text:
Talk:Binomial distribution

Clarifications
If you go to previous versions and look at the first one, 02/15/2001, which is yours?, you will see :

1). q (1-p), maybe a typo?

2). And the formula for the numbers of ways of picking X items out of N items was: N!/X!/(N-X)!. This is plain wrong. Yes, after requesting a change for a week, I changed it.

3).There were also wording problems. RoseParks.

I see now the problem. (1-p) was intended as a parenthetical definition. I guess N1/X!/(N-X)! worked in my programming codes so I couldn't see the ambiguity. How would you calculate N!/X!/(N-X)!? From right to left? On the other hand, Today is 02/20/2001, so I think your "requesting a change for a week" is a bit off. Today is only the 20th by my calendar. In any case, the criticism has led to something better. Dick Beldin In answer to your question on how you evaluate, N!/X!/(X-N)!, this is ambiguous. In any easy example.

2/4/12 is ambiguous since Multiplication is associative over the reals. If you look at division as the inverse operation of multplication, i.e. 2/4/12=2*4^1*12^1=1/24 you are okay. If you look at division in the ordinary sense, you must specify the order of operations.RoseParks
 * (2/4)/12= 2/48=1/24 while
 * 2/(4/12)= 24/4= 6.

I agree that an expression with successive divisions appears ambiguous. Most mathematicians I know do indeed consider division as the inverse of multiplication and many programming languages explicitly specify that multiplication and divisions are performed left to right. You are correct, it is not a universal convention. In addition, the vertical placement of numerator and denominator is clearer. Dick Beldin

Confidence Interval?
I was looking for information about confidence intervals on a binomial distribution, but was surprised not to find it here. I know this case isn't quite as simple as for normal distributions, but it would be nice to have here, if somebody would like to contribute the information.

You mean CI of p, the success probability, as estimated from the data. If 70 successes in 100 trials, then p_est = 0.7, and your question is what is standard deviation of p_est. It is sqrt(p_est(1-p_est)/n_trials). The 95% confidence interval is +/- 2 standard deviations. My question is what happens if the CI range is outside the allowed 0 to 1 range for a probability. This can happen if p_est is ~1 or ~0. The CI has to be assymetric. Any ideas?

 * In the case where the confidence interval gets close to 0 or 1, the normal approximation of the binomial distribution is not accurate and rules like your "2 standard deviations" that are derived from the normal distribution are not accurate either. Depending on the circumstances, one can use a different approximation (such as the Poisson distribution) or the exact values of the binomial distribution. McKay 06:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Another intuitive understanding of confidence intervals on binomial distribution is this: say you S success in N trials, now we don't know what p really is, but let's make a guess p_guess.  You can use the binomial distribution to calculate the probability of seeing [S_observed or more success] in N trials if p=p_guess.  If S~N (p~1), there will be a value for p_guess so that there is only a 5% chance of getting S>=S_observed.  At this value for p_guess, you would say you are 95% confident that p>=p_guess.  Similarly if S~0.  For example if you did a trial with 45 samples (N=45) and all of them were successful (S=45), if p_guess=.95 there is only a 0.099 chance of seeing all 45 successful, so there you can be 1-0.099 => 90% confident that p>=95%. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.234.42 (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

 * Yes, this is the kind of consideration I was shooting for with my original post. While I understand adequately how to create a hypothesis test for a one-sided alternative, I was hoping that someone would come forward with a good methodology for doing a two-sided alternative hypothesis, since this would imply some means of parameterizing the asymmetry of the distribution.  I had this come up in a real-world scenario, where the  question was whether or not we had a statistically significant result, and how close it might actually be, but the interval was not so critical or well-defined.

Simulation?
I was looking for a pointer to quickly simulate a Binomial trial. That is, given a p and an n, I want to randomly select a result with a Binomial distribution. I know I can approximate this with a normal distribution, but I would prefer an exact result if it can be calculated quickly for n < 10,000. I'm sure others have come here looking as well. Thanks.

 * I added two references to the article which describe binomial random variate generation. A modern C implementation of Kachitvichyanukul and Schmeiser's BTPE algorithm is available as part of the GNU Scientific Library. --MarkSweep ✍ 04:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

HIV positive?
Is it me, or should the "A typical example is the following: assume 5% of the population is HIV-positive." part in the second paragraph be changed to something a little less... you know... The HIV part is just not encyclopedia-ish...

