Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible/Archive

Archives
2004 – August 2005 Old project pages

vote for Moses to become a featured article vote

Vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moses so as too get Moses into a featured article Java7837 23:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I have noted that this project does not yet engage in assessment. I am a member of WikiProject Religion, which does engage in assessments. I was wondering if this project would have any objections to the Religion project setting up its banner in a way similar to WikiProject Australia, WikiProject Military history, and others, which have the "parent" banner on top with the assessment criteria and a section below indicating which particular projects have specific interest in the article. I could set up the Religion banner in a way to accomplish this. However, given the complexity involved, I would not want to do so and have things changed back later. Please inform me if this arrangement would be to your satisfaction or not, so I can know how to proceed. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Bible source templates

User:MonkeeSage/Bible templates lists an alternate way to make Bible references. Ideally, there would be one template to the most versatile and preferably non-commercial (until someone comes up with something better, its the usyd.edu.au site). The alternate MS-made templates boast some added functionality, but does this start the trend of using a particular commercial source, and more importantly, using different templates that promote particular versions, etc? Raising the issue here rather than del-listing the templates. -Ste|vertigo 23:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion

The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. Badbilltucker 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus nominated for Article Improvement Drive

I recently found that our article on Jesus is the first page that appears when anyone does a Google search of the subject. It is currently, regrettably, only at GA status. On that basis, I would request any individuals who might be interested in helping to bring this article up to FA status to indicate their support for the article being chosen as the AID article at Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive#Jesus. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles tagged as needing expert attention

Moreh, Mosaic Covenant, Shemhamphorasch and Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an have been tagged as requiring expert attention. Any such assistance in improving these articles would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Badbilltucker 02:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Lazarus and Dives RFC

An RFC has been filed to determine whether or not the position of the Jesus Seminar should be included in Lazarus and Dives. Your comments would be most welcome. --Joopercoopers 23:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Help

So, uh.. I went to Catholic school for 8 years, and I have no idea what this page is talking about: Son of Iniquity. It sounds a bit made-up to me, but is there any redeemable material there? --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 07:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

For Your Attention

There is currently a discussion about whether or not to rename/move Paul of Tarsus. -- Pastordavid 01:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy on Daniel

There is a fierce controversy raging between mostly myself, and about three other editors, at Talk:Book of Daniel over how much representation should be given to the view that it was actually written by the prophet Daniel. I don't know about other Churches, but my church definitively states it was written by Daniel, (at least in its original form). The other three editors are basically insisting that this is not a very significant viewpoint, and so the article should side with scholarly theories and conjectures on the authorship, and has no obligation to stay neutral to all viewpoints. They are at the point now where they are threatening to have me banned from editing the article, because so far I am practically alone in standing in their way of a one-sided hack job. Note that I am not trying to omit a full discussion of their view from the article, but I only think it is fair that they likewise allow some space to other sources on what is canonical even though they may disagree with them. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Up for deletion: the badly named "List of people who went to heaven alive"

This article was a list of three figures from the Jewish Bible when it was put up for deletion. The subject deserves an article, and I'm trying to flesh it out with examples from Christianity (where the concept is obviously important) as well as examples from Islam and other religions. Please help now and we can help a lot of readers with a useful encyclopedia article. As a side benefit, it would be useful to demonstrate (politely) that the subject is serious enough not to deserve the scorn that is part of the deletion discussion now. The discussion is here:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who went to heaven alive

Noroton 18:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Labelling Noah's Ark as "Mythological"

There is a problem with a dispute at Noah's Ark with several editors who want to endorse the POV that the Ark is a "fictional ship" by putting it into a category "fictional ships", I said this is a POV but they are now adding the category "mythological ships" which is also obviously a POV-pushing category, and they say all those who do not agree with them are "insignificant" and so discount all opposition. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

While the anonymous user who is pushing this topic does seem to be very much out of line, I think that it should be noted that Category:Mythological ships contains this disclaimer: "Ships that figure in traditional stories or legends. See Category:Mythology for the correct meaning of "mythological" in this context." This seems reasonable to me. The USS Constitution is in there as well. Alekjds ^talk 00:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Not any more. I notice its getting rv'd out of that article and all the other historical ships Csernica added it to, because people take mythological ships to mean fictional ships. He's proving my point. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Linking References

There are many article that reference a Bible verse or passage. Is there any on going effort or planned effort to try to search through articles and convert references to links to the passage on Bible Gateway or wikisource? I think that'd be a good task (probably for a bot). Akubhai 12:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Unified Presentation?

As I am new to this project (and Wikipedia actually) please forgive me if this is a silly question or one that has already been addressed. I was reading over this project's goals and according to #2 we are to unify the presentation of the individual books of the bible. My question is, is there a certain structure that we are suppose to use (and if so is there an example of it already in place)? Thanks. Seraphim84 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger

It seems to me that this differences in scope between this project and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biblical Criticism are comparatively minor. Both effectively cover the same basic subjects and content, just from different perspectives. Also, at least it seems to me, that neither project is particularly active. (I could be wrong here, of course). Maybe merging the two together would be a way to rekindle interest in the activities of the existing projects and possibly improve the amount and quality of content related to the Bible and related subjects, which is I think the ultimate goal of both projects. And, of course, I think the potential of redundant banners and assessments, when there are only such minor differences between the projects, might be avoided as well. John Carter 22:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A merger sounds like a good idea to me. Vassyana 06:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC) (P.S. Barsoom!!)

If anyone's really against it, maybe BibCrit could be made a task force of Bible —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TimNelson (talk • contribs) 10:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Textual criticism of the Bible is an area I try to keep on top of, and is rather poorly covered at Wiki atm. I'm taking initiatives to get the basic data up and running, and would love assistance. Experts are very welcome, but it's a great way to learn, so welcome to all comers. Also, we're not writing for experts, we're writing for the general public, so articles written for the people, by the people seems ideal, and the whole point of Wiki. Please come and help us!

