Knowledge:Bible verses

1817:

without works is dead." (Catholics vs. Lutherans over faith alone vs. faith and action). Then there's the "just about everybody knows it", which would be "Be there light!" (Genesis 1:2, I think?). Then there's the obvious "It's been entwined in political issues in some country." And as we all know, the English-speaking country and verse where this is most likely to apply is... Canada and Revelations 6:7. ;) Anyway, I think once the criteria of notability get established, it'll turn out only hundreds of the verses meet it. For instance, Rev. 6:7 isn't actually notable, except in conjunction with the rest of Rev. 6:1 through Rev. 6:8, and while the 8 verses quite rightly go into

1401:, for example. It's short and still has a notice saying that it's essentially modified public domain text. Can't those who wish to document the Bible start by improving articles on books, then when they get long and comprehensive breaking out into spin-off articles for notable passages in those books? I want Knowledge to be a good source of information about the Bible. We're much too far short of that goal to start creating sister projects to contain articles for every verse. Come back and ask for WikiBible when Knowledge is bursting at the seams with good coverage of Biblical topics. — 1012:

articles," because it most accurately reflects the principle upon which they are voting. In this poll, unfortunately, this cannot be done without drawing fire; see SimonP's vote above. -Ril- has clouded the issue by combining these points of principle with issues of fact, regarding the notability of specific articles. One of the first rules of survey design is to ask one question at a time; asking two, as this poll does, means that it is far more difficult for voters to express their intent accurately. In this instance, the notability of specific articles like

2278:

would be worth it to set up a large repository of links to those within a few articles, but back on topic: I do not think anyone should bot there way through the entire Bible, however, if someone has a particular interest in a certain chapter or set of verses, and is willing to devote the time and energy to gather resources to present researched work, then this should be allowed. The argument of notability for a subject like this is too debatable if you ask me, but I am just one voice in the abstain section.

2291:- would it help us if we decided what proportion of bands, or websites were notable? If we agree that verses can be included if notable, then there is no way of getting round considering each article created on a verse on its merits - and looking to see whether a case can be made. I prefer articles on books of the Bible, split if they grow too long, but many verses have a significance beyond their cannonical context. How many? I don't know until someone presents the significance of a verse. -- 621:, most of which are only notable to specialists. It is up to the author to make a case for notability, but any verse asserted by the author to be notable for any reason, because of a debate over its meaning in academic biblical scholarship or because of its significance in Christian or Jewish traditions of interpretation obscure to the average wikipedian, should be individually discussed and judged on its own merits. 21: 1764:. Considering how many articles there are on obscure popular songs and the like that have sold a few thousand copy and had negligable impact on history, most of the verses of the Bible have a very considerable historical impact of western civilisation and society. The scope of articles dealing with biblical verses is potentially very wide in an historical context. 1816:

What establishes notability? Well, there's your obvious: art/pop culture. Covers stuff like John 3:16, right? Next, there's your even more obvious: major theological skirmishes. Covers stuff like Sirach 15:16 (Catholics vs. Calvinists over predestination) or James... eh... #:##. You know, "Faith

949:

This section is for votes supporting the principle that only verses notable in their own right, rather than because they are part of the bible, or part of a part of the bible, should get their own articles. However, this section is for votes where this principle covers most verses, which are believed

174:

This is closest to what I support. I don't believe that that any and all Bible verses are automatically worthy of an article, don't get me wrong, but when an article is well-written, thourough, and encyclopedic, I'd rather not rely on somebody's defination of "notable bible verse", because that tends

1927:

I don't like the concept of notability: but equivalently I think only a few hundred verses are likely to make sense as individual articles in their own right. Its not a matter of notability really, the question is whether a particular verse stands sufficiently on its own in the totality of knowledge

1721:

notable? If you watch TV all day, then no. If you are doing mathematical research, then yes. There are already many thousands of articles on math and physics, and yet WP is not yet "encyclopaedic" in these areas (as compared to the "real" encyclopaedias in these areas, e.g. Cambridge texts, etc. or

1639:

01:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC) Knowledge should not be a repository for all bible verses (as separate articles, at least). A WikiBible on the surface seems like a good idea, but I agree with the concerns above about a) being redundant with the WikiBooks Bible coverage, b) increasing our systemic bias, c)

745:

Although I can see HUGE debates in the future over what is notable. I am voting for this option although I think that there are very, very few veres that fit this criteria so that almost all the Bible articles in the Knowledge focusing on the Books of the bible. Athough there are Bible chapters that

2559:

What should happen to them? Exactly the same thing that happens to anything else. Deleted if there is a consensus on VfD (but I suspect there is not). If short, or overlapping content, then someone go ahead and merge (I'd certainly support chapter merges in most cases)- if they have sufficient NPOV

1593:

A scholarly discussion of the Bible, why not? But a single separate article for every verse? That seems farfetched to me. For every book, certainly. For every chapter, maybe. Who would write a distinct (ang long enough) page of encyclopaedic material on every single verse? IMHO most Biblical verses

1123:

Many Knowledge articles on chemical, astronomical or mathematical topics are about things only notable to specialists, or at least near-specialists (such as somebody with some amount of tertiary education in the field, or well-read amateurs): mathematical theorems, individual lunar craters etc. Why

1011:

I'd say just the opposite (though I agree with you that this option shouldn't have been added). Those who believe both that most or all verses deserve an article because they are notable in their own right should vote for the option that "all verses notable in their own right should have individual

143:

Since some religious sects, groups, and faiths, attach extreme importance to their opinion on the matter, this question is possibly liable to sockpuppet abuse on one or more sides of the argument. Consequently editors with under 200 edits as of 22nd June 2005 (one month ago, roughly when the matter

2903:

Fine. Withdraw and close. This is preposterous. I'm beginning to think the entire thing should be cancelled as a bad-faith disruptive move on -Ril-'s part. If this nonsense doesn't end soon, it may be necessary to move to some sort of dispute resolution with this. The same pattern shows up in

2277:

Being a biased Christian, I see most, if not all, the verses notable in one way or another. However, I understand that this is simply too much and would create too big of a precedent for other works. There are many other resources online that examine chapters and verses individually and I think it

2197:

Comment: I voted in the section above, but my reasoning probably means my vote belongs here. "Vast minority" is contradictory, don't you think? "Tiny" might have been clearer. Not moving my vote for fear of messing things up, but as I stated above, I agree with proposition that very few, less than

2033:

John 3:16, Jesus Wept, and that verse that was popularized in Beavis & Butthead, "Jesus saddled his ass," should have their own Knowledge articles. Maybe one or two more that I'm forgetting here. But most verses are only notable if you're a Christian, and religious projects should have their

2013:

article. Certainly more are notable as part of a larger group. Anyway, I would gladly be disproved by seeing scholarly NPOV encyclopaedical articles on more verses than that; but please don't create stubs for every Biblical verse. Let articles be written, and any which are not up to Wiki standards

1434:

I agree with Trilobite, but not quite so much with Wesley - the goal with NPOV is not for NPOV to stand for "No Point of View" but rather "Neutral Point of View", and to cover all major points of view in adequate/ approximately equal depth. As long as enough people are working on the project, that

1020:

should be decided on VFD or on the relevant talk pages, not in a poll leading toward policy. The inclusion of these questions of fact point to the ill-considered and rushed nature of this poll. My vote, at least, should be interpreted as a vote for the principle only, and based on the comments, it

2588:

It's really hard to say what verses are notable, or how many there are. I believe that such statements are inherently PoV. I agree with Bcat that this should be decided on a case-by-case basis. If a well-written, NPoV, factual, and encyclopedic article can be written about a bible verse, passage,

1396:

We are already spreading our efforts too thinly by trying to create sister projects all over the place, and since this one will be seperated from Knowledge and will likely be worked on by people with certain religious agendas, there are significant problems when it comes to NPOV and the Wikimedia

498:

Plenty of verses have made their way into literature, general western culture, but the vast majority have not. I strongly support (and I am a bible reading christian) a move which restricts single verse entries. It would be rare to publish a bible commentary on a single verse, which I think says

2045:

That quite bizzare reasoning - couple of billion Christians might outstrip Bevis fans somewhat - and then there are Jews (since we are talking about Hebrew Bible too) and, quite a few interested agnostics and others. And if 'religious projects' should be chased elsewhere, what about mathematics

708:

is a perfect example of where you actually lose information if you give it a separate article, because it's so connected to the following verses. Except for notable verses, having an article for every verse disrupts the narrative of the story and the coherence of Knowledge's coverage.

