Talk:Matthew 1

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

Full source text? Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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