Anyway, after that word from the sponsor, back on topic. I support the merger for all sorts of reasons, including those proposed by John, Vassyana and Tim. Alastair Haines 14:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

PS hmmm, I also propose an archive of some of this talk page. Alastair Haines 14:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

PPS nice work warlord! ;) Alastair Haines 18:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Its a bit late to mention it, but I think its a good suggestion; the alternative was to make it part of the Anti-Systemic-Bias (in Wikipedia) WikiProject. --User talk:FDuffy 20:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Bible-Sacred Geometry-Cheops Pyramid-Ark of Covenant -Astronomy

http://users.pandora.be/kenneshugo/index.html is a website containing translations of representative topics out of the 10 books in Dutch of Prof. Thijs , Engeneering , Belgian University and High School of Hasselt. This books describe the pyramids sacred geometry as full compatible with the laws of our positive sciences. He gives a mathematical and astronomical explanation of the pyramidal model.

He mainly decodes the explicit number metaphors in the Bible Ancient and New Testament, reflecting exactly the maths and geometry of the Great Pyramid model , and also astronomical and astrological realities.

I suggested to put in your linktopics a link to my translations website above for : sacred geometry (talk page) pyramid (talk page)

Perhaps Your religion team like to see other references in articles or links in other wikepedia articles?

84.196.90.174 18:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No. That seems to be a self-published source. It doesn't look too notable either. Perhaps the people in the pseudohistory wikiproject (if there is one) might be interested? --User talk:FDuffy 20:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Change suggestions

First, we should have a newsletter. Second, we should put the NIV on here or Wikisource. I'll ask over there. Please respond to this on my talk page. Laleena^{talk to me contributions to Wikipedia} 12:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What should have separate articles?

There has been a recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psalm 83:18 about what "sections" of the Bible are sufficiently notable in and of themselves to have separate articles. My personal belief is that any major "tale" of the Bible should qualify as its own article, and that the Psalms in particular each probably deserve at least an individual section apiece. I frankly have no clue about how to handle the Proverbs. By "tale" above I am referring to the major coherent stories, such as Joshua at Jericho, Adam and Eve (which might itself get some subarticles), Jesus in the Garden at Gethsemane, and so on. I would welcome any discussion of this matter. Thank you. John Carter 13:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

They would all have to conform to Wikipedia standards, most notably in this case having 3rd party reliable sources that point to it's cultural importance. By that I don't mean sermons or teachings based on them, but critical analyses of their specific impact on society. 24.4.253.249 19:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The question then becomes (1) how to we define their "specific impact on society" and (2) does having a large number of published works, such as sermons or teachings, in and of itself qualify as having a specific impact on society? I hope it is understood that I am not trying to lead the discussion toward a desired conclusion here, but am personally clearly not sure how to define this. I am assuming, however, based on the above, that if there are a number of artistic works (paintings, sculptures, dramas, what have you) relating to a given "story" that it would qualify as significant enough for it's own article, which is a start, but at this point only a start. John Carter 19:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Good questions. Some stories, like the creation myth and the Flood, show their significance in that they are stories that transcend the Biblical accounts and have had many scholarly works written about them. Artistic works are another good indicator and would cover a lot of the Gospel stories. Another good example would be the Good Samaritan, because of the way it has impacted societal expressions of assistance towards strangers (although the article iteself needs to clarify this more). Sodom and Gammorah, obviously, have had an impact on language and attitudes towards gays. Any major archeology expedition could be used to show relevance of stories about specific sites, such as Jericho. And that's just off the top of my head - I'm sure that many other avenues exist to show their notability. 24.4.253.249 19:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So at least a rough beginning standards for qualifying for a separate article would be having a number of works, including artistic and scientific, which would relate to the specific "story", provided that the story significantly deals with that subject. In this case, I think merely mentioning an old known city whose existence has been proven wouldn't be enough. Also, presumably, a lot of the specific stories relative to the Gospels and Acts would qualify, given the plethora of movies, paintings, and whatnot about them. Provided, of course, that they are specifically relevant to the artwork in question. And, regarding the Hebrew Bible, those stories which have either significantly impacted the public consciousness, like Adam and Eve, David and Goliath, etc., would presumably merit articles as well. I'm also assuming that texts which have been subject of heated discussion between various Jewish or Christian groups regarding translation or interpretation might qualify, particularly if they were involved in some "real-world" activity, like maybe wars and the like. In the other cases, and here I'm thinking of things like Proverbs, any further articles beyond the parent one would probably only be created if the existing article gets too large. This is at least a good start for selecting what to create articles on. John Carter 20:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent)I had to laugh when I read the line, "some "real-world" activity, like maybe wars and the like." Yeah, that definitely qualifies as real-world activity. :) But overall I think you've got the basics of a fine standard for separate articles. 24.4.253.249 20:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move of Circumcision in the Bible to Circumcision and religion

Please discuss proposed page move at Talk:Circumcision in the Bible#Proposed move to Circumcision and religion. --Coppertwig 00:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

• 26 September 2007 - expires 1 October

Kolasin aiõnios (via WP:PROD)

Resolved

• The Chronicler (via WP:PROD on 28 August 2007) Deleted

Bible summary of every chapter

I had an idea of creating 1189 pages of summary/commentary/issues of every chapter of the Bible. I actually started setting up the framework and got challenged two or three minutes in. Do you think that this would be a good project? My vision is for every chapter to be represented eventually. Say for example you want to know more about the third chapter of Ruth. That would be a page. Every page would have verifiable sources. Would this be a good idea for a project? If so, what would the index page be? Would this be a category page? Fusek71 22:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Fusek71