 * That might depend on which population. Michael Hardy 19:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Spot on. I thought exactly the same and immediately looked at the discussion. All political correctness aside, I just don't think anyone would feel harassed if we wrote "assume 5% of the population carry a certain gene" or "are infected with a certain desease", while I am very sure that everyone with an HIV-infection or someone who knows someone closely who is infected will at least feel strange on reading this paragraph. I am all against political correctness for its own sake, but if there's no need whatsoever to use a certain formulation that might be considered inappropriate, why use it?

Probability mass function?
Okay, maybe this is standard jargon somewhere, but I've never come across it until today. I guess "mass" makes sense by the physical analogy to density. Honestly, I think it's stupid language. Should we also speak of cumulative mass distribution functions? Be consistent! I'm not going to change it, but a mathematician should. At the very least link it to the pmf page.

 * pmf is fairly standard. It is linked there now.  No, cumulative mass distribution function is not a phrase I have heard. --Richard Clegg 08:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

CDF Example Request
The article gives the following example: "A typical example is the following: assume 5% of the population is green-eyed. You pick 500 people randomly. How likely is it that you get 30 or more green-eyed people?".

This is a CDF example. Unfortunately, the expression given for CDF is not very clear to me. How about giving a worked example with the green-eyed people given in the article as a good example, please? --New Thought 15:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I think the given CDF is really merely an introduction of notation. Perhaps there is no simple closed-form expression for the CDF, although there is an obvious algorithm for computing its values (just add up the appropriate values of the mass function). Michael Hardy 18:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

 * aha - that's the answer I was looking for! In that case, why not say something like, "The value can be computed with..."

 * $$cdf(k;n,p) = \sum_{k=1}^n {n\choose k}p^k(1-p)^{n-k}\,$$ --New Thought 09:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually, in this case the CDF is
 * $$F(k;n,p) = \sum_{j=0}^k {n\choose j}p^j(1-p)^{n-j}$$
 * --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good corection - I have added this expression to the article! --New Thought 13:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

 * That is correct only when k is an integer, and only when 0 ≤ k ≤ n. Michael Hardy 21:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Why is it necessary to express the CDF's upper bound of summation in terms of the floor function? The binomial distribution support already indicates that the random variable must take on positive integer values, with the exception of zero (0, 1, ... n). Zane Dylanger (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 * This is the binomial distribution - how can k not be either 0 or a positive integer? --New Thought 08:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add - thanks for your help in getting to this article improvement! --New Thought 16:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

 * In that specific example, we have
 * $$\Pr[X \geq 30] = 1 - \Pr[X \leq 29] = 1 - F(29; 500, 0.05)$$
 * $$= 1 - I_{0.95}(471,30) = I_{0.05}(30,471) \approx 17.647\%.$$
 * You can compute this in terms of the incomplete Beta function, as indicated in the article, using your favorite numerical software. For example, in Mathematica this becomes . Direct summation is likely going to be less numerically stable than a carefully designed subroutine for evaluating the incomplete Beta function. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks very much for your response. I agree with you - and as it happens, I do use Maxima, which has a shed-load of distribution functions (load(distrib); followed by functions; will show them) - but I wanted to write the functions in Javascript for a web page. I went ahead and wrote the web page using the Poisson distribution - but I still think that this article should give expressions that people can use in normal languages and spreadsheets! I feel I've done my bit for Wikipedia maths clarity - in the Lottery_Mathematics article, mostly written by me, I did my best to make it clear exactly how to do each calculation! --New Thought 09:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"nmemonic" section
I really dislike the "nmemonic" section. If anyone else agrees, please delete it. McKay 14:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. The mnemonic section is laughable. I'm deleting it. Rjmorris 14:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

How about putting it here, then with attention on it someone may come up with better. Tabby 03:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff:. But I agree with deleting it, it is unencyclopedic. Sander123 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Relationship to Bezier curves?
The article currently states: The formula for Bézier curves was inspired by the binomial distribution.

