Talk:Bible quiz

This page is being monitored because of frequent vandalism. Posting nonsense remarks about specific teams in a Bible Quiz/Bowl competition is not only not within the spirit of any such competition, it is a violation of Wikipedia editing guidelines. Violators may be blocked from editing articles on Wikipedia. Realkyhick 04:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

please make quizs 47.34.30.212 (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

What happened?

People being stupid, mainly. I won't go into specifics, except to say that it happened in multiple sections. Realkyhick

You removed the last paragraph of the section on Bible Quiz Fellowship, making the reference nonsensical. I am replacing it, but I will be careful to avoid sounding like advertising. If you don't like it, go ahead and reword it, but the BQF website is the place for additional information about quizzing in general, not to verify information about nationals.One Wheel (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

---

I suggest the various types of quizzing be split off onto new pages. Most sections are getting very large and bulky, and do not easily lend themselves to be organized. Also, this would leave the main "Bible Quiz" page to summarize and explain generalized differences between the various types of quizzing. --Jeffrey Sharkey 05:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I don't think splitting this into separate pages for each denomination is necessary just yet. The article is considerably longer than when I first wrote it (or converted it from the original "Bible Bowl" article), but it's not too long - for now. I'm more concerned about the availability of free wi-fi at Tuscon next summer, or your ability to hack into some. :-) Realkyhick 05:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't there be a brief summary on this page, as well as individual pages for the denominations? I think that Nazarene Quizzing has its own page, ideally each group would as well. It would be a lot of work to write all those pages, but it could happen bit by bit, with people writing about their denomination. One Wheel (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to get BQF a page, but people have said that it is not notable enough. Fine, but when I was looking up information about BQF to expand the stub in this page I ran across the Young Entrepreneurs Alliance. A lack of independent external sources was also mentioned, a charge to which the article on the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association is definitely vulnerable. I don't believe that anybody could argue that the BGAE is not notable enough, and allowing the Young Entrepreneurs Association a page, especially one as blatantly promotional as Young Entrepreneurs Alliance's, and not allowing BQF is questionable at best. Anybody care to tell me what the unpublished rules are for when to apply the published rules?One Wheel (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that the fact that one article exists is not justification for another. It usually means that the existing article simply hasn't received attention from another editor — Wikipedia is pretty large, after all. In this case, the YEA article has now been proposed for deletion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

National Bible Bowl certainly looks like it could use a separate article. Why, it’s about article length already! It appears to be notable to me (although I just don’t know much about this particular organization): Google News returns quite a few results.—Jchthys 13:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Template added. Cited Sources and External Links should be separate.

Please help clean up this article by better citing sources. "Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not be placed in an external links section." See Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:External links for more information.

I'm adding the OR tag to the whole article. Most of the article is original work with no sources or demonstrated notability. The official websites for each particular denomination's quiz activity are not adequate sources, nor do they establish the notability of the subject overall. The only outside sources provided really refer to Youth for Christ, so this article should maybe even be merged with Youth for Christ. I'll hold off on formally suggesting that for now to see if Original Research concerns can be resolved or if notability can be demonstrated beyond the fact that there are a bunch of Bible quiz websites out there. 12.119.59.246 (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The original research tag is erroneously applied here, and I have removed it. You can argue that the sources provided are primary sources, though I doubt that would apply to an article about Bible quiz/bowl in general because the sites are from different sources. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Name

After mistyping your name in searches to respond, I realized what it stands for. Ahm from Masurah myslelf, but I was dating a wonderful woman last year, who is a real KY hick. Before that she was about the only person who visited my mother in the hospital for months before she recently died of cancer. Tautologist (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

National Bible Bee

This new article appears to duplicate soem material. That other one, National Bible Bee, should be merged into this one, Bible quiz. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don’t think it so much duplicates any material, it may just be an issue of notability. See the talk page at Talk:National Bible Bee.—Jchthys 22:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just passing through - I'd suggest against a merger. This article is 61k so far and the other is 48k (and better referenced and laid out). It would be unwieldy to expand this article to 40-50k on each notable competition. Better to keep this as a good overview and split off the other articles. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Bible Bowl