I would tend to oppose it, simply on the basis that the chapter delineations are somewhat arbitrary. We have discussed above creating separate articles for each major "story" within the Bible, regardless of number of chapters, and I think that that approach, which allows for the discussion of the entire "storyline" or subplot, regardless of chapter markers, would probably be the best way to go. John Carter 23:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion on whether individual chapters of the bible are in general notable and should have individual WP articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 Corinthians 14 (2nd nomination). DGG (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Currently, I am also opposed to creating 1189 articles just for the sake of having them. As John point out, at times the chapter creation was rather arbitrary, and there may be a more contextual way to break up the biblical books. For the synoptic gospels, there is a lot of repeated content, and I believe it is much better to discuss each story as one, and add what the different gospels say regarding each episode, instead of having possibly 3 different articles on the exact same episode. And on the other hand, we may have a chapter such as Luke 22, that covers multiple episodes, such as Judas' plot, the Last Supper, Arrest of Jesus, Peter's denial, and the Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus. I think what we have now in the "content" outlines in the gospels articles is sufficient. We don't need another article on Luke 22 to summarize the half a dozen spinout articles that already cover that content (not to mention the same episodes are retold in Mark 14, Matthew 26, and partially John 13 and 18). Finally, I do not believe that most of the articles on the other books of the bible are at the point where they are too long and would require spinning out. We should finish the individual book articles before starting individual chapter articles. Perhaps we should focus our energies for the time being in improving (and maybe even reaching FA status) on individual books.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Biblical original research

For a good while, User:Rktect has been making significant modifications to various biblical articles — for example, compare his/her changes to Stations list here. S/he has been blocked four times, twice in the last three months, after long insertions of original research. Please compare the current version of Elim (Bible) with the way it was before Rktect began editing it in July. I'd appreciate it if some of you in this wikiproject would watch a bunch of these articles, lest this OR be restored. Nyttend 23:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Bible article

A proposal has been made on Talk:Bible to split the current Bible article into two separate articles, Hebrew Bible and Christian Bible, with Bible becoming a redirect to Bible (disambiguation). Best, --Shirahadasha 05:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion has proceeded and proposals have been made to restructure and rewrite the Bible article. Please provide input into this discussion at Talk:Bible. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Specific policy needed on capitalisation

A debate has arisen today at Talk:Creationism regarding capitalization. It seems that on wikipedia, all proper adjectives are capitalized, eg. we are supposed write 'Vedic' when describing the Veda, 'Talmudic' for the Talmud, 'Lithuanian' for Lithuania, etc., that is, as opposed to "vedic" "talmudic" and "lithuanian". That is the normal rule for all proper adjectives in English. However, it seems that there are a few academic style guides that apparently make a single exception for the Proper Adjective to describe the Bible, and insist that it be written "biblical" rather than "Biblical". I advise that Wikipedia in order to maintain a semblance of neutrality, not adopt this style, which I claim is followed by a minority, but the editor debating me claims by a majority. It is inherently unfair and inconsistent to reserve a special rule for the Bible among all other books and insist its accompanying adjective be the only Proper Adjective in the English language to be written in lowercase. Til Eulenspiegel 14:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[BELOW IS THE DISCUSSION COPIED FROM Talk:Creationism#Capitalisation of "Biblical" Why repeat my points verbatim here?]

All proper adjectives in the English language are capitalized. For example, we write "Quranic" and not quranic, "Vedic" and not vedic, "Australian" and not australian, so why must "Biblical" be a special exception? It makes no sense at all. If you check the history of the usage of the word, you will see that "Biblical" has always been more common than "biblical" according to the OED, notwithstanding what a few recent style guides like Chicago may attempt to impose. Til Eulenspiegel 14:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia generally follows "recent" (i.e., first published in 1906)style guides like Chicago (see the Bible article for examples). Also, the OED is not a style guide, it is a dictionary. Whether or not you agree with the rationale, its important to be consistent, hence the lowercase b on biblical and capital B on Bible. I noticed your spelling of "capitalisation" on the heading, and I'm wondering if this is yet another British vs. American spelling difference. Either way, don't go randomly changing from one to the other. Thanks — DIEGO ^talk 14:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no such specific policy to write "biblical" while at the same time writign "Vedic" "Talmudic" and "Koranic", etc. If you can, please show me this policy. This is a grave injustice that needs to be dealt with, and it is perhaps indicative of the special vehemence certain POV scholars and academics hold for the Bible alone, as opposed to the Koran, Talmud and Veda, to supposedly make "biblical" the only proper adjective in the entire language NOT to be capitalised. Til Eulenspiegel 14:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a guideline to maintain consistency within an article or related group of articles (WP:STYLE). The word biblical is simply not capitalized in the vast majority of printed sources published within the last 50 years. That counts for something. This is not a "Wikipedia-specific" issue, it is a matter of common usage. Like I said, you may not agree with the rationale, but that doesn't mean it is appropriate to go around adding a capital B to biblical. A quick Google search will reveal millions of examples of biblical (small b). These are not all errors, that is just the way it is spelled. I don't know why Vedic is capitalized but biblical is not. I'm neither a linguist nor a high school English teacher. But it doesn't really matter why, it only matters what is. Do you spell "quixotic" with a capital Q? Just curious. There are plenty of proper adjectives that are not capitalized. Where is the "grave injustice" here? This is just spelling. Capital letters are not an indication of inherent respect. Not capitalizing biblical is not disrespectful to the content of the Bible, it is simply a convention of language. Also, if you really believe this is a grave injustice, take up the issue with the style manuals, the Associated Press and the millions of people who write 'biblical. I repeat this is not a "Wikipedia" issue. The article simply follows actual English usage. — DIEGO ^talk 14:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This is prejudice and will obviously have to be dealt with to establish a specific, fair site-wide policy. I would also dispute that the uses of "biblical" as opposed to "Biblical" are or ever have been in the majority. Siding with style guides that single out just one proper adjective is not neutral, and unfair. BTW, "Quixotic" is capitalised when it is used as a proper adjective, that is, to refer to the accompanying proper noun, eg. "in Quixotic literature" perhaps. But it is not capitalised when used as a common adjective, to describe an abstract quality. Til Eulenspiegel 14:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the prejudice? Whether I call something Biblical or biblical, the content of the statement does not change. Whether I refer to a man as Black or black, the content doesn't change. Please provide evidence that capital B is more prevalent today (not over the course of history -- that's not how style and usage decisions are made). Which current style guides (not dictionaries, which do not prescribe usage)recommend a capital B? Where are the examples of Biblical being used on Wikipedia (not in the first word of a sentence, obviously). I don't honestly understand why this is a problem, and I especially do not understand how you can find "prejudice" and "grave injustice" in a simple style issue. Please try to take the emotionality out and look at the facts. And by "facts" (see today's FA, Truthiness), I mean "how is the world actually spelled in the majority of recent publications?" If this were really a "grave injustice", why are you the first person to take issue with it so strenuously? Where is the Christian lobby demanding a capital B on biblical? I imagine they have more important things to feel insulted about. Thanks. — DIEGO ^talk 14:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious prejudice to single out one book from all the books of the world and give it special treatment in this way, while continuing to write "Vedic", "Talmudic", etc. This is now being taken up at WP:BIBLE. Til Eulenspiegel 15:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[ABOVE COMMENTS PASTED FROM DISCUSSION AT TALK:CREATIONISM]