Would someone care to source that statement? It seems rather dubious to me, but if it's true it's worthy of a proper explanation and not the vague description of being "inspired by". Certainly the Bernstein polynomials, which constitute the basis functions for Béziers, contain a Binomial coefficient. But binomial coefficients exist all over the place. It doesn't necessarily imply that they have much at all to do with the Binomial distribution.

From reading about Bézier curves I've always had the impression that the decision to use Bersteins as their parametrization wasn't 'inspired' by anything, but merely chosen from a group of candidates on the merit of their desireable properties. (Being such properties as the fact that curve is guaranteed to be contained within the convex hull of the control points, that reversing the control points does not change the curve, that the tangents at the endpoints consist of the line between the endpoint and the neighboring control point, etc). --130.237.179.166 14:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm deleting this since no justification has been offered. Zillions of things are "inspired" by the binomial distribution anyway and I don't see why this one is important enough to single out even if it is true.  McKay 04:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Better Example
I feel like there could be a better example than picking 500 people out of a population "with replacement" and seeing how many were green-eyed. Perhaps a more sensical and applicable example could be: out of 50 web servers, each of which has a 1% chance of failing by the end of the day, how many failed servers do you have at the end of the day?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.216.0.100 (talk • contribs).

 * I agree. The current example suffers from the need to do sampling with replacement, which will seem unnatural to people unaccustomed to sampling theory. --McKay 05:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with both of you. How about simply the "toss a coin..."? Hackneyed, perhaps, for us, but surely we want the general reader to "get the picture" as easily as possible? Gerald Tros 01:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The example with a die is OK in principle. Most people, I reckon, will have seen and used dice. But why change the well known configuration ( 1 thru 6 dots) with "5 blank and 1 black side"? This now makes a familiar object unfamiliar and thus more difficult to mentally latch onto. Furthermore, a lesser issue, 'blank' and 'black' are two very similar words possibly leading to misreading. Why not just simply use: "Roll a die ten times and count the number of sixes.", thus appealing to a general feeling of wishing to see the highest value side turn up? Gerald Tros 01:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree I like the original better as well. Sander123 09:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

--Why not start with a coin example? Isn't this the most straight-forward? The one that everyone did in 4th grade??--128.135.96.223 (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

-- Why does the article use a biased coin in the introductory example? Why not a normal coin that people encounter in a normal life? Bosons (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

"Kitchen's theorem"
I deleted a new section on "Kitchen's theorem". It began by saying "...we can see by Kitchen's Theorem that..." without having first said what "Kitchen's theorem" is. That is not appropriate. Then, as far as I can tell, the theorem turned out to be a proposition found in many textbooks without the name "Kitchen's theorem". The notation in which it is written includes the use of the same letter for two different random variables in the same equality. Near the bottom it has some notation that is less than correct and that includes some very clumsy language. Then there is a signature---appropriate for a talk page but not for an article. In includes "Dr. William Kitchen PhD (Psychology)", apparently identifying that person as the one who added this material. It looks like an attempt to name after himself a proposition found in innumerable textbooks since before the births of most (or all?) people now living. Michael Hardy 20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well Michael, it's nice to see a fellow  'Mathematician' scrutinising my work, labellng it a 'proposition'. Given the fact that my Theorom has went under rigorous investigation within a university, I fail to see how you can ever have seen it in "innumerable" textbooks. Perhaps you could name a few of them for my reference. And lets not get into a Mathematical jargon slanging match; whoever you are, I would be confident in my own Mathemaical standing to stand before anyone and prove my Theorem/ lemma. And, if it is indeed in many textbooks, I'd urge you to publish a proof of my statement. I have it on good authority, from highly esteemed Mathematicians, that the Theorem I put online is indeed a new and may I add correct proposition. It wasn't a Theorem as such, hence why I referred to it as the Binomial Lemma. I trust you know what a Lemma is! In future, before you make such claims, ensure that the nature of your statements is true. Do that rather than correcting me. And in response to this, if you do indeed give one, I'd appreciate being referred to as Dr. William Kitchen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.3.105 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 29 March 2007