109:

This concerns an issue that has been under consideration for the last month, with the general problem of failing to achieve consensus for any result (it is roughly 50:50 on each side of the argument, with the last VFD declared "keep" although the delete votes had a slight majority, of

2662:

This 'voting' is going nowhere - and reaching little but the most obvious consensus (i.e. only notable verses are notable). We have had a pseudo-policy attempt through VfD, and now a poll, without a proper idea of what it is about - or whether we need an agreement at all (see further

2339:

Are you saying that the whole purpose of this poll is not about Bible verses, but rather about whether or not someone's actions are in/appropriate? That's not what I read at the top... If you have a dispute with another editor, there are methods in place to handle that: please see

1444:

I feel that Knowledge is a more suitable location for this material. Wikibooks is for making text books, not for writing about books. Wikisource allows annotated texts, but there is a great difference from an annotated text and one that has twenty times as much information as text. -

1977:

Tricky, not having read them all, but I'd say at most about 100 or so. I don't want to limit myself to 30 by voting below, but I'm close to doing so. I think most verses deserve mention in a larger context (book, chapter, or, preferably, story (eg "Birth of Jesus", etc)), not verse.

1236:

Yes. Not sure how -Ril-'s comment below goes against this point. I don't really care if there is a separate WikiBible, or a Bible project within Wikibooks; either way, reproductions and interpretations of Biblical text should be part of a "sister project" somewhere besides WP.

585:

Support, but at creation time, the entries should already assert the verse notability. Otherwise it's inclusionist paradise: stick all single verses of the bible, then wait until someone proves they're notable. That's why I think notability assertion at creation time is a must.

2317:

was one of the 746? No. We'd still have to look at the individual article and judge its case on the merits. So, if you and SimonP diagree, fine, but do you need a poll to settle an individual arguement, which in the end will be fairly irrelevant to the operation of Knowledge.

499:

something. As to which bible? I doubt that is a problem. In practice there is little argument about which books are in the bible, or might be in someone else's bible, which is all that matteres. Now verse by verse entries on the Mahabharata would of course be excellent 8-).

483:

I don't regard this as applying to very many verses. The two examples given above are worthy of their own articles I think, but which others? Most are better covered in a combined article about a certain passage, or chapter, or book. What is the bar for notability here? —

2925: 1327:

Note that Wikicities is a commercial project seperate from the Wikimedia Foundation (though you wouldn't guess it by the ridiculous amount of promotion it gets on Knowledge). I believe this proposal is calling for a project to be set up under the auspices of Wikimedia. —

1188: 508:

I think a reasonable gauge for notability would be the extent that a particular verse has made its way into literature or culture in general, which at least has some chance of being objectively verified at some level. Mustn't confuse "notable" with "important" because

1562:

has already wandered off into "obscure and irrelevant" lala-land. This debate will engulf all of WP in the next few years, it just seems that the Bible leads the way. Do you want Biblical scholars writing articles on WP, or not? How about extremist Koran scholars?

115:

The debate is what to do about Bible verses. Should articles exist for every single bible verse in the bible, or just for some specially notable verses, or somewhere in-between. The result may affect articles on verses of other religious literature, such as the

1244:

The best solution is to move it to WikiBible (or whatever such a project would be named). The argument that it should be moved to WikiBooks made on the inconclusive VfD is unsatisfactory, as a WikiBible project is incompatible with what WikiBooks is about.

2173:

would be a very good place to start. Then add some of the verses that have been regular inspirations for painters and for classical musicians. On the other hand, any analysis of a large number of Bible verses should be in WikiBible or other Sister project.

2046:

projects or biology, or schools for that matter. (We now have articles on individual cricket matches BTW). The question is whether individual verse articles are a good way to organise verifiable NPOV Biblical info, not whether that info is notable. --

1367:

I suppose this is a "support" vote, in that I have no problem with this proposal, but will not be working on it, and don't really care one way or the other. As WP has already given a decent start to such a project it seems like a good way to go.

318:

2671:). I move that this poll be closed and archived forthwith, that a proper open discussion may happen, perhaps beginning with 'is there a problem with the current situation' then 'if so, what should be done' - and some attempt at consensus. Btw 2344:. If what you say is true, then it doesn't require a poll: creating a poll on one subject to see whether or not someone else' actions are in/appropriate is, in a word, "inappropriate". You can't just create a poll about whether or not 2303:

Basically, the purpose of this section of the poll is to determine whether SimonP's claim that everyone voting "only notable verses deserve articles" still includes the vast majority of verses, or whether this was an inaccurate claim.

277: 1424:

I agree with Trilobite as well. I think it's impossible to do a verse by verse biblical analysis and remain within wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Might be able to do it at a book level, and there's certainly plenty left to do there.

605:), and should be provided with references to reputable academic secondary sources. It is also preferable that topics are covered from top to bottom: first book, then chapter and finally verses or other shorter passages. However, 2477:

If I understood you correctly, you mean that when an article about a verse comes along, we decide right there whether it's notable. We don't create a list of all the 30 000 verses and then weed out the non-notable ones. Right?

265: 1640:

spreading ourselves too thin, and d) as Trilobyte said "Come back and ask for WikiBible when Knowledge is bursting at the seams with good coverage of Biblical topics." For now, just add it to the Bible books articles.

1085:

Most of the articles I have seen on individual verses seem very PoV and carry largely irrelevant material. There are lots of places where Biblebashers can play their games analysing the meaning of each jot and tittle.

852:

notable in its own right may have an article of its own, if there is someone to write it according to the usual rules (know what you talk about, NPOV, encyclopaedic, not your own original research, etc.). Certainly

313: 893:), a topical article (Begats), a book (and IMHO most Bible books merit individual articles, though in some cases it could be argued that some particular groups of books would best be treated together: maybe the 2736:

Exactly how long does the vote to end voting stay open? The only end date we have is August 22nd. We would need to vote on when this vote about closing the poll should close, if we want it to close earlier.

308:

This is the one I most agree with. IMO, the policy should be something like: "chapter articles unless the chapters become too big and unwieldy to read, then verse articles", and that would probably fit into

137:

This survey does not discuss what to do with articles IF they should not exist individually. Whether, in this circumstance, they should be moved, transwikied, or deleted is a matter for discussion elsewhere

2913:

While -Ril-'s parody of his own vote-vote-vote attitude is indeed absurd, it doesn't seem truly disruptive in any way as it requires no cleanup, so I'd hesitate to label it a violation of that guideline.

1572:

I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be scholarly encyclopedia articles about bible verses. No need to shuffle them all off to somewhere else, since they will undoubtedly get recreated here anyway.

1452:

I think they fit here, and besides, I would rather have the articles here where we can enforce encyclopedic standards than have a sister project that turns into an evangelization project or something.

243:

Agreeing with Blu Aardvark to be on the safe side. I don't actually believe that all Bible verses are notable, but I don't think one poll should determine the fate of hundreds of potential articles.

1124:

should the measurement of notability of academia be accepted in the case of hard science, but articles on humanistic or literary topics such as these be limited to what is known to "non-scholars"?