Just pointing out, I am only representing myself as a neutral editor trying to ensure even-handedness across the board; I am not aware of any "Christian lobby" on this issue, but it may be that most editors at Wikipedia would agree with me on the neutrality issue here and not make any special linguistic exceptions in style for just one proper adjective that almost seems like it has been singled out from among all proper adjectives in English. Til Eulenspiegel 15:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel, I completely agree that capitalizing Talmudic, Vedic, etc. while not capitalizing biblical is inconsistent. Also, Biblical is clearly an acceptable variant. However, I think you are making an error by assuming that this inconsistency is an indication of prejudice against Christianity. There are many inconsistencies in English usage, and they often have a relatively simple explanation that does not point to any "grave injustice". For example, personal pronouns are generally not capitalized, but in many Bible translations (even modern ones), pronouns referring to God are capitalized (e.g., Him, His, etc.). From a linguistic standpoint, this is inconsistent (why does one (three?) God(s) out of thousands deserve to have pronouns capitalized?), but it is nonetheless a convention that has become accepted, given the heavy influence of Christianity upon the culture of most English-speaking Western nations. It is not the job of Wikipedia to dictate usage based on a perception of fairness, when that usage is not widely supported in sources that are deemed reliable by Wikipedia standards. Generally, when disputes arise, general usage as determined by the MLA, AP, and various style guides usually wins out (although the recent Burma/Myanmar debate on Wikipedia is an exception, in which historical predominance of Burma was favored over the overwhelming current usage of Myanmar). The point is, despite any seeming inconsistencies, Wikipedia should not be the exception and should follow the same guidelines as other published sources (If Wikipedia chooses to capitalize Biblical when most other sources do not, it will indeed be the exception). As I have said above, this is a usage and style issue. If you want your argument to be heard, please support it with evidence, not emotional appeals to fairness and neutrality. In this case, please provide evidence that Biblical is more common than biblical in actual current usage. This is an encyclopedia, and "academic" sources are generally considered important, whether in the form of usage and style guides or actual primary and secondary sources.

Regarding the "Christian lobby": my point is that there is no vocal lobby on this issue because it is not that important. Here in the U.S., there is a vocal "Christian lobby" (e.g., Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, the Moral Majority, etc) and the capitalization of biblical is not a pressing issue for them. And for what it's worth, I learned in junior high English class many years ago (in a Christian school) that biblical is not capitalized, so clearly not all Christians share your view that this is an indication of prejudice. I don't know why biblical is one of only a few exceptions to the grammatical convention of capitalizing proper adjectives, but that is not really the issue here. By the way, would anyone actually write "Quixotic literature", given the ease with which the phrase could be misconstrued (capitalized or not) to mean "whimsical and capricious literature"? — DIEGO ^talk 17:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are totally misrepresenting me, since I have never stated anything like "this inconsistency is an indication of prejudice against Christianity", nor have I even once used "Christianity" as an example in my argument. When I said "prejudice", I meant against the Bible (the title of a book) as opposed to all other book titles that are routinely capitalized. (Remember that Christians do not have a monopoly on the Bible, it is revered by various other faiths as well.) It seems the wikipedia editors who use the term "biblical" will quite often also write the title of the book as "bible", even while capitalizing the title of every other book in the world. This is also indicative of the same mentality because "Bible" is obviously a Proper Noun, not a common noun. I dispute your assertion that "most other sources" on Google favor "biblical", from what I can google it seems "Biblical" is overwhelmingly preferred. As for "Quixotic literature": Sarah Florence Wood (2005) in her treatise on Quixotic Literature always capitalizes Quixotic when used as a Proper Noun ("In her preface to Slaves in Algiers (1794), Susanna Rowson works to de-politicise her play [...], instead positioning her piece within the realm of Quixotic literature."[1]) However, here is an example from another work where it is clearly used as a common adjective (i.e., not referring to the book, but as a descriptive adjective, "quixotic"): "His sense of irony elevates the movie beyond the level of facile satire and into a fresh form of quixotic literature.[2]" You will find this convention is nearly always adhered to by authors in detemining whether 'Quixotic' is a proper or a common noun. Til Eulenspiegel 17:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Plain Google searches don't ditinguish between capital and lowercase. So unless you've combed through the 47,000,000 hits... Also, it is capitalized at the beginning of a sentence (and on web page titles), so in this case Google isn't particularly helpful unless you comb through the actual articles. Also, Bible should clearly be capitalized, so adding that issue simply muddies this debate (you also seem to be attributing some sort of motivation to the use of bible that isn't apparent on the surface). Whether we're talking about "Christianity" or the "Bible", I still don't see any evidence of "prejudice" or "grave injustice". Again, all you have to do is provide some evidence that Biblical is more commonly used than biblical. There is not much point in continuing to debate in the absence of any evidence indicating that there is anything worth debating. If you can provide solid evidence, I will concede your point. I don't really have a horse in this race. I simply think Wiki usage should reflect general usage. — DIEGO ^talk 17:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

True, but looking over the first few pages of results does not show anywhere near as many hits for "biblical" even when used in the middle of a sentence, what method were you using when you claimed it showed the exact opposite? Til Eulenspiegel 18:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Discounting page titles and usage as the first-word in a sentence. Go through the first two pages and take a look at the documents. Also, try a Google News search. It should weed out bad unrepresentative sources.

