Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible

Wikieancneasthisto (talk · contribs) has made a number of oddly-sourced edits to Bible-related pages that I think would benefit from some attention.

This edit to Sodom and Gomorrah is typical. It adds a claim about the possible historicity of the story based on a claim about the meanings of the Hebrew words, referenced to a Korean book with a 2026 publication date. With a little google-searching I did not see the claim in the English-language academic biblical literature, which indicates to me that the claim may not be widely accepted.

Similarly these edits to Lot's wife insert a speculation about pillar of salt which, again, I have not found in the scholarly literature.

Reviewing the editor's contributions reveals a host of edits to Bible-related pages, frequently sourced to the one Korean book. But also to a self-published book by one Gerald Aardsma and possibly other sources.

I reverted the Sodom and Gomorrah edit, a few others have been reverted by other editors. But a bunch still stand.

I left a question on the editor's talk page four days ago, with no response yet. -- M.boli (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I've just removed some similar material by the same editor from Deborah. ~2026-40514-1 (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I've warned them, told them to stop. Clearly not an rs. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Just reverted a similar edit by the same user at Neferkasokar. ~2026-65066-5 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Enough is enough, I blocked them. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

(I'm not related to the other TAs above). I did some cleanup but there remains the Eve article that still uses the source for a new paragraph. I let it stand for now, review welcome. ~2026-64883-8 (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh and Historicity of the Bible referring to a Youtube video without link/id. ~2026-64883-8 (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, unknown colleague!

The Book of Genesis (the first part of the Bible) contains very ancient data that predates the text itself—for example, mentions of ironworking or distinctly Ancient Egyptian terms like "Abrek" (meaning "Bend the knee"). While browsing Wikipedia, I noticed that such insights are currently scattered across various different articles. Therefore, I propose creating a dedicated article where information regarding these ancient "inclusions" in the Book of Genesis would be gathered in one place. At the very least, this would demonstrate the venerable age of this authoritative source.

I've written a draft of an article for "Article Wizard". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Ancient_insertions_in_Genesis&action=submit This draft contains a table for Chapter 1. If the community supports this idea, we can develop similar tables for the subsequent chapters of Genesis.

What are your thoughts on this, my dear friend?

Respectfully,

New-man-in-the-street

20 Feb. 2026 New-man-in-the-street (talk) 09:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Currently Category:Biblical people states that "Category:Biblical people includes real people, fictional characters, mythological, legendary and supernatural characters". Which actually seems fine to me but two buts.

First, the description doesn't match the subcategories - there are no categories using that name (ex. Category:Fictional Blblical people, Category:Historical Biblical people, etc.). There is only stuff like Category:Biblical apocrypha people and several with other themes.

I think we need to create categories dividing characters which are historically confirmed and ones which are not. I understand the latter is controversial, so maybe rather than "fictional" we could use this nice existing category - Category:People whose existence is disputed. Which includes Category:Book of Mormon people, for example. I haven't yet looked at how other religions fit into this; although I'll note that - this is the second "but" - Category:Fictional characters clearly states "Do not include things related to folklore, mythology and religion. For that, see Category:Legendary people." Which is, again, fine, but outside of the need to rewrite the category description for Cat:Bib. people to remove the problematic term "fictional".

I'll also note that the Category:Legendary people by religion is very barebones. The Christian subcategory seems to cover just a dozen or so characters, like Pope Johanna, but nobody from the Bible. We really need to clean up this mess.

Note that there are some specific subcategories that partially address this down the line, ex. Category:Biblical patriarchs is under Category:Legendary progenitors (and is not connected to the Category:Legendary people by religion; obviously it couldn't be under Category:Legendary Christians anyway). Here I'll note we have cats for legendary Muslims and Jews, but nothing for other religions at all...

Compare the better treatment of Category:Christian legendary creatures, for example. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I think my brain just imploded thinking about all these different categories Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 09:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)