1095:

I dont oppose individual books and authors in the Bible but I feel having every verse is excessive. The notable verses could simply be expanded upon in each book article rather than "stand alone".

845:(Warning: My opinion "may be discounted" since I have less than 200 edits and am relatively new to the Wiki. But I'm not a sockpuppet, and you can contact me easily inside or out of the Knowledge.) 1344:

Yes, but it shouldn't be only for the Bible, but all religious texts, and maybe even philosophy texts... WikiLiterature? After all, all these texts make up a vast part of world literature. :) --

944: 746:

are worthy of an encyclopedia entry, I think that most articles on sections smaller that individial books should focus on the stories in the Bible, which are usually several chapters in length.

1546:

into Shakesperian analysis and literary criticism in general, but many other subjects can potentially get sucked in. Please note that arguments about "what's notable" have already occurred in

1034: 2544:

Briefly looking at those verses, I think that most (if not all) of them are not notable. IMO, there a probably about 100 verses that deserve articles of their own. That said, I agree with

607:

notability should not only be judged from a narrow Western Christian (or rather secularized "post-christian") perspective or from presence in general Western culture or political discourse

2465:

Well, that's what we do for bands, music groups and even individuals - and there are more than 30,000 of them. When someone creates an article, we judge it, at the time, on its merits. --

1120:. Stick with books and notable chapters, and passages that transcend religious study (EG the Sermon on the Mount is probably well enuf known by non-scholars to have its own article). 2829: 2589:

chapter, or book, then I am in favor of letting that article remain. I'd rather not rely on some pre-defined declaration that such verse, passage, chapter, or book is non-notable. --

305: 2564:

exists is because you created it). I'm for merging, but, given that we have articles for individual primary schools and county cricket matches, I can't see what the big deal is. --

2382:

Not being completely familiar with all 30,000+ verses and the huge body of research and literature surrounding them, it's difficult to say. Also, I agree with Doc's point above.

1397:

Foundation becoming a vehicle for evangelism. Why can't we concentrate on encyclopedic content? This doesn't mean having an article on every verse. Look at the article on the

568:

I have added a new section below for you to move your vote to to support your position about which verses are notable (i.e. that it is a majority rather than small minority).

2918: 2386: 1063:

should have their own articles if they're notable enough. Articles for individual verses is Biblecruft. We already have a Bible section at Wikibooks, why duplicate it here?

1025: 546: 410: 165: 368:

Because by definition the others are "non-notable". Selecting single verses out of chapters removes the context essential to an encyclopedia as compared to a dictionary.

1558:

are already crossing the boundry from "notable" to "obscure but highly important reference being used by professional mathematicians adnd physicists". Never mind that

341: 1676: 1604: 474:

If all Bible verses should have articles, then which Bible should we use? Different branches of Christianity have different books they consider part of the Bible. --

2915: 2383: 1156:

Changed vote because it appears that no matter how many are allowed, if we allow so much as one here on Knowledge, people will try to make it the Christianpedia.

1022: 543: 407: 1738:, which I beleive has thousands of articles. P.S. I actually rather dislike Christians; its just that the subject matter is rather interesting in its own right. 270:

This section is for votes supporting the principle that every single new testament verse deserves its own article, but not necessarily every old testament verse.

1804:

Considering how much material has been written about virtually every portion of the bible, I would think there would at least be several hundred notable verses.

434:

a good case can be made by someone)- and -Ril- cites two examples. So we are still going to have to debate each individual verse on its metits as at the moment.

1105: 1046: 1876:

Once you get into Revelation, you could probably find a bunch of notable verses, but there aren't that many outside of there that are notable on their own. --

979: 1436: 202: 2810: 2625:

many notable verses in the Bible." I think that what we have to do is wait until all of the articles are written, then count them, and then we'll know. —

1193: 2806: 2169:" if someone will come up with a conservative selection of say 120 verses that they think are notable on their own. I would suggest a good dictionary of 184: 1390: 83:'the majority' - 4 (10%); 'a large minority' - 2 (5%); 'a small minority' - 12 (37%); a 'vast minority' 8 (19%); abstentions ('we can't say') - 12 (29%) 2930: 2814: 961: 35:

Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the

2412:

Mainly to dispute simon's claim that the people voting "only notable verses should have articles" refers to most bible verses rather than only a few.

2672: 1825: 1726:). Scholars have already debated every verse in the Bible repeatedly; I'm not sure why WP can't be as lively a forum for the Bible as it is for 680:

as this is the only criteria applied to every other topic. This means that I support the idea that MOST verses will not have individual articles.

1043: 817: 205: 2834: 1624: 2877: 1139: 1108: 2325: 1982:

21:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC) (Note: I don't know if it was intentional, but my vote was removed in a previous edit, so I am reinserting it.) -

221: 2074:

I get about 30 from Revelation alone; 1:8, 6:2, 6:4, 6:5, 6:8, 8:1, 12:7, 12:9, 13:1, 13:16-18, 16:16, 22:13 being particularly notable. --

1937:

Yes. Asserting that most bible verses are notable in their own right is disruptive. Some are quoted often, some are rarely if ever quoted.

1090: 2668: 1862: 1681: 1117: 380: 2053: 1151: 1128: 247: 2192: 1932: 1831: 1795: 1224:

Yes, there is a wealth of knowledge to be had about each and every bible verse. Let's include that at a place more appropriate for it.

1099: 503: 259: 2069: 1701:-- that has hundreds as well. Surely, that's a rather less-than notable category; who-all has been on a submarine anyway? What about 1337: 2571: 2334: 2313:

OK, but how does it help to settle this dispute? Supposing we agreed that 746 Bible verses were 'notable', would that tell us whether

2308: 2078: 2024: 1160: 913:, but with the understanding that a strong case can be made for the notability of all, or almost all, of the non-geneological verses. 839: 423: 2416: 764: 468: 2507: 2495: 2472: 2225: 2152: 1910: 1896: 1054: 787: 493: 448: 404:-- I'd also be strongly in favor of seeing a whole WikiBible thing happen on a more appropriate forum, maybe WikiBooks or something. 2096: 2002: 1986: 1954: 1880: 776: 672: 478: 148:

abuse. Discounted votes will remain on the page but a comment will be added if the number of edits is small or user account is new.

2139: 2018: 905: 634: 625: 2365:

is appropriate in an encyclopedia or whether it is not and continuing to create such articles is something to be disapproved of.

2118: 1922: 1871: 1768: 1080: 517: 401: 365: 2369: 2330:

It would establish that SimonP (or me) going away and creating 30,000 or even 3,000 verse articles was inappropriate behaviour.

1972: 1854: 740: 713: 593: 572: 563: 537: 2554: 2539: 1945: 1318:

A Wikicity for the Bible (and if adventurous, all religious texts) would be more than 'appropriate', it would be a good idea.

660: 650: 460: 357: 2945: 1697:, does everyone honestly believe that there are fewer notable verses of the Bible than there are Pokemon? Lets take a look at 2522: 2460: 1039:

This section is for votes supporting the principle that absolutely no articles should exist describing just one bible verse.

413:

20:04, 2005 July 23 (UTC) Obvious, though everyone agrees on the same principle about schools and it doesn't stop the debate.

2955: 2950: 2746:

So, we're not only voting to end voting, we're also voting on when to end the vote to end voting? This is getting absurd. —

2979: 1296:

Yes, there should be a WikiBible where many of these articles could be moved to. I have no objection to that. I agree with

646:

and concordances? WP is not a data dump. WP is an encyclopedia, where "notability" or whatever one might call it has sway.

2258: 2890:. However, I'm happy to withdraw the motion if there is not obvious support in 48 hrs (which I concede looks unlikely} -- 124:(over 100,000 verses, and the second longest poem known to exist in the world). It will also affect the articles listed 1177: 36: 2960: 2857: 1962:

a very small minority (10-50 at most) are notable outside of the context of a Bible annotation or evangelism project.