I don't think that this would ever rise to the level of "policy" as said above, but could be perhaps addressed on the appropriate Manual of Style page, Wikipedia:Proper names. That would probably be the proper place to go to do try to include the capitalization of Biblical in the style guideline. John Carter 17:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here is a list of reliable sources (both religious and otherwise) that do not capitalize biblical, except in special circumstances (i.e., First word in sentence, part of title, part of a proper name [e.g., Women for Biblical Equality], etc.). Note that all of these sources capitalize Bible unless using the word generically (e.g., "...is the bible of conspiracy theorists"). Despite another editor's belief that biblical is the only proper adjective not capitalized (apparently an indication of prejudice against the Bible), these sources feature many other examples of non-capitalized proper adjectives (e.g., godly, scriptural, christological, french fries, bourbon whiskey, venetian blinds, quixotic, roman numeral, etc.):

• Merriam Webster Dictionary – the preeminent dictionary of American English.
• Biblica – Scholarly journal published by the Pontifical Research institute in Rome
• Journal of Biblical Lierature – author’s submission guidelines (follows The SBL Handbook of Style & Chicago Manual of Style)
• Theology Today – Journal published by Princeton Theological Seminary devoted to Christian theology. Submission guidelines specifically direct authors not to capitalize biblical (or godly, scriptural, etc.). Also refers authors to The SBL Handbook of Style & Chicago Manual of Style)
• Beliefnet – Large site devoted to spirituality and religion
• Christianity Today – Leading evangelical Christian magazine
• The New York Times
• Both Zondervan and Eerdmans - Large publishers of Bibles and Christian literature.

Style Manuals that specifically mention biblical as a non-capitalized word or direct writers to use the first example in Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged or Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (which do not capitalize biblical) when in doubt about capitalization:

• The SBL Handbook of Style - leading style guide used in Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Published by the Society of Biblical Literature)
• Chicago Manual of Style - Widely used American style guide for academic and trade publications.
• The Publication Manual of the APA - The de facto standard for academic publications in the social sciences (published by the American Psychological Association).
• The Associated Press Stylebook - Style used by the AP and adopted by the majority of print journalists in the U.S. (with notable exceptions).
• I'm not sure about the The MLA Style Manual, which is the most commonly used style guide for scholarly work in the humanities (I don't have a copy).

— DIEGO ^talk 21:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: "these sources feature many other examples of non-capitalized proper adjectives (e.g., godly, scriptural, christological, french fries, bourbon whiskey, venetian blinds, quixotic, roman numeral, etc.)" Even if those adjectives were ultimately derived from proper nouns, there seems to be something about every one of those examples in their usage that makes them more "common" descriptors rather than "proper" (like the Title of a book is obviously a proper noun, so we capitalise book titles). I don't think any of thise examples are comparable to taking an obvious proper noun like the title of a book and insisting it be treated as common for no given reason whatsoever. Some sources do claim that both biblical and Biblical are acceptable, and it's true both forms seem to enjoy some currency, but I am not convinced that 'biblical' should be chosen or preferred on grounds that it allegedly has 'more' currency, especially because I am not convinced that it is the case that it has more currency.

But what I really want is for the guideline on this (okay, not a policy) to be nailed down in the MOS. If the de facto guideline of Wikipedia is actually and seriously that we should write "Talmudic" "Vedic" and "Quranic" etc. etc. for every other genuine Proper Adjective, but that we should make a special allowance for "biblical" while pretending we are "neutral", then I want this guideline spelled out on the MOS to reduce confusion and ambiguity. Til Eulenspiegel 21:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The other non-capitalised proper adjectives were not really the point. The point is that none of these sources capitaize the word biblical. Regarding biblical (in reference to the Bible) being treated "as common for no given reason whatsoever"; there is a reason. The reason is "these popular sources and authoritative style guides specifically use biblical rather than Biblical. That is the most common usage in print, and Wikipedia should follow suit by not capitalizing biblical. The "why" (from a linguistic/grammatical perspective) is not particularly important for the purposes of editing Wikipedia. You obviously think that knowing the reason for this inconsistency is important, and if you really need to know, I'm sure you can send an email to the Society of Biblical Literature (or Merriam-Webster, etc.) and ask them why biblical should not be capitalized. However, all we need to concern ourselves with here is actual usage, not the reason behind the usage. For example, does it matter why WP:STYLE insists that only the first word of headings should be capitalized? I think it looks ugly and I don't see any good reason for it, but my opinion is irrelevant; I am still expected to only capitalize the first word in article headings. I know you're probably thinking that article headings are not an apt comparison because there is and official Wikipedia guideline on that. However, the lack of a guideline is not the point. Wikipedia cannot possibly have a guideline covering every single usage variation (although I do not object to a guideline in this case), so the appropriate thing to do in the absence of a specific guideline is to turn to the sources deemed acceptable by Wikipedia and the academic community and ask ourselves, "what do they do?" In this case it is clear: they do not capitalize biblical and it really doesn't matter why.. — DIEGO ^talk 22:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I do believe it is a type of prejudice or bias that would ultimately account for the reason that all other books get capitalized proper adjectives, but a special, unique exemption is shown for this one. There is no comparable case in English for such a proper adjective being lower case. There are also many, many sources stating that Biblical and biblical are both acceptable variants. In the vital interests of maintaining a semblance of neutrality, Wikipedia should not insist on enforcing a unique lowercase standard for one religious book. I suggest we get some third opinions rather than let one editor pontificate that Wikipedia must adhere to select, carefully chosen style guides as, er, the gospel authorities for the (unofficially regulated) English language. Til Eulenspiegel 22:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not pontificating, I simply listed authorities in the field that use biblical rather than Biblical. Unfortunately for you, no one else seems to care. Prejudice? Then why do these organization (representing Bible-believing Christians and the majority of biblical scholars) continue to perpetuate this "prejudice" when they could simply use the acceptable variant, Biblical?