 * From A First Course in Probability, Fourth Edition (1994) by Sheldon Ross, page 181, exercise 26, quoted verbatim:
 * Let X be a negative binomial random variable with parameters r and p, and let Y be a binomial random variable with parameters n and p. Show that
 * $$P\left\{X > n\right\} = P\left\{Y < r\right\}\,$$
 * If you want to attribute this result to yourself in a Wikipedia article, may I suggest that you cite some published paper that you've written in which you state it? What was the nature of this "rigorous investigation"?  Was it simply mathematicians confirming that the result is correct?  If so, that's hardly surprising.  Was it mathematicians with expertise in probability theory saying the result is new and was unknown before you introduced it?  If so, I would find that surprising and I would dispute it.  Or was it a professor saying he did not happen to have seen it before?  If he's not a probabilist, that's not too surprising and is not the same as saying that it is novel. Michael Hardy 20:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ...oh, and since you emphasize that it's your own result, you should not put it in the article unless you also cite some place where you've published it in a journal, since otherwise it would be original research being presented here for the first time. Original research is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Michael Hardy 21:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to attribute this result to yourself in a Wikipedia article, may I suggest that you cite some published paper that you've written in which you state it? What was the nature of this "rigorous investigation"?  Was it simply mathematicians confirming that the result is correct?  If so, that's hardly surprising.  Was it mathematicians with expertise in probability theory saying the result is new and was unknown before you introduced it?  If so, I would find that surprising and I would dispute it.  Or was it a professor saying he did not happen to have seen it before?  If he's not a probabilist, that's not too surprising and is not the same as saying that it is novel. Michael Hardy 20:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ...oh, and since you emphasize that it's your own result, you should not put it in the article unless you also cite some place where you've published it in a journal, since otherwise it would be original research being presented here for the first time. Original research is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Michael Hardy 21:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ...oh, and since you emphasize that it's your own result, you should not put it in the article unless you also cite some place where you've published it in a journal, since otherwise it would be original research being presented here for the first time. Original research is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Michael Hardy 21:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What you quoted from this textbook isn't even the same as my Theorem. And do not quote Wikipedia policy to me - take me to court, sue me, do whatever you wish. I have this Theorem in a journal, and have had it copyrighted to my name, so that scavengers on internet sites cannot attribute a novel idea to a text book they happen to have read. I had it checked, along with a proof by a university Professor who specialises in the concpets of probability and statisitics. It then underwent a stage of 'gaining plausibility', and under futher rigorous proof. There was a work through proof, and a proof by induction which clearly shows that the NEW theorem works, for all the possible values it outlines. I think you'll find the quote you have from your book involves a different concept to what I outlined before. I'll tell you what : take a look at it, and as Fermat said before he published his last Theorem "prove me wrong": I've got a mortgage on it saying you can't!! All the best, Dr. William Kitchen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.3.105 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 29 March 2007

 * OK, I will go back and look carefully at what you added to the article. But if it is to be included, it should be written clearly, using standard notation (not, for example, using the same letter for two different random variables in the same breath), standard language and spelling (e.g. "theorem", not "theorom" as you wrote above) and following standard Wikipedia conventions (e.g. who wrote what is in the edit history, NOT in the article itself).  However, it would be a lot more efficient for you simply to tell me where to find your published article in the library than for you to go on at length about the whole history of your writing the article.  (Oh, and I trust when you mention the copyright, you mean copyright on the article you wrote rather than on the theorem itself.) Michael Hardy 23:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate that. Like all Mathematicians, I like recognition for my work. I had to have it rigorously checked and compared with similar Theorems and Lemmas, to ensure I wasn't putting my name to a piece of work that someone else had previously discovered. Notation is a blunder, I hold my hands up on that front, and I understand the elementary nature of my error. I can provide you with my proof for the Theorem as soon as I finish my textbook which is in finalisation at the moment. All my work is momentarily on hold becasue of that. I welcome any scrutiny of my work - I feel that Mathematics is best done when under pressure from other esteemed Mathematicians. The workings of Wikipedia, however, are something I am not aware of, and I appreciate any guidelines you offer me to follow. Again, however, as I have already said, I know I can stand before any Mathematician and prove my Theorem. Regards Dr. William Kitchen
 * Hello Dr. William Kitchen, please try to relax a bit, nobody is trying to discredit your work. But we are talking about cross purposes. What one wants for an encyclopedia article on the binomial distribution is the fact that it is related to the negative Binomial distribution. Ideally such a statement should be sourced. If appropriate a proof can be added. There where a number of problems however with your contribution and Michael rightly reversed it. The notation is problematic (using X twice, using r both as an index and a parameter). The proof doesn't add to this article since it doesn't actually prove the theorem, it only give some basic definition and a referral. And finally, the theorem quoted is unknown to mathematicians, so it doesn't help one at all.