Does anyone else agree that the section on Bible Bowl unnecessarily repeats a lot of information given in its own article? It should be abbreviated with a ‘main article’ template.—Jchthys 23:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean National Bible Bowl. I agree; trim this section way down and link to the main article. The Nazarene section could probably use the same treatment. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I also think Assemblies of God Bible Quiz is notable enough for its own article. Does anyone care to do the forking?—Jchthys 16:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think so too, but I have a conflict of interest so I can't do it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

External Links

External Links should be relevant to the article. Although descriptions of how various denominations operate their quizzing program exists on the page, this does not mean we need an external link for every group out there. Biblequizzer.org and BibleQuiz.com and GreatLakesBibleBowl.org don't need to be included as they are focused on a specific district and/or region. They have no value to a general article about bible quizzing. Why is biblequizpodcast.com included? In any non-religious popular categories these types of links would never be acceptable. These do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for being included as they don't provide relevant information for further research. Official Denominational sites should be include where people can find more information regarding their quizzing programs. Wikipedia States 'it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic.' My edits left only official denominational sites, and those that provided information/resources focused on promoting bible quizzing in general. Again, why are we including a list of district/regional specific sites? 24.113.52.215 (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC) ElijahJ

Biblequiz.com does not focus on a specific district or region, as even a cursory glance of the site would plainly show. It is about Assemblies of God Bible Quizzing as a whole, and until fairly recently was the de facto official site for AG Teen Bible Quiz. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you even go there and read through the site? The vast majority of the material about AG quizzing. It's no longer the official site for their program and there is nothing there that justifies having the link. The same goes for biblequizzer.org and greatlakesbiblebowl. These do not meet the Wikipedia requirements for inclusion. Should we list all official denominational websites? How about every website that has something for general quizzing? This list is ridiculously large and was even larger before I edited it. When you reset it, you didn't even reset it to the version that has been there for the past year. The idea is to include sites that provide important and useful information for further research. It is not meant to be a comprehensive list of all related sites. 24.113.52.215 (talk)ElijahJ

It's also worth noting that Wikipedia states, *Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.* 24.113.52.215 (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)ElijahJ

I only removed two links which are dead. There are no longer websites at those locations. I added 1 website which has been there for about 2 years.24.113.52.215 (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)ElijahJ

• I see no reason why sites for each denomination should be excluded, since each denomination has a section in the article. I also think that sites such as biblequiz.com are very pertinent to the topic, even if that site is no longer the official site. The sites you removed had been there by consensus for some time. Moreover, you keep adding a site whicj appears no more or less relevant than the ones you keep removing, Makes me wonder if this site is linked to you somehow. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 09:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding. When you first undid my changes you went way back to an old revision, not the one that was there before I made the edits. The particular site I am adding has been included for at least 2 years and the two I removed go to dead links. There are no websites there anymore. There has been consensus in the past because it was an official site, it no longer is and that is not a justifiable reason. Almost all the content on the front page links directly to the official site which again violates Wikipedia policies for linking. It's redundant, focused only on AG and provides no relevant information to bible quizzing as a whole. It was originally included not because it was relevant to quizzing as a whole, but because it was an official page for AG Quizzing, that is no longer the case and it doesn't need to be in the list. You also failed to address the other websites I removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.52.215 (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest we go back to the list prior to my first edit. From there we will only remove links we agree on. ElijahJohannson (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll let you find that and revert back to it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Separation of Bible Bowl and Bible Quizzing into two articles

It seems to me that those two competitions have drastically different origins and questions types. They will be better split into two different articles. Combining them is very confusing. Bible Bowl is based on Trivia (or "knowledge") questions, whereas Bible Quizzing is about direct memorization and recall of verses. Quizzing is decidedly NOT trivia. Pinkslimo (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Versions used

We could put the version that each variant uses in their summary. I think it would be a good helpful addition. Rebel4theName (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENGL 101 English Composition

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2023 and 28 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rebel4theName (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kenadie645, Shannon243, Bnesheim3.

— Assignment last updated by Bnesheim3 (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)