"Unfortunately for me, no one else seems to care" but that exactly is what WP:3o is for, when there is an impasse between two editors, to avoid making that claim, because we want a consensus, so now that i have listed this page there, we should be able to get more voices soon. Til Eulenspiegel 22:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This "dispute between two editors" has the potential to affect Wikipedia MOS guidelines, so I think an official Request for Comment on the RFCrel listing would be more appropriate. I can use AWB to post neutrally-worded links to the RFC on all article talk pages within the appropriate categories. That should generate a large response. Is the following RFC wording neutral enough for you?

• Both Biblical and biblical are common and acceptable variants for the adjective form of the proper noun Bible. Should Wikipedia adopt a specific style guideline recommending one over the other? If so, excluding obvious situations requiring capitalization (e.g., first word of a sentence, part of a proper name, etc.) should biblical or Biblical be the preferred form?

If this works for (or if you don't respond) I'll go ahead and post the RFC. I think an RFC will provide plenty of opinions to help reach consensus. Thanks — DIEGO ^talk 23:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that RFC wording passes the muster for being a neutral description of the dispute... Thank you, Til Eulenspiegel 00:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

3O response

Since a 3O was requested, I'll provide one even though you're also going to open an RFC. In my opinion, since modern usage (including the MLA - I couldn't find an actual link to their style suggestion, but their own website uses the lowercase format [3]) clearly supports "biblical", I'd suggest that become the preferred usage if a guideline is added to the MOS. I'm not going to suggest that Wikipedia go contrary to the Chicago Manual, the APA, MLA, and the Society of Biblical Literature by using a capital B when all of those style organizations suggest lower. Strunk & White do not address the issue in the Third Edition (the copy I have). --Darkwind (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad this will be going to RFC. This question will be illustrative of whether Wikipedia will slavishly follow the Chicago Manual et. al as the ultimate regulating authority for details of the English language (equivalent to the Sorbonne for French), in order to validate a sentence such as "a number of Vedic, Talmudic, Koranic and biblical scholars were consulted", as somehow showing the impartiality we are supposed to show. I was taught all my life that the reason for capitalisation of proper nouns and adjectives is that it is a mark of respect -- being an actual name of something, book title, etc.. -- given even to our worst enemies' names. The only argument or rationale we have seen presented for following Chicago Manual et al. is basically the one that says it simply has to be, because "That's just the way it is". To which I respond, "Hey, ol' man, how can you stand to think that way? Did you really think about it, before --YOU-- 'made' the Rules?" So, Veda gets to have Vedic, Quran gets Quranic, Talmud gets Talmudic, but the accompanying adjective to describe the Bible has to be "biblical", "just because WE say so"???

Such a policy would be the clearest sign to the world yet, of impartiality totally falling by the wayside at Wikipedia thanks to editors who proudly wear their POV-pushing special interest labels like a badge and spill vast quantities of virtual ink, all the while pretending to be 'disinterested' (I fondly remember the very earliest days at Wikipedia, when our editing population was much tinier, and all editors were strongly discouraged from revealing any of their personal views or sympathies on their homepages, in order to promote thinking "neutral", and those few who did, were correspondingly taken less seriously as 'neutral' editors; but those days appear to be permanently a thing of the past now, how very sad) and now we are seeing the promotion of bias, singling out, and open condescension by using every trick in the book, picking and choosing our "authorities", just in order to have double standards and disguise an underlying POV as "neutral". Til Eulenspiegel 11:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Citing the major style guides, plus the Society of Biblical Literature, is hardly "picking and choosing our 'authorities'". Be reasonable. Vassyana 13:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

For what little it might be worth, I think one of the major reasons "biblical" isn't capitalized anymore is that, because the Bible is such a present factor in Western, including English, life, it's usage has gone beyond simply referring to the Bible to a broader usage, and on that basis it can be said, when used more broadly, to not be directly referring to the Bible at all. None of the other scriptures mentioned have such a high reputation that their names have been used in this less accurate way yet. As a specific example, I remember having heard Tom Baker once talk about how he though he landed the job of Doctor Who because he knew the wife of one of the people involved in hiring the new actor for the role, and then added regarding knowing her, "not biblically, of course." It is inconceivable to me that anyone would every say "not vedantically" or "not koranically" or whatever in its place, and that this effective corruption of the usage of the world "biblical" in English is why the word isn't always capitalized. I know that's just apparently one opinion based on one particularly quote, but I think that the conclusion is one most people could understand. John Carter 14:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Those cases show that there is a common adjective "biblical", alongside the proper adjective that is clearly referring to the book, the Bible. (quite similar to the difference between "Quixotic literature" (P.Adj) and "quixotic literature" (c.adj.) as demonstrated above) There is also a common noun "bible" that does not refer to the book title and does not always need to be capitalized, like "This book is the bible of auto mechanics"... Hopefully, there is no disagreement that Bible is better than bible when referring to the actual title as a noun.