 * In my view the statement related the two distribution can stay in the article. But the proof you supplied should either be replaced by a proper proof or by a reference to a published book or peer reviewed paper.

 * As one final point, please do not make legal threats. Also wp:nor is established wikipedia policy, and this is not the place to put it to discussion. Sander123 12:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Kitchen, could you tell us the title of the paper and the name of the journal and which issue it's in? That would really be a whole lot more to the point than telling us how confident you are that everything about it is sound. Michael Hardy 20:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Normal Approximation
Not sure about the statement
 * This approximation is a huge time-saver (exact calculations with large n are very onerous);

The exact calculations are only onerous if one doesn't have a computer. Considering that virtually all statistics is done over computers these days the above seems unimportant. 128.195.106.28 23:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

 * It is less important than it used to be, but if n is very large the exact computation can still be onerous. Perhaps more important is that the normal approximation means that a great many statistical tests designed for the normal distribution (such as the Student t-test, the F-test) can also be used for the binomial distribution under the right conditions. --McKay 05:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, just a reader here, but I can't make a modern computer delay visually for any reasonable n (up to 9999999999) when using the exact solution. I advise my students to always use the exact test and that the normal approximation is a relic of a bygone era. However it is interesting and perhaps worth noting why the binomial becomes normal-ish. Also, I thought the ability to use the normal approximation was based on np not n - with a low enough p, even a huge n will be skewed.4.79.81.6 04:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I experienced, that the normal approximation is indeed a time-saver if e.g. computing many different binomial distributions. In my case -- using octave -- computation speeded up a lot, especially since I was using quite large n's and always had to sum up about n/2 distributions (for only one point in the plot). So thank you for mentioning it in the article! --129.13.186.1 (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But you might have been better off using the incomplete beta function result that is included. Melcombe (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Your end result for the binomial approximation is incorrect. It should be N(np, (np(1-p))^1/2). You currently have N( np, (np(1-p))). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.95.138 (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The formula as given in the article is correct. It matches the mean (np) and the variance (np(1−p)) of the binomial and the normal distributions.  …  st pasha  »  22:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But normal distributions aren't given by mean and variance, they're given by mean and standard distribution.
 * It can be done both ways. In the Wikipedia article, the normal distribution is defined in terms of the variance, so to be consistent, its probably best to do it that way here too. PAR (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In words, one can say “a normal distribution with mean xxx and standard deviation yyy”. But when writing a formula, it is always the $$\mathcal{N}(\mu, \sigma^2)$$, and I've never seen it otherwise.  …  st pasha  »  09:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, come to think of it, neither have I. But there's no mathematical proof that says thats the way it has to be done, that's what I meant.PAR (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Explicit derivations of mean and variance
This section is my first contribution. I sincerely hope it's sensible to have done so and that it is a (potential) boon to readers. I'm honing it, adding links, references, improving text etc. Please give me a couple of days, I'll post it in one single edit. I'd appreciate any advice you have for me regarding content choice, style etc. Thank you. Thanks already to Michael Hardy. Gerald Tros 01:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC). OK, a couple of weeks. It's almost ready :-) Gerald Tros 01:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Done. Gerald Tros 01:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Might it not be a lot easier to demonstrate this proof using generating functions? I can easily do it this way, unless anyone can spot a good reason not to (it requires a lot less algebra...but does requires some GF results) Wrayal 20:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see that it would be easier. But it would require more starting knowledge. I'd guess that anybody who knows about generating functions does not need to look up the derivation of the mean in wikipedia. Therefore I think the derivations should be kept as elementary as possible. Sander123 13:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect cdf
The cdf of a discrete distribution must be piecewise constant. ПБХ 15:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

derivations
I hope somebody could help me in finding derivations or how to derive the skewness and kurtosis, even link to other sites will be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Student29 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