1104:

Displaying every single Bible verse may give an impression that the article was written by Christian fundamentalists (

2851: 2867: 2862: 2038: 1808: 601:

not merely quote the verse, but actually say something about it, it should assert notability from the start (as per

1742: 2897: 2872: 2685: 2657: 2594: 2123:

I agree, no more than one or two dozen individual verses are notable. The scholarly analysis of Bible verses that

1843: 1644: 2974: 2939: 2561: 2528: 2362: 2298: 1991:

It probably wasn't; there is a bug in MediaWiki's conflict detection mechanism when section editing is used. See

1818: 1710: 1135:

Verses should be covered by articles on books they are from. Finer details are should left to specialised sites.

542:

It looks like your assessment of what this position would be likely to include was, in fact, perhaps inaccurate.

125: 2781: 2407: 2361:

I am saying that the whole purpose of this poll is in discussing whether the creation of the articles listed at

2282: 1783: 1219: 2790:

07:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC) No, actually she didn't - it was negotiated by Majot and there was no referendum. --

2616: 1386:

Yes, as long as there are similar provisions for other religious scriptures. pamri 07:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

2843: 2607: 1439: 932: 2770:

You will of course realise the irony - I'm asking you to vote to end voting. But then, as the good Baroness

2731: 2715: 2009:"Tricky, not having read them all". This (a few hundred) is my impression of how many verses would merit an 1664: 1631: 1419: 1361: 392:

19:21, July 23, 2005 (UTC), although this inevitably broaches the highly subjective criteria for notability.

2443:

What, you'd want to list all 30 000 verses and have people decide each one's notability or non-notability?

2157:

I'm voting here, although my feeling at the moment is that a good number is probably a little more than a "

1623:

become a wikiproject. I have the feeling that as wikiproject would be perceived by many as proof of wiki's

1613: 1500: 471:

Notable Bible verses should be included in Knowledge and I am also in full support of a Bible Wiki project.

170:

This section is for votes supporting the principle that every single bible verse deserves its own article.

102: 2824: 2438: 2427: 2220: 2134: 1533: 1512: 1304: 1279: 1258: 352: 2741: 1461: 1381: 1210: 533:" ? If so, as the author of that article, and other genealogy verse articles, could you VFD them please. 2752: 1410: 1372: 1322: 1267: 2560:

verifiable content, then keep. They should be treated like any other article (the only reason the list

1822: 1735: 972: 814: 2512:

Yeah, I think it should be handled like bands are. Maybe we should create an inclusion guideline like

1598: 1577: 1470: 1231: 877:

even if it may be included as part of an article on a group of verses (possibly duplicated: e.g., the

282:

This section is for votes supporting the principle that every single gospel verse (i.e. verses in the

2904:-Ril-'s ongoing inability to work constructively with other wrt the whole Authentic Matthew fiasco. 1582:

It sounds like a noble effort, but it doesn't seem to "fit" with Knowledge. I would not be against a

1429: 1215:

Agree. In this way people will not try to create a Knowledge article for each and every Bible verse.

63:

all - 7 (12%); all Gospel - 1 (2%); all notable verses - 38 (65%); majority - 1 (2%); none - 11 (19%)

1992: 1567: 1524: 1490: 1313: 1284: 1702: 1481: 2603:

has written above; this has to be discussed on a case-by-case basis, as with most other things. --

2352:

was a good artist" (especially not if you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously). Cheers,

2348:

are blue or green, and then halfway through say "what you're actually voting on is whether or not

1189:

There should be a Verse-by-verse Biblical analysis (a WikiBible) at a transwikiable SISTER project

2548:

that this poll is unnecessary. It doesn't matter how many verses are notable, just which ones. —

2926:=When should the vote on the vote on when the motion to close should be closed itself be closed= 1254:

I am in full support of this project and willing to help in its undertaking one way or another.

885:

each merit a single article though they each appear in two places in the Bible), a famous poem (

266:

All new testament verses should have individual articles, but not necessarily old testament ones

2765: 2894: 2821: 2794: 2778: 2682: 2654: 2568: 2504: 2469: 2322: 2295: 2050: 1915:

More detailed articles about the "less notable verses" should be at a transwiki'd location.

1509: 529:

You did read the bit that says that "this position...is unlikely to include articles such as

420: 2721: 2757:

The voting should stay open forever. Someday this page will have thousands of names on it.

2404: 2187: 1859: 1718: 1555: 1547: 1458: 1435:

shouldn't be a problem (barring edit wars from people of different denominations, etc.). --

1297: 1216: 1136: 971:. See my comments further below; surely there are more notable Bible verses than there are 950:

by the signatories to be notable in their own right. This position allows articles such as

759: 377: 218: 145: 690:

We should further debate notability, it should be similiar to general article notability.

630:

Agree that notability should be asserted at time of creation. Not all verses are notable.

559:

I've switched it back. YOU CAN'T CHANGE WHAT PEOPLE HAVE VOTED FOR AFTER THEY HAVE VOTED.

8: 2065: 1906: 1892: 1836:

There are over 30,000 verses. Only a few, in the order of 1-3 hundred or so are notable.

1698: 1406: 1333: 1206: 668:, though as noted above, notability threshold will inevitably become a matter of debate. 489: 444: 798:

13:00, 2005 August 4 (UTC) - if there's enough information to get an article out of the

189:

For various reasons, although I'd rather see the whole thing transwikied to WikiBible.

2908: 2848: 2692: 2633: 2356: 2272: 2244: 1929: 1727: 1416: 1249: 1087: 998: 695: 500: 298:) deserves its own article, but not necessarily 100% of the other verses of the bible. 193: 28: 20: 255:. This is exactly the sort of detailed commentry a good encyclopaedia should contain. 2771: 2711: 2703:

I closed this poll unilaterally earlier and still feel this vote is deeply flawed. -

2590: 2089:

notable, but rather belong in the article on Revelation. (I signed up 20 June 2005.)

2029:

There are over 30,000 verses. Only a select few, in the order of 10-30, are notable.

1641: 1636: 1496: 1357: 1289:

Yes, mostly to avoid pressure to create meaningless-ish articles in other projects. —

1114: 927: 389: 283: 230: 180: 2697: 1594:

are better treated in groups of several related verses sharing a common context. --

2891: 2818: 2791: 2775: 2679: 2651: 2600: 2565: 2545: 2501: 2466: 2345: 2319: 2292: 2047: 1919: 1755: 1714: 1706: 1694: 1559: 1551: 1530: 1506: 1228: 1148: 882: 836: 417: 398: 234: 1653:

purview. If people want to work on a Bible wiki, then they are welcome to do so. -

808:

agreed, rest of the verses should be transwikied.pamri 07:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

2887: 2758: 2626: 2513: 2400: 2279: 2210: 2175: 2093: 1999: 1851: 1587: 1521: 1454: 1301: 1255: 1096: 825: 747: 737: 590: 465: 430:, as I might think several thousand of them are notable (including Matthew 1:9 - 214: 986:

This vote is irrelevant, because people who think so should (and have) vote for

2218: 2132: 2101:

I don't think there are more than 20 or 30 notable verses. (Voted moved here.)

2061: 1942: 1902: 1887: 1402: 1378: 1329: 1277: 1201: 898: 878: 784: 513:

verse is very important to someone, and has been commented on and preached on.

