Talk:John 15

This should not have been nominated a second time for deletion. The copyright violation tag is also in bad faith. Though the Crown has not granted licenses that would explicitly allow the KJV to be published under a GFDL licence, the text is irretrievably in the public domain outside the UK. Dystopos 1 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)

POV

POV issues of this article is discussed at another in the series. See Talk:Matthew 1 ~~~~ 20:16, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Um, I don't see a discussion about POV there. JYolkowski // talk 20:18, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I wrote most of the text here (although not the links to other verses). If someone if disputing the POV, I'd like a clear explanation of what is being disputed - so that I can address the issue. Please explain or remove the POV tag. (I don't see the connection to Matthew 1 and POV) --Doc (?) 20:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a POV problem. The article presents the "POV" of New Testament scholars, experts in analysis of this text. I am not aware of any other significant POV's that should be included. Maybe the nominator would like a disclaimer along the lines of "other people consider the Bible irrelevant" to accompany each page? But then that would apply to almost everything on Wikipedia, except perhaps those extremely notable internet memes. Dystopos 01:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

survey

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

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

The result of the survey was a 70% vote that it should not be included in the text, and should be removed in favour of a link to the text at wikisource. ~~~~ 07:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

And yet, here it stands, peppered with little red links to non-existent and low-potential future articles on each verse. Dystopos 22:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd delete the redlinks. Redlinking article text to encourage new articles is one thing - a list of redlinks that adds nothing to the article is pointless. --Doc (?) 22:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The discussion how a Bible commentary is best presented (one article per verse, pericope, chapter) is at Wikipedia:Merge/Bible_verses. I feel that it's best to have one entry per pericope (the more notable ones have names in Bible scholarship), and that's why I have taken out the redlinks again. Pilatus 16:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

As you say, that discussion is going on elsewhere, so let's not have it here. I'm willing to entertain the though that someone might write a good article on a verse that is worth keeping seperate. But the issue here is of lists of redlinks that add no info to this article - and on that we can agree, they are useless. --Doc (?) 17:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess I also agree. I do somewhat doubt that a random user will come along and write a decent article on one of these verses, and more likely the red links will just encourage someone to copy nothing but the text of the verse. - SimonP 18:13, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

merge this article without any discussion!

Please don't try merging this without discussion. Merging Bible articles has been very contraversial - and whilst there is some support for merging verse articles, there is none for chapter articles. If this article is merges, it should NOT be merges into 'last supper' - as John 15 is not a last supper narrative, and that article could cover very many things. If we are going to merge this, and I see no pressing need, then it should be merged with John 14-17 as the 'Johannine fairwell discourse', which is what it is known as by schollars. Our Bible coverage is scrappy enough without merging important chapter to that level. --Doc ^ask? 13:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

image upload

I d k image upload Santosh rocky (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)