included as is needed to clarify the issue at hand. Quoting a whole chapter (which typically consists of two or three sections) is way beyond that. This should tip the scales beyond 70 %. 213.78.102.202 09:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 25:11 to remove the text (+2 explicit abstentions and 1 implicit (yours)). This is pretty conclusive. There is certainly no consensus to re-add it. ~~~~ 13:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Just as a point of fact, was the Bible source text survey mentioned on the relevant talk pages at any time before the survey closed? The earliest link to it here appears to be July 22 but I haven't searched the entire history. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:36, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

Matthew 1:2 merged here

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:2 (second attempt). Johnleemk | Talk 11:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Matthew 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110604101231/http://www.geocities.com/j_owens05/nt/mt/infancy.html to http://www.geocities.com/j_owens05/nt/mt/infancy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)