bad language
After giving the expectation as np, the article states "This fact is easily proven as follows. Suppose first that we have exactly one Bernoulli trial. We have two possible outcomes, 1 and 0, with the first having probability p and the second having probability 1 − p; the mean for this trial is given by μ = p." This is not a proof. These sentences should really just be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.194.132 (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Variance
In the section entitled Mean, variance and mode, it isn't clear to me how the expression given follows from "Using the definition of variance, we have..." Should I try to find this in the entry for variance, figure it out from the problem statement, or use the definition of variance given just above? In any case I don't see how it follows.Telliott (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad Figures
The figures have unlabeled axes, making them pretty much useless. Can someone either introduce new figures, or edit the existing ones to have axis labels? 209.94.128.119 (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sampling
The article for Hypergeometric distribution describes how it is used for sampling without replacement and states that Binomial Distribution is used for sampling with replacement. How is Binomial Distribution method used for sampling? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad example
Removed:

"As another example, assume 5% of a very large population to be green-eyed. You pick 100 people randomly. The number of green-eyed people you pick is a random variable X which approximately follows a binomial distribution with n = 100 and p = 0.05 (strictly a hypergeometric distribution)."

If it isn't strictly a binomial distribution, then it is a bad example.

In lieu of misusing a hypergeometric distribution as an example of a binomial distribution, perhaps add a section detailing the relationship and how they are similar and yet different? Madkaugh (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Mode Expression Incorrect
The expression for the mode is incorrect. Imagine a Binomial distribution with p = 1.0 and n = 2, the expression for the model will return 3 while the true value is 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.211.190 (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I've changed it to this:
 * $$\text{mode} = \begin{cases}\lfloor (n+1)\,p\rfloor & \text{if }(n+1)p\text{ is 0 or a noninteger}, \\ \lfloor (n+1)\,p\rfloor \text{ and } \lfloor (n+1)\,p\rfloor - 1 &\text{if }(n+1)p\in\{1,\dots,n\}, \\ n & \text{if }(n+1)p = n + 1.\end{cases} $$
 * $$\text{mode} = \begin{cases}\lfloor (n+1)\,p\rfloor & \text{if }(n+1)p\text{ is 0 or a noninteger}, \\ \lfloor (n+1)\,p\rfloor \text{ and } \lfloor (n+1)\,p\rfloor - 1 &\text{if }(n+1)p\in\{1,\dots,n\}, \\ n & \text{if }(n+1)p = n + 1.\end{cases} $$

Michael Hardy (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Paramater n
It doesn't make any sense for the parameter n to be 0. Most texts limit n to be a natural number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.81.187 (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The case n=0 give a valid distribution, which is a natural part of the same family and which is required in more complicated manipulations of distributions such as compounding. Melcombe (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Computing the cumulative distribution function (CDF)
It's common in Wikipedia math articles to discuss algorithms for computing quantities of interest. On this page it would be very helpful to have a discussion of computing the cumulative distribution function (CDF). The article does mention various methods that can be used in various circumstances, but this is an incomplete solution at best. For example, the article doesn't provide any guidance about choosing between (a) a combination of direct summation and the normal approximation and the poisson approximation, (b) a method based on the incomplete beta distribution, and (c) something else. A discussion of computing the CDF would be useful to a lot of people. ATBS 22:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)ATBS —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATBS (talk • contribs)

Normal approximations
The second rule of thumb for normal approximations looks suspicious. It can be written in the following form: use normal approximation whenever
 * n · |skewness| ≥ 3.33

In particular that rule claims normal approximation should not be used for any n when p = ½. So the sign should probably be reversed, and the factor n omitted? …  st pasha  »  22:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There is an error in an example: σ = (p(1 − p)/n)1/2. Should be σ = (np(1 − p))1/2. Please someone fix it or explain what I do not understand there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.197.179.210 (talk) 10:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Controlling the variance
Hi all,

I came up with a way to add variance to the binomial distribution, for this purpose I consider the history of success compare to the expected value. Here is my development (I hope it is OK to have a link)

I would really like to know what you think, to me it looks very cool as I use expected value and sum of binomial series and I didn't see anything like it anywhere.