485: 457: 439: 350: 302: 295: 291: 287: 278:

All gospel verses should have individual articles, but not 100% of other verses

160: 721:, under the assumption that the number of really notable individual verses is 2968: 2905: 2728: 2689: 2664: 2613: 2492: 2457: 2353: 2349: 2269: 2241: 2115: 2075: 2035: 1983: 1979: 1951: 1877: 1776: 1398: 1369: 1319: 1264: 1246: 1238: 1157: 1077: 995: 994:. This vote here seeks to blur the distinction between two clear-cut groups. 914: 894: 773: 691: 669: 475: 190: 802:

phase, let it have it's page. Placeholders for verses should not be allowed.

2604: 2341: 2247: 2015: 1805: 1731: 1595: 1574: 1543: 1467: 1125: 1001: 924: 902: 866: 795: 631: 622: 610: 385: 244: 2704: 2423:

IMO the question is not worded in a way that will glean helpful answers.

2393: 2314: 2199: 2149: 2124: 1963: 1916: 1868: 1765: 1654: 1628: 1505:

If we do this, then why not divide off other special interestareas too --

1446: 1426: 1225: 1051: 1017: 1013: 956: 772:, though answering the question of notability is, of course, difficult. - 705: 681: 553: 530: 523: 514: 395: 362: 328: 256: 121: 1466:

Agree with Trilobite. It will be a magnet for brainwashers and vandals.

2936: 2840: 2802: 2798: 2787: 2738: 2536: 2413: 2399:

Not sure what relevance the concept of notability has to any of this.

2392:

Notability is much to vague a concept to attach specific numbers to. -

2366: 2331: 2305: 2235: 2145: 2090: 1996: 1969: 1848: 1840: 1751: 1739: 1669: 1610: 1564: 1518: 1487: 1377:

Yes, prefer all religious texts to be in a 'WikiScriptures' or similar.

1345: 1165: 992:"All verses notable in their own right should have individual articles" 976: 734: 710: 602: 587: 569: 560: 534: 338: 332: 324: 1686:

There are over 30,000 verses. Tens of thousands of these are notable.

869:

and...) are notable. Maybe many of them. I don't think each and every

725:. (I'm a Catholic who signed up on 20 June 2005, so I'm aware my vote 2747: 2549: 2517: 2433: 2424: 2214: 2128: 1938: 1693:. Lets put this into perspective. There are hundreds of articles in 1476: 1310: 1290: 1273: 951: 655: 647: 453: 371: 346: 320: 314:

All verses notable in their own right should have individual articles

2479: 2444: 2170: 2127:

wants to report on can be done book by book, not verse by verse. --

2102: 1064: 614: 2148:

said, other verses fits perfectly into chapter or group articles.

886: 862: 618: 117: 1928:

for it to be sensible to generate an isolated article about it.

1867:

I am more conviced that they are in the order of dozen instead.

522:

Under the assumption that pretty much every verse is notable. -

1517:

Concur with Trilobite: not yet. (I signed up on 20 June 2005.)

1172: 890: 2085:

Absolutely. Carnildo, I think those Revelation verses are not

1788:

There are over 30,000 verses. Thousands of these are notable.

975:, which I beleive currently numbers in the thousands on WP. 1800:

There are over 30,000 verses. Hundreds of these are notable.

552:

You're right. I have switched to a less ambiguous example. -

144:

was first raised), may be discounted, to avoid any potential

2669:

Knowledge talk:Bible verses#Problem with this whole approach

945:

The majority of verses are notable in their own right anyway

2774:

once said, referenda are 'a device to defeat democracy'. --

1723: 704:

Some verses are definitely notable in their own right, but

2014:

may be (preferably) improved or (if necessary) VfD-ed. --

1035:

No bible verses should have individual articles whatsoever

2527:

So what should be done about the existing ones listed at

1586:

endeavor, but tying it to Knowledge is, IMO, a bad idea.

2516:, but, in the end, I think we need to let VfD decide. — 1495:

I agree with Trilobite, and change my vote to a "no". --

2621:

I don't think you could say, ahead of time, "There are

2830:

When should the vote on the motion to close be closed

2786:

She then held a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty.

1713:? Lets broaden the perspective: is every topic in 27:

This page is currently inactive and is retained for

2165:" (i.e. 50-80). I would be willing to change to a " 1950:Number of notable verses is probably more like 50. 1616:

It partially already exists as one of the WikiBooks

154:

This survey will remain open until 22nd August 2005

2432:This should be decided on a case-by-case basis. — 2198:50, should have individual encyclopedia articles. 988:"All bible verses should have individual articles" 2966: 835:this option, as per my previous votes at VfD. - 166:All bible verses should have individual articles 1730:. BTW, Koran too ... oh, and Shakespeare ... 960:, but is unlikely to include articles such as 327:, but is unlikely to include articles such as 1821:, none of the 8 should get its own article. 1995:for details and a way to reproduce the bug. 1475:We have too many sister projects already. — 1183:Votes here may be in addition to votes above 101:. There is a related discussion underway at 1542:Caution: not only can this spill over from 2060:See my comments above about Wikicities. — 1021:seems that numerous others feel the same. 609:; that is not how we judge notability for 58:1) What Bible verses should have articles? 2648:Withdrawn, obviously no support for this 1901:Hard to know if it's as many as 300. — 201:, per Blu Aardvark - very well said. -- 2967: 2144:The notable articles are very few. As 78:3) How many Bible verses are notable? 2638:... belongs on the discussion page. 1677:Roughly how many verses are notable? 93:to aid in determining policy. It is 15: 2797:13:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC) You mean 1734:could/should be at least as big as 1619:It should remain in WikiBooks, and 1550:, and that the hard sciences, e.g. 13: 2612:Case by case. Just as pokémons. — 2264:This section raises the question " 2209:I interepreted "vast minority" as 1649:This seems to me to be outside of 14: 2991: 2710:Close it as soon as reasonable. 19: 2562:Knowledge:Bible verses/existing 2535:notable, or only some of them? 2529:Knowledge:Bible verses/existing 2363:Knowledge:Bible verses/existing 1819:Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse 1711:Category:Submarine power cables 68:2) Should there be a WikiBible? 1352:I am in favor of a WikiBible. 1: 598:Support. The articles should 73:yes - 16 (48%); no - 17 (51%) 2761:16:30, August 12, 2005 (UTC) 2629:16:27, August 12, 2005 (UTC) 1779:16:50, August 20, 2005 (UTC) 1590:16:25, August 12, 2005 (UTC) 1008:07:40, August 7, 2005 (UTC) 917:16:44, August 20, 2005 (UTC) 889:'s Song), a famous chapter ( 828:16:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC) 103:Knowledge:Merge/Bible verses 53:The results were as follows: 7: 2980:Knowledge surveys and polls 2852:17:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC) 2694:10:17, July 29, 2005 (UTC) 2358:08:33, July 29, 2005 (UTC) 2254:07:41, August 7, 2005 (UTC) 2019:00:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC) 1826:23:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC) 1769:23:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC) 1599:00:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC) 906:00:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC) 840:18:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC) 818:23:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC) 556:23:57, July 24, 2005 (UTC) 526:21:55, July 24, 2005 (UTC) 260:00:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC) 10: 2996: 2921:03:38, 2005 August 1 (UTC) 2910:03:36, July 31, 2005 (UTC) 2886:of -Ril-'s is a breach of 2825:00:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC) 2727:Just silly bureaucracia. 2707:12:09, July 29, 2005 (UTC) 2658:14:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC) 2617:06:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC) 2396:22:47, July 25, 2005 (UTC) 2274:05:49, July 25, 2005 (UTC) 2238:14:41:19, 2005-08-06 (UTC) 2202:18:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC) 2161:", but still less than a " 2003:08:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC) 1987:01:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC) 1966:01:45, July 28, 2005 (UTC) 1809:00:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC) 1758:10:10, July 30, 2005 (UTC) 1736:Category:Television series 1672:14:41:19, 2005-08-06 (UTC) 1665:13:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC) 1578:00:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC) 1449:00:47, July 25, 2005 (UTC) 1382:21:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC) 1373:20:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC) 1348:19:01, July 28, 2005 (UTC) 1293:09:12, July 24, 2005 (UTC) 1251:04:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC) 1241:01:41, July 24, 2005 (UTC) 1178:Voting on secondary issues 1168:14:41:19, 2005-08-06 (UTC) 1161:23:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC) 1028:06:17, 2005 August 9 (UTC) 973:Category:Television series 788:21:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC) 777:20:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC) 698:04:42, July 28, 2005 (UTC) 684:01:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC) 549:23:45, 2005 July 24 (UTC) 374:18:51, July 23, 2005 (UTC) 248:23:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC) 237:10:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC) 195:04:34, July 24, 2005 (UTC) 47:This survey is now closed. 2940:07:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC) 2898:23:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC) 2844:07:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC) 2782:10:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC) 2753:15:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC) 2742:07:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC) 2732:17:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC) 2716:10:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC) 2686:10:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC) 2608:12:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 2595:09:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 2572:18:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 2555:18:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 2540:18:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 2523:16:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 2508:10:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 2496:09:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 2473:09:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 2461:04:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 2439:23:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC) 2428:18:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC) 2417:06:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 2408:23:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 2389:22:38, 2005 July 25 (UTC) 2370:08:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC) 2335:18:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 2326:18:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC) 2309:07:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 2299:22:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 2283:15:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 2226:20:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC) 2193:12:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC) 2153:20:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC) 2140:05:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 2119:17:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC) 2097:09:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 2079:04:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 2070:01:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 2054:01:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 2039:00:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 2034:own dedicated WikiCity. 1973:09:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 1955:00:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 1946:22:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 1933:18:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 1923:13:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 1911:07:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 1897:06:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 1881:06:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 1872:03:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 1863:01:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 1855:01:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 1844:00:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 1743:00:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC) 1645:01:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC) 1632:03:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 1614:23:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC) 1568:23:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC) 1534:11:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC) 1525:09:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 1513:09:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 1501:09:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 1491:09:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 1482:23:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC) 1471:10:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC) 1462:23:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 1440:00:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 1430:20:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC) 1420:13:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC) 1411:05:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC) 1362:22:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC) 1338:00:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 1323:00:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 1314:17:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC) 1305:02:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 1285:06:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC) 