Should the style guide spell it out? "The corresponding adjective of Talmud is Talmudic, and of Veda is Vedic; however the corresponding adjective when referring to the Bible should be written "biblical", because these specific style guides say so." I thought common sense was supposed to prevail, but if a few select style guides can be used to trump neutrality policy and common sense, "just because that's the way it is, no other explanation or reason necessary", then there is something terribly wrong and biased. Til Eulenspiegel 14:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the style guide should not make inherently POV statements such as the one you made above. In this case, it might be argued that "common sense" is to follow the existing guidelines of the most universally followed style guides out there, which you above I believe possibly knowingly mischaracterized as a "few select style guides". I grant you we don't yet have knowledge of what the MLA guide says on the subject, and that information would have to be available before a real decision could be reached. But I do think it is fair that we let the bulk of the people who do seem to define usage of the English language today provide guidance on how the English language is to be used here. As state before, however, it is a bit premature to make any conclusive statement, pending the availability of the MLA information on the subject. John Carter 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but since English is not an officially regulated language like French, I don't know how much we can claim any specific style guides are anything like "the most universally followed". That's pretending there is some consensus in the English speaking world on style matters, when there is often the exact opposite. As I have said, there are a number of sources and authorities out there that admit "Biblical" right alongside "biblical", and common sense would hopefully suggest whether it is being used commonly or properly. Til Eulenspiegel 14:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, English ain't governed by no explicitly controlled authority, like maybe French is or isn't. That don't mean that we ain't supposed to follow conventions, so as we don't make it too hard for others to understand. In this particular case, I can and do see that capitalizing the word when specifically and explicitly using the word as an adjectival form of Bible would be reasonable. However, as noted above, that is not the only usage the word receives, and, possibly out of respect, it has become tradition to not capitalize it in those instances when it isn't clearly and explicitly referring to the Bible itself. There is of course a major grey area in the middle between those two poles, however, and that is the bulk of the problem here. John Carter 16:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC: "biblical" or "Biblical"

• Both Biblical and biblical are common and acceptable variants for the adjective form of the proper noun Bible. Should Wikipedia adopt a specific style guideline recommending one over the other? If so, excluding obvious situations requiring capitalization (e.g., first word of a sentence, part of a proper name, etc.) should biblical or Biblical be the preferred form?

To read the debate up to this point, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Specific policy needed on capitalisation.

Support for biblical (lowercase b)

I support biblical for reasons stated above. It seems to be the form overwhelmingly preferred by academic style guides (including the Society of Biblical Literature), print journalism (including the AP and evangelical Christian publications such as Christianity Today). I think that usage on Wikipedia should reflect the predominant usage in reliable sources, rather than an appeal to emotionality or grammatical prescriptivism. If this is basically a American/British usage difference, then I think we should follow current WP:STYLE guidelines (WP:ENGVAR) regarding spelling (i.e., be consistent within an article, don't change from one to the other without a good reason, American subject=American spelling, etc.). — DIEGO ^talk 16:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think that this probably should be the case, particularly as there do seem to be guidelines regarding consistent spelling, which presumably includes capitalization. In those instances when the word would clearly be used in a capital sense, the phrasing could be changed so that the word "Bible", which can reasonably be capitalized, is used directly. John Carter 17:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• My vote's for biblical. (My personal preference would actually be Biblical, but The Columbia Guide to Standard American English's opinion is to the contrary, and I see no reason to flout it.) However, "Biblical Hebrew" should be still capitalized in its use as a synonym for "Classical Hebrew", as this is a proper noun, in the same way as we capitalize "Modern English". —Ruakh_TALK 21:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• I support biblical. The recent or current editions of OED, SOED, Chamber's, Collins, Macquarie, Longman, and Merriam-Webster Collegiate unabridged dictionaries all list biblical alone, and not the capitalised form. Some of these dictionaries are the ones recommended by major style guides (Chicago Manual of Style, for example, recommends M-W Collegiate as its adjunct); and all major style guides agree in preferring biblical – except in compounds like Biblical Hebrew, where the proper noun may automatically capitalise also the adjective that precedes it.– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• My personal usage would also be Biblical, but WP tends to use lower case when either will do, as they plainly will here. "Biblical Hebrew" is of course an exception. I'm not sure we need to do more than add this as an example of encouraging lower-case usage though; phrasing style guidelines prescriptively usually means that a half-dozen empty-headed editors take off harassing other people about "violating MOS" as though it were policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Lowercase usage for this adjective would be better. — Val42 14:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• The SBL Handbook of Style votes for biblical, Bibliotheca Sacra, Westminster Theological Journal and many others vote for SBL. I, personally, do not vote. Alastair Haines 07:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Obviously, it should be "biblical". I'm not sure why this is an RfC. I can't personally recall seeing the word capitalized in normal use. Shouldn't the use of "biblical" in all the guides and dictionaries listed above have decided this issue before it got to the point of an RFC? When I read the arguments above, it seems like only one editor actually cares and is refusing to acknowledge the valid opinions (and evidence) of others. Anyway, that's my two cents. 70.239.93.159 16:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Other

