Template:Did you know nominations/The Bible and humor

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The Bible and humor

(

)

90-year-old Sarah laughs on hearing she will have a child

... that The Bible and humor is a topic that has been largely ignored by biblical scholars during the last 1500 years? Source: [1] "For the last 1500 years the majority of biblical scholars, in the seriousness of their resarch, have not detected the slightest touch of humour in the bible."

ALT1 ...that it has been proposed that more than 1,000 examples of humor are contained in the Bible? Source: “In 2003, I concentrated on humorous passages in Scripture by highlighting each one that I came upon. By the end of the year, I had counted over 1,000 of these humorous lines and stories! Not all were what you might call “ha-ha” funny, but each brought a smile to my heart” (David A. Peters (6 November 2007). The Many Faces of Biblical Humor: A Compendium of the Most Delightful, Romantic, Humorous, Ironic, Sarcastic, or Pathetically Funny Stories and Statements in Scripture. Hamilton Books. p. 7. ISBN 978-1-4616-2697-8.)
ALT2 ...that biblical scholars note the three visitors' message to Abraham and Sarah as an example of humor in the bible? Source: Same as above, p.9-10

5x expanded by User:Jenhawk777 and Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk). Self-nominated at 19:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC).

Interesting article. I will review this. It is new enough and long enough: Went from 2k on 14 March to 22k on 18 March (10x) Onceinawhile (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Jenhawk777: I am not comfortable with the hook because “largely ignored” is not the same as saying “the majority didn’t” detect. In addition, there are a few 19th century sources covering the topic:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25101701 (1889)
https://books.google.com/books?id=Up1TAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA194 (1860)
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/39546/39546-h/39546-h.htm (1893, much of the wikipedia article is sourced from here)

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Onceinawhile, and thanks for reviewing!

On the hook. Here's what I'm working with: "The subject [biblical humor] has recieved short shrift from scholarship which has scanned the bible so diligently for everything else. For the last 1500 years the majority of biblical scholars, in the seriousness of their resarch, have not detected the slightest touch of humour in the bible." I don't think "largely ignored" is a horrible paraphrase, but would something like "... that The Bible and humor is a topic that has recieved little attention in biblical scholarship during the last 1500 years?" be better? Or something completely different, I'm open to suggestions.

On the old stuff. We have discussed this a little at [2] (sadly, Aleph hasn't been around lately) and [3]. WP warns against it at WP:AGE MATTERS etc. Consider though, that this is (to a great extent) an old and dusty religous topic (not much disagreement that I have seen), and age may not be as great a problem as it may be in other areas. the Jewish Encyclopedia (1906) is still well regarded and often used on WP in certain areas[4]. A review of Shutters work published by The University of Chicago Press called it a "bright book"[5]. Anyway, what would you "demand"? No 1800 sources at all? Less? If so, how much less? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, I have understood your comment differently than Gråbergs apparently. I do not take that you object to the inclusion of the old material, but that you object to the statement in the lead that humor is "a topic that has been largely ignored by biblical scholars during the last 1500 years" because it is contradicted by the existence of those older sources. Removing that statement--or moving it to a short discussion paragraph about missing seeing the humor in the Bible--would satisfy your concerns then--I think. Have I understood you correctly? We can and will certainly change the lead to better reflect all the sources if that will do. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jenhawk, yes that’s correct. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I get it now. There are sources on the topic = true. But this does not contradict the quote from Radday/largely ignored, he doesn't say there's nothing, just very little. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Have written a hook, and rewritten the sentence in a new paragraph, segueing into the rest of the body more smoothly and clearly. If you agree, we are good to go. Also added and moved pic per other comment. We might add theological discussions as an additional section, but mostly we are hoping for others to come along and add more examples, etc. Thank you so very much for your time and knowledge and help. We both genuinely appreciate it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Onceinawhile (also pinging Jenhawk777), where are we on this? Did my argument/revised hook sway you, or do you still need a better hook? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Jenhawk777: hi both, I have made a few small amendments to the article for MOS compliance, and added a template.

With respect to the DYK, I hope you don’t think i’m being pernickety, but “largely ignored” is confusing to me. It implies that almost noone has looked into the subject, but that is clearly not true. The source you are referring to is making a relative judgement - i.e. that most scholars haven’t looked into the subject, but that is easy to say given just how many Biblical scholars there are.