1268:04:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC) 1259:04:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC) 1232:23:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC) 1220:22:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC) 1211:22:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC) 1152:11:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC) 1140:23:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC) 1129:10:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC) 1118:00:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC) 1109:19:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 1100:02:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 1091:13:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC) 1081:08:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC) 1055:04:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC) 1047:04:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC) 980:00:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC) 765:18:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC) 741:09:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 714:09:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 673:23:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC) 661:23:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC) 651:17:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC) 635:10:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC) 626:07:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 594:01:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 573:00:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 564:00:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 538:23:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC) 518:20:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC) 504:16:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC) 494:05:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC) 479:04:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC) 469:04:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC) 461:22:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC) 449:22:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC) 424:21:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC) 402:19:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC) 381:18:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC) 366:18:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC) 358:18:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC) 342:17:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC) 306:19:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC) 222:23:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 206:00:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 185:20:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC) 1703:Category:Power companies 733:means in this context.) 729:be discounted, whatever 1415:I agree with Trilobite 939:2005-08-21 T 06:49:41 Z 873:Bible verse is notable 134: 50: 2975:Inactive project pages 1529:Agree with Trilobite, 642:, else why not create 1823:The Literate Engineer 1486:Agree with Trilobite 895:Twelve Minor Prophets 815:The Literate Engineer 97:itself intended as a 2884:reductio ad absurdum 1719:Category:Mathematics 1556:Category:Mathematics 1548:Category:Archaeology 1298:User:Oleg Alexandrov 1993:the discussion here 1699:Category:Submarines 723:20 at the very most 213:per Blu Aardvark. 2916:Christopher Parham 2599:I agree with what 2384:Christopher Parham 1728:Category:Star Trek 1023:Christopher Parham 857:Bible verses (and 544:Christopher Parham 408:Christopher Parham 175:to be subjective. 1682:The vast majority 1584:totally unrelated 940: 284:Gospel of Matthew 44: 43: 2987: 2750: 2552: 2520: 2490: 2487: 2484: 2455: 2452: 2449: 2436: 2346:blue-green algae 2252: 2222: 2190: 2185: 2180: 2136: 2113: 2110: 2107: 1832:A small minority 1796:A large minority 1784:A small majority 1715:Category:Physics 1707:Category:Sitcoms 1695:Category:Pokemon 1662: 1560:Category:Pokemon 1552:Category:Physics 1479: 1281: 1075: 1072: 1069: 1006: 962:1 Chronicles 1:2 938: 883:Ten Commandments 875:in its own right 762: 757: 752: 658: 354: 40: 23: 16: 2995: 2994: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2958: 2953: 2948: 2946:==15th August== 2933: 2931:==22nd August== 2928: 2880: 2875: 2870: 2865: 2860: 2837: 2832: 2817:) Yes - typo -- 2768: 2748: 2724: 2700: 2667:'s comments at 2644:Motion to close 2636: 2550: 2518: 2488: 2485: 2482: 2453: 2450: 2447: 2434: 2261: 2249: 2223: 2211:tongue-in-cheek 2188: 2181: 2176: 2137: 2111: 2108: 2105: 2027: 2025:A vast minority 1860:Oleg Alexandrov 1834: 1798: 1786: 1684: 1679: 1658: 1625:systematic bias 1607: 1477: 1393: 1300:on this issue. 1282: 1217:Oleg Alexandrov 1196: 1191: 1180: 1175: 1137:Pavel Vozenilek 1106:129.241.134.241 1073: 1070: 1067: 1037: 1003: 947: 760: 753: 748: 656: 378:Oleg Alexandrov 355: 316: 280: 268: 168: 163: 140: 99:proposed policy 86: 34: 12: 11: 5: 2993: 2983: 2982: 2977: 2962: 2959: 2957: 2956:==1st August== 2954: 2952: 2951:==8th August== 2949: 2947: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2932: 2929: 2927: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2911: 2879: 2876: 2874: 2871: 2869: 2866: 2864: 2861: 2859: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2846: 2836: 2833: 2831: 2828: 2767: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2755: 2744: 2734: 2723: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2708: 2699: 2696: 2673:Polls are evil 2641: 2635: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2619: 2610: 2597: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2557: 2510: 2430: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2397: 2390: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2311: 2285: 2275: 2260: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2239: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2219: 2204: 2203: 2167:small minority 2163:small minority 2155: 2142: 2133: 2121: 2099: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2072: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2026: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2007: 2006: 2005: 1975: 1967: 1957: 1948: 1935: 1925: 1913: 1899: 1883: 1874: 1865: 1857: 1846: 1833: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1811: 1797: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1785: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1771: 1759: 1745: 1683: 1680: 1678: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1667: 1647: 1634: 1617: 1606: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1591: 1580: 1570: 1536: 1527: 1515: 1503: 1493: 1484: 1473: 1464: 1450: 1442: 1437:Idont Havaname 1432: 1422: 1413: 1392: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1384: 1375: 1365: 1349: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1316: 1309:Yes, plainly. 1307: 1294: 1287: 1278: 1270: 1261: 1252: 1242: 1234: 1222: 1213: 1195: 1192: 1190: 1187: 1179: 1176: 1174: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1163: 1154: 1142: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1112: 1102: 1093: 1083: 1057: 1049: 1036: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 983: 982: 946: 943: 942: 941: 918: 908: 899:Kings I and II 861:verses in the 847: 842: 829: 820: 809: 803: 790: 779: 767: 743: 716: 699: 685: 675: 663: 653: 637: 628: 596: 583: 582: 581: 580: 579: 578: 577: 576: 575: 566: 520: 506: 496: 481: 472: 463: 451: 435: 428:sooo pointless 414: 405: 393: 383: 375: 369: 360: 351: 344: 315: 312: 311: 310: 296:Gospel of John 292:Gospel of Luke 288:Gospel of Mark 279: 276: 275: 274: 267: 264: 263: 262: 250: 238: 224: 208: 203:Idont Havaname 196: 187: 167: 164: 162: 159: 158: 157: 150: 149: 132: 130: 129: 112: 111: 88: 85: 84: 75: 74: 65: 64: 42: 41: 33: 24: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2992: 2981: 2978: 2976: 2973: 2972: 2970: 2941: 2938: 2935: 2934: 2920: 2917: 2912: 2909: 2907: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2896: 2893: 2889: 2885: 2853: 2850: 2849:Francis Davey 2847: 2845: 2842: 2839: 2838: 2827: 2826: 2823: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2793: 2789: 2784: 2783: 2780: 2777: 2773: 2760: 2756: 2754: 2751: 2745: 2743: 2740: 2735: 2733: 2730: 2726: 2725: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2706: 2702: 2701: 2695: 2693: 2691: 2687: 2684: 2681: 2676: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2660: 2659: 2656: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2639: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2618: 2615: 2611: 2609: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2596: 2592: 2587: 2573: 2570: 2567: 2563: 2558: 2556: 2553: 2547: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2521: 2515: 2511: 2509: 2506: 2503: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2494: 2480: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2471: 2468: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2459: 2445: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2437: 2431: 2429: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2415: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2395: 2391: 2388: 2385: 2381: 2371: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2359: 2357: 2355: 2351: 2350:Grandma Moses 2347: 2343: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2333: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2324: 2321: 2316: 2312: 2310: 2307: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2297: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2284: 2281: 2276: 2273: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2262: 2253: 2246: 2243: 2240: 2237: 2233: 2227: 2224: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2201: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2191: 2186: 2184: 2179: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2159:vast minority 2156: 