To sum up, my position is that we should follow common sense and prefer "biblical" when obviously used as a common adjective, but "Biblical" when used as a proper adjective (to accompany "Bible", and commensurate with "Talmud / Talmudic", "Veda / Vedic", "Quran / Quranic", and all other proper adjectives in English.) Also, while there may be some exceptions, numerous dictionaries and style authorities that find both "biblical" and "Biblical" to be acceptable forms, are not at all hard to find. Til Eulenspiegel 16:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence of any style guides that specifically recommend Biblical over biblical, rather than simply acknowledge that both are acceptable? This could be helpful considering the reliable sources listed above which clearly use and/or endorse biblical (small b) in most situations. — DIEGO ^talk 18:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, dictionaries of the English language, as far as I can tell, do specify that Biblical and biblical are both acceptable forms, similar to the position I am recommending. There are many cases of adjectives that can be either common or proper, depending on if they are capitalized, like "Catholic" / "catholic". As for style guides, *so far* I have found numerous style manuals and guides that do state Proper Adjectives are -always- capitalized in English without exception; but none of them includes "Biblical" as a specific example of this, except for this one: [4] (This is the Canadian Council of Archives style manual) Til Eulenspiegel 18:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just now found another style guide with the example "Biblical" here, but I'm not sure how much weight a "gay writing style guide" would carry for our purposes; still, it is evidence you asked for...: [5]Til Eulenspiegel 18:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A-ha, here is the clearest example of such a style guide yet: [6] Til Eulenspiegel 18:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm back on the job of looking for style guides that recommend 'Biblical' over 'biblical' now; here's another example I just now found, the style guide of the US Government Printing Office: [7] Til Eulenspiegel 21:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And here's one more: The style guide published by Canada's Athabascan University: [8] Til Eulenspiegel 21:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's one last style guide featuring use of "Biblical" that I just turned up, I think I'll take another break from searching for now:[9] (It's not immediately clear to me who publishes this one). Til Eulenspiegel 21:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Do these examples really compare to Chicago, AP, MLA, New York Times, and APA in terms of influence? For example, I have never been asked to submit an article or report in "Athabascan University Style" or according to the "Bret Harte High School Editing Guide". These examples seem like a stretch. But they are examples. I'll give you that much. — DIEGO ^talk 22:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As I have just learned, Chicago also recommends writing "pope, president, and queen" in lowercase in *all* situations (unlike say, Wikipedia), but still admits that while they themselves try to use lowercase wherever possible, these are "words that you will often see capped elsewhere." (see link in below section). So, since we do not follow Chicago's recommendation to always write "president Bush" and "queen Elizabeth", it therefore still seems, even more, like we are going rather out of our way to claim special or unusual circumstances in order to create an exception just for this one case. Til Eulenspiegel 22:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm an uninterested outside party to this discussion. I think it may not be necessary to have any style guideline for this on Wikipedia, since the dictionary says both are acceptable. However, if any guideline is to be adopted, the one recommended by Til Eulenspiegel at the top of this section above seems to make the most sense and to be grammatically correct, i.e. use lower case when the word is used as a common adjective and upper case when used as a proper adjective. -- Really Spooky 00:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is "the dictionary" you refer to here, Really Spooky? As I write above: "The recent or current editions of OED, SOED, Chamber's, Collins, Macquarie, Longman, and Merriam-Webster Collegiate unabridged dictionaries all list biblical alone, and not the capitalised form." Some of these are the most comprehensive and widely respected dictionaries of English, for what that's worth.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Then there's also American Heritage and Random House, two of the most widely published today, supporting 'Biblical'... Til Eulenspiegel 00:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Til, my older edition of AH gives Biblical as a second option, and uses biblical regularly in its own text (for example study of bibical texts, in the entry "higher criticism"). Is this still the case in current editions of AH dictionaries? I haven't got Random House. What is the precise wording in its entry? So far where only one alternative is given, it is biblical (in those dictionaries I list that have most kudos in the world of publishing, like OED and M-W Collegiate). In some other sources Biblical is listed – but only as a second choice. This is understandable and correct practice, in some views of lexicography: report usage, don't prescribe it. But the support for Biblical must be admitted to be extremely weak, if we ourselves seek to make a prescriptive ruling. (That is what we're seeking to do, is it not?)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The dictionary definitions I looked at were American Heritage and Dictionary.com (see here[10]). So I think it's pretty well established that both are acceptable, even if one is more widely used. So should there really be any rule excluding one or the other? If one simply wants to attain a degree of consistency, Til Eulenspiegel's proposed solution seems reasonable. To my admittedly uninvolved eye this looks like a tempest in a teacup. Am I missing something deeper here? -- Really Spooky 11:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the evidence from the most respected dictionaries, and practically all major style guides (which themselves use those dictionaries as authorities), is perfectly clear. (I ignore those truly minor style guides that Til has retrieved, above. With effort, you can prove all sorts of ideologically driven points with the likes of those.) The important question is obviously this: What are you trying to achieve? If we are trying to establish a durable guideline for use in Wikipedia, we will certainly not get it by adopting Til's flexible solution, no matter how internally logical that solution may seem. We can't reinvent English usage entirely! While we should be bold in setting up new standards where existing usage is unclear, it is folly to push against firmly established usage. As I have pointed out, those few dictionaries that allow Biblical (normally as a second choice) are being descriptive – they are not offering a guideline. And they are certainly not lending support to the proposal that Til makes.

Such a minor point we are discussing! But has "political" implications concerning the status of the Christian Bible and therefore concerning a common Christian hegemonistic view of the world – implications that can be read either way, note.

Let me just boldly finish with a general point, by which I do not mean to give offence: When it begins to seem that no weight of evidence could make any difference to one's position, it may be time to stand well back and think freshly about that position and about one's motives.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Here is the relevant section of the MOS, where the outcome will go: MOS:CAPS#Religions.2C_deities.2C_philosophies.2C_doctrines_and_their_adherents

Note the current status quo, it reads: "Scriptures like the Bible and Qur'an should be capitalized."

If consensus ends up opting to enforce lowercase in all situations for the adjectival form of "Bible", it will have to be made clear in some way:

"Scriptures like the Bible and Qur'an should be capitalized. However, note that while the adjectival form of Qur'an is Qur'anic or Koranic, the corresponding adjectival form of Bible should always be spelled biblical.

Of course, this would be ignoring virtually every English Dictionary in the world, that explicitly state 'Biblical' is acceptable spelling, but what do silly Dictionary writers know, compared to the true authorities, the writers of style guides? (The ones that agree with "biblical", that is, not the other ones I found, like the US and Canadian government printing offices style guides.) Til Eulenspiegel 21:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not so, Til. See my list of the major English dictionaries that list only biblical, above.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's something else I just found, and right from the horse's mouth: Chicago Style Guide Online's explanation of why they have preferred "biblical" since at least 1949, while at the same time admitting that "In house" style guides are entitled to differ, and concluding with a recommendation that seems to make it optional: "If you find that lowercasing it in your writing results in ambiguity, however, then by all means uppercase it." [11] Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel 22:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, with the exception of the governmental guides, how many of these does anyone think have real acceptance in the larger community? Also, please note that there is now an existing discussion on this subject at Wikipedia talk:Proper names#"biblical" or "Biblical"?, and that might be the better place to make such comments about what are basically proposed to be changes to that page. John Carter 22:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, the last discussion there was two days ago, and only one person commented, making it clear his view that the relevant page is MOS:CAPS, which, as is, he feels, supports capitalization. Til Eulenspiegel 22:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that discussion has begun on the talk page of that page, as well. John Carter 22:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)