I think a much less confusing and more interesting hook would be something like “it has been claimed that there are more than [100] examples of humor in the Bible” or something similar.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

IMO, the historical (and I think, continuing) lack of attention is very interesting and something that makes this topic stick out (that may of course be true of "Humor in religion" in general). That said, I don't intend to insist. I'm ok with your suggestion (I assume you saw a source for it), alternatively, Would you be ok with something like "DYK biblical scholars note the three visitors' message to Abraham and Sarah as an example of humor in the bible?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, I like what you did with the article and that you found a template the article could be added to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Oh Wow! I love what you did with the article Onceinawhile! Thank you so much! I would also like very much to cooperate with your recommendation, but I am OCD enough that if I mentioned a number, I would feel obligated to support that statement and find agreement that there really are that number of examples and list each one, etc. etc. Even going so far as to make any claims that there absolutely is humor in the Bible would require definition of what that means, and defining humor was a non-starter in every source I had on this topic. They all say scholars don't agree about what's funny, or even if there is humor in the Bible at all. You are correct in saying it is easy to say "most scholars haven't... considering how many there are"--but I think that's pretty much all there is in Bible topics--what is considered mainstream and what isn't. Humor in the Bible is not yet mainstream. Shouldn't the article reflect that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

If it's not mainstream, the naysayers and deniers within scholarship, old and present, should be easy to find. Perhaps there are some theologians who condemn laughter and merriment that could be relevant or at least connected to the subject. I've gotten the impression that it is mainstream (humor exists) among those who bother to comment on it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

If you read the preface of the Peters source in my ALT1 above, you’ll see an example of a naysayer. The preface as a whole is a good read. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yay, that's a nay. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

More on-topic: Jenhawk, what hook do you suggest? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I will be happy with either, though Alt1 is definitely more interesting--and a new reference! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I have added a proposed ALT1 above, and added Gråbergs Gråa Sång‘s proposal as ALT2. As I am now “involved”, I will step aside for a new reviewer to assess the alternatives. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yay, procedure. Thank you, I guess. I have no objections to ALT1. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, I love that you got so interested you have to excuse yourself! That's actually quite wonderful. Alt1 it is I think! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Gråbergs--Perhaps mainstream was not the right term? I still have some difficulty with wiki-speak. I was agreeing with you that it is a largely neglected topic by scholars who don't agree on it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Should I care about this? "5x expanded by Gråbergs Gråa Sång" Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I wondered about that myself, and want to be perfectly clear that Jenhawk is the 5x:er in question. I think "5x expanded" is just template shorthand for "Nominators reason for nominating". Onceinawhile, care to comment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

May you have many children when you are 90. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both. It wouldn't be a big deal, but this is the fourth time I have added content like this and had the credit seemingly go to another. If it weren't for you both being so awesome, it would have happened again, and while normally it doesn't matter, I have never had an article suggested for DYK before, so this time I actually cared! There would be no article at all without Gråbergs, and I would not have come back and worked on it without him, so he deserves all the credit he can get too. Isn't Gråbergs funny? But I have to say, Onceinawhile I am grateful enough for all your help and support I wish you no Sarah-like experiences at all. :-) Have a wonderful Wiki day. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Onceinawhile So, we just wait and hope for the best? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that’s right. I am certain another editor will come along, but it could be another few weeks. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Doing... I'll be doing a review of this nomination as someone who wasn't involved in earlier discussions, but due to the length of both the article and this discussion, this could take a few days. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

To summarize this discussion so far, everybody thinks ALT1 is ok. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess that's good enough. ALT1 verified in the sourced and is approved. ALT2 is okay too but ALT1 might be of more general interest to readers. Rest of the review per Onceinawhile. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Narutolovehinata5. What happens now? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Just wait for it to go up on prep. Right now we have a large backlog of hooks so it may take a while before this goes up: it could potentially take as long as two months. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to promote ALT1, but I don't see this fact mentioned or sourced in the article. It's not enough to write it and source it here in the nomination. Yoninah (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah, better:[6]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! Restoring tick per Narutolovehinata5's review. Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)