2154: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2141: 2138: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2120: 2117: 2103: 2100: 2098: 2095: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2077: 2073: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2052: 2049: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2037: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2020: 2017: 2012: 2008: 2004: 2001: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1985: 1981: 1976: 1974: 1971: 1968: 1965: 1961: 1958: 1956: 1953: 1949: 1947: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1934: 1931: 1930:Francis Davey 1926: 1924: 1921: 1918: 1914: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1898: 1895: 1894: 1890: 1889: 1884: 1882: 1879: 1875: 1873: 1870: 1866: 1864: 1861: 1858: 1856: 1853: 1850: 1847: 1845: 1842: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1827: 1824: 1820: 1815: 1812: 1810: 1807: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1778: 1775: 1772: 1770: 1767: 1763: 1760: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1746: 1744: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1671: 1668: 1666: 1661: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1646: 1643: 1638: 1635: 1633: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1615: 1612: 1609: 1608: 1600: 1597: 1592: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1579: 1576: 1571: 1569: 1566: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1535: 1532: 1528: 1526: 1523: 1520: 1516: 1514: 1511: 1508: 1504: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1492: 1489: 1485: 1483: 1480: 1474: 1472: 1469: 1465: 1463: 1460: 1456: 1451: 1448: 1443: 1441: 1438: 1433: 1431: 1428: 1423: 1421: 1418: 1417:Albatross2147 1414: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1399:Book of Hosea 1395: 1394: 1385: 1383: 1380: 1376: 1374: 1371: 1366: 1364: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1350: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1321: 1317: 1315: 1312: 1308: 1306: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1292: 1288: 1286: 1283: 1275: 1271: 1269: 1266: 1262: 1260: 1257: 1253: 1250: 1248: 1243: 1240: 1235: 1233: 1230: 1227: 1223: 1221: 1218: 1214: 1212: 1209: 1208: 1204: 1203: 1198: 1197: 1186: 1184: 1167: 1164: 1162: 1159: 1155: 1153: 1150: 1146: 1143: 1141: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1127: 1122: 1121: 1119: 1116: 1113: 1110: 1107: 1103: 1101: 1098: 1094: 1092: 1089: 1088:Albatross2147 1084: 1082: 1079: 1065: 1062: 1058: 1056: 1053: 1050: 1048: 1045: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1027: 1024: 1019: 1015: 1010: 1009: 1007: 1000: 997: 993: 989: 985: 984: 981: 978: 974: 970: 967: 966: 965: 963: 959: 958: 953: 936: 935: 931: 930: 926: 922: 919: 916: 912: 909: 907: 904: 900: 896: 892: 888: 884: 880: 879:Lord's Prayer 876: 872: 868: 864: 860: 856: 851: 846: 843: 841: 838: 834: 830: 827: 824: 821: 819: 816: 813: 810: 807: 804: 801: 797: 794: 791: 789: 786: 783: 780: 778: 775: 771: 768: 766: 763: 758: 756: 751: 744: 742: 739: 736: 732: 728: 724: 720: 717: 715: 712: 707: 703: 700: 697: 693: 689: 686: 683: 679: 676: 674: 671: 667: 664: 662: 659: 654: 652: 649: 645: 641: 638: 636: 633: 629: 627: 624: 620: 616: 612: 611:lunar craters 608: 604: 600: 597: 595: 592: 589: 584: 574: 571: 567: 565: 562: 558: 557: 555: 551: 550: 548: 545: 541: 540: 539: 536: 532: 528: 527: 525: 521: 519: 516: 512: 507: 505: 502: 501:Francis Davey 497: 495: 491: 487: 482: 480: 477: 473: 470: 467: 464: 462: 459: 455: 452: 450: 447: 446: 442: 441: 436: 433: 429: 425: 422: 419: 415: 412: 409: 406: 403: 400: 397: 394: 391: 387: 384: 382: 379: 376: 373: 370: 367: 364: 361: 359: 356: 348: 345: 343: 340: 337: 336: 335: 334: 330: 326: 322: 307: 304: 301: 300: 299: 297: 293: 289: 285: 273: 272: 271: 261: 258: 254: 251: 249: 246: 242: 239: 236: 232: 228: 225: 223: 220: 216: 212: 209: 207: 204: 200: 197: 194: 192: 188: 186: 182: 178: 173: 172: 171: 155: 152: 151: 147: 142: 141: 139: 138: 133: 127: 123: 119: 114: 113: 108: 107: 106: 104: 100: 96: 92: 82: 81: 80: 79: 72: 71: 70: 69: 62: 61: 60: 59: 55: 54: 49: 48: 38: 32: 30: 25: 22: 18: 17: 2883: 2881: 2785: 2769: 2712:Blu Aardvark 2678:Proposed: -- 2677: 2661: 2647: 2643: 2640: 2637: 2622: 2614:David Remahl 2591:Blu Aardvark 2532: 2500:Obviously -- 2288: 2265: 2182: 2177: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2087:individually 2086: 2028: 2010: 1959: 1891: 1886: 1835: 1813: 1799: 1787: 1773: 1761: 1747: 1732:hermeneutics 1690: 1685: 1659: 1650: 1642:Niteowlneils 1637:Niteowlneils 1620: 1583: 1544:hermeneutics 1539: 1497:Blu Aardvark 1358:Blu Aardvark 1353: 1351: 1205: 1200: 1182: 1181: 1144: 1115:Niteowlneils 1060: 1038: 991: 990:rather than 987: 968: 954: 948: 933: 928: 920: 910: 874: 870: 858: 854: 849: 844: 832: 822: 811: 805: 799: 792: 781: 769: 754: 749: 730: 726: 722: 718: 701: 687: 677: 665: 643: 639: 606: 599: 510: 443: 438: 431: 427: 426:But this is 317: 281: 269: 252: 240: 231:Blu Aardvark 226: 210: 198: 181:Blu Aardvark 176: 169: 153: 136: 135: 131: 98: 94: 90: 87: 77: 76: 67: 66: 57: 56: 52: 51: 46: 45: 37:village pump 26: 2961:==Abstain== 2858:15th August 2835:22nd August 2688:Seconded: 2531:? Are they 2315:Matthew 1:9 2289:stupid poll 1709:or (snore) 1705:or (egads) 1651:Knowledge's 1531:Usrnme h8er 1263:Certainly. 1149:Usrnme h8er 1059:Individual 1018:Matthew 5:5 1014:Matthew 1:9 957:Matthew 5:5 901:or...). -- 865:and in the 837:Mike Rosoft 706:Matthew 1:9 531:Matthew 1:9 329:Matthew 1:9 122:Mahabharata 2969:Categories 2868:1st August 2863:8th August 2759:Ravenswood 2634:Discussion 2627:Ravenswood 2401:JYolkowski 2287:This is a 2280:Hansamurai 2011:individual 1588:Ravenswood 1455:JYolkowski 1302:JamesBurns 1256:Hansamurai 1097:JamesBurns 848:I believe 826:Ravenswood 617:or beetle 466:Hansamurai 325:Jesus wept 215:JYolkowski 146:sockpuppet 89:This is a 31:reference. 29:historical 2266:to whom?! 2171:allusions 2062:Trilobite 1903:Trilobite 1724:Mathworld 1403:Trilobite 1379:RossNixon 1330:Trilobite 952:John 3:16 867:Daodejing 785:RossNixon 644:WikiBible 615:asteroids 486:Trilobite 321:John 3:16 303:Sam Vimes 2888:WP:POINT 2878:Comments 2772:Thatcher 2766:Comments 2729:Almafeta 2514:WP:MUSIC 2076:Carnildo 2036:Almafeta 1984:R. fiend 1980:R. fiend 1952:carmeld1 1878:Carnildo 1777:Dsmdgold 1370:R. fiend 1320:Almafeta 1265:Carnildo 1239:Dcarrano 1158:Almafeta 1061:chapters 1044:Flyers13 915:Dsmdgold 850:anything 774:R. fiend 692:cohesion 670:carmeld1 476:Carnildo 2873:Abstain 2722:Against 2605:Uppland 2259:Abstain 2221:tɔktəmi 2135:tɔktəmi 2016:Tonymec 1814:Support 1806:Kaldari 1774:Support 1762:Support 1605:Abstain 1596:Tonymec 1575:Kaldari 1538:Errr.. 1468:The JPS 1354:Support 1280:tɔktəmi 1173:Abstain 1145:Support 1126:Uppland 921:Support 911:Support 903:Tonymec 887:Deborah 881:or the 833:support 823:Support 812:Support 806:Support 796:grubber 793:Support 782:Support 770:Support 719:Support 702:Support 688:Support 678:Support 666:Support 640:Support 632:The JPS 623:Uppland 619:species 353:tɔktəmi 253:Suppprt 245:Kaldari 241:Suppprt 227:Support 211:Support 199:Support 177:Support 2919:(talk) 2705:SimonP 2394:SimonP 2387:(talk) 2245:adiant 2234:None. 2200:DavidH 2150:Nova77 2125:SimonP 1964:DavidH 1920:(talk) 1917:kmccoy 1869:Nova77 1766:80.255 1655:Aranel 1629:Nova77 1447:SimonP 1427:Wesley 1229:(talk) 1226:kmccoy 1052:Nova77 1026:(talk) 999:adiant 891:John 1 871:single 863:Qur'an 682:DavidH 554:SimonP 547:(talk) 524:SimonP 515:Wesley 411:(talk) 399:(talk) 396:kmccoy 363:Wetman 294:, and 257:80.255 233:said. 161:Voting 118:Qur'an 91:survey 2906:Tomer 2882:This 2799:major 2690:Tomer 2665:Tomer 2354:Tomer 2342:WP:DR 2270:Tomer 2251:|< 2250:: --> 2236:Nabla 2183:Verse 2178:Blank 1970:Junes 1939:David 1893:Welch 1849:drini 1752:linas 1740:linas 1722:even 1670:Nabla 1660:Sarah 1565:linas 1540:Maybe 1488:Junes 1346:Agari 1247:Tomer 1207:Welch 1166:Nabla 1005:|< 1004:: --> 977:linas 897:, or 755:Verse 750:Blank 731:"may" 711:Junes 603:drini 588:drini 511:every 454:David 445:Welch 390:wiser 386:older 309:here. 229:What 191:Tomer 2937:~~~~ 2841:~~~~ 2803:~~~~ 2788:~~~~ 2749:Bcat 2739:~~~~ 2551:Bcat 2537:~~~~ 2519:Bcat 2493:Talk 2458:Talk 2435:Bcat 2425:Wyss 2414:~~~~ 2405:talk 2367:~~~~ 2332:~~~~ 2306:~~~~ 2215:Angr 2213:. -- 2146:Kiss 2129:Angr 2116:Talk 2091:Kiss 2066:Talk 1997:Kiss 1943:Talk 1907:Talk 1888:Phil 1841:~~~~ 1756:Ryan 1750:per 1611:~~~~ 1554:and 1519:Kiss 1478:Bcat 1459:talk 1407:Talk 1334:Talk 1311:Wyss 1291:kooo 1274:Angr 1202:Phil 1078:Talk 955:and 923:. ~⌈ 859:some 855:some 800:stub 735:Kiss 696:talk 657:Bcat 648:Wyss 570:~~~~ 561:~~~~ 535:~~~~ 490:Talk 458:Talk 440:Phil 372:kooo 347:Angr 339:~~~~ 333:~~~~ 323:and 235:Ryan 219:talk 179:. -- 126:here 120:and 2895:(?) 2892:Doc 2822:(?) 2819:Doc 2795:(?) 2792:Doc 2779:(?) 2776:Doc 2714:| 2698:For 2683:(?) 2680:Doc 2675:. 2655:(?) 2652:Doc 2646:== 2642:== 2601:Doc 2593:| 2569:(?) 2566:Doc 2546:Doc 2533:all 2505:(?) 2502:Doc 2470:(?) 2467:Doc 2403:// 2323:(?) 2320:Doc 2296:(?) 2293:Doc 2268:" 2051:(?) 2048:Doc 1960:yes 1748:Yes 1717:or 1691:Yes 1663:") 1621:not 1510:(?) 1507:Doc 1499:| 1457:// 1360:| 1194:Yes 1016:or 969:Yes 925:Mar 727:may 421:(?) 418:Doc 217:// 183:| 95:not 2971:: 2813:| 2809:| 2805:( 2801:? 2650:-- 2491:| 2481:— 2456:| 2446:— 2318:-- 2114:| 2104:— 2068:) 1941:| 1909:) 1885:— 1754:. 1657:(" 1627:. 1409:) 1391:No 1356:-- 1336:) 1272:-- 1199:— 1185:. 1147:, 1076:| 1066:— 964:. 937:⌋ 934:ci 929:ka 831:I 694:| 613:, 492:) 456:| 437:— 432:if 416:-- 331:. 290:, 286:, 110:2) 105:. 2815:* 2811:? 2807:! 2623:X 2489:P 2486:I 2483:J 2454:P 2451:I 2448:J 2248:_ 2242:R 2217:/ 2189:∅ 2131:/ 2112:P 2109:I 2106:J 2094:L 2064:( 2000:L 1978:- 1905:( 1852:☎ 1522:L 1405:( 1368:- 1332:( 1276:/ 1111:) 1074:P 1071:I 1068:J 1002:_ 996:R 761:∅ 738:L 591:☎ 488:( 388:≠ 349:/ 156:. 128:. 39:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Bible verses - Knowledge

Index