What do you say? Ofermano (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Accessibility
Would it be possible to write an introductory section that gives just a conceptual description of what the binomial distribution is about, before we enter the maths? Like tossing a coin, or drawing marbles from a box, and replacing the drawn marble each time (and mixing the box up again)? -- J N  466  02:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. The lead sort of introduces it, but there should be room for a more detailed overview. Sources shouldn't be too tricky to find. Alzarian16 (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Error in article
Hi, isn't the standard deviation calculated as : sqrt((p(1 − p) n)) ? In the article it is written as: sqrt((p(1 − p)/n)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.184.169 (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Cumulative distribution function -- Example
Is it my imagination or are only the first and last probabilities for the biased coin correct? I have run that in SAS

data _null_ ; p = 0.3 ; do i = 0 to 6 ; prob= (p**i) * ((1-p)**(6-i)) ; put i= prob= ; end ; run ;

and I get

i=0 prob=0.117649 i=1 prob=0.050421 i=2 prob=0.021609 i=3 prob=0.009261 i=4 prob=0.003969 i=5 prob=0.001701 i=6 prob=0.000729

Docsteve.518 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes, it is your imagination. Seriously, you have forgotten to include the combinatorial coefficient. Melcombe (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, thanks for that. That's what I get for trying to do it long hand.

The SAS functions exist for a reason!

data _null_ ; do i = 0 to 6 ; x = pmf('Binomial',i,.3,6) ; put i= x= ; end ; run ;

And yes, there's the sequence

i=0 x=0.117649 i=1 x=0.302526 i=2 x=0.324135 i=3 x=0.18522 i=4 x=0.059535 i=5 x=0.010206 i=6 x=0.000729

16:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.218.26 (talk)

Question about Cummulative Distribution Function
Firstly, I want I am wondering about the definition of the CDF
 * $$F(k;n,p) = \Pr(X \le k) = \sum_{i=0}^{\lfloor k \rfloor} {n\choose i}p^i(1-p)^{n-i}$$

From my training (and looking at the graphs on THIS page), we should be defining F on the real numbers and writing < and not ≤, that is:

 * $$F(x) = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}} 0&{x < 0}\\ {\sum\limits_{j = 0}^{k - 1} {\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} n\\ k \end{array}} \right)} \,\,{p^k}{{(1 - p)}^{n - k}}}&{k - 1 \le x < k,\,\,k \in \{ 1,2,...,n\} }\\ 1&{x \ge n} \end{array}} \right.$$

or indeed:
 * $$F(x) = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}} 0&{x < 0}\\ {\sum\limits_{j = 0}^{k - 1} f(j)}&{k - 1 \le x < k,\,\,k \in \{ 1,2,...,n\} }\\ 1&{x \ge n} \end{array}} \right.$$

(I also switched to j in place of i since so many applications now assume i is the corresponding complex number.)

I had already given this formula in my MK wikipedia page and was wanting to add an iterative "computer graphing formula" and so checked to see if there was one on this page and became confused with the above formula.

BTW: Here is the iterative formula I was getting ready to add. Any suggestions here to make this clearer how to use?
 * $$\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}{{F_0}(x) = 0}&{x < 0}\\{{F_{k + 1}}(x) = {F_k}(x) + f(k)}&{k \le x < k + 1,\,\,k = 0,1,2,...,n - 1}\\

{{F_{n + 1}}(x) = 1}&{x \ge n}\end{array}$$

So if you make a sequence of the probabilities values (easy), you can easily make this into a sequence of n+2 points and then draw segments as in the above graphs. Having worked this out a gazillion times for my kiddies, I finally wrote it down.

Lfahlberg (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Graph, n
Please label the axes on the graphs, and state the allowable range for parameter n. Does n include zero? 71.139.165.140 (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

We should add the moment generating function
Here is a reference to use: http://www.le.ac.uk/users/dsgp1/COURSES/MATHSTAT/5binomgf.pdf

Tal Galili (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

 * I took a quick look at other probability distribution pages on Wikipedia, and I'm not seeing any derivations of the mgfs there. I suppose that doesn't necessarily disqualify us for adding the mgf to this page, but considering that this page doesn't even derive the mean or variance of the binomial, then I don't see adding this material to this page. Blahb31 (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Thank you, fair point. Since MGF are very basic for using these objects in various settings, I think this type of information should be available somewhere on Wikipedia. a) would you agree? b) if so - where do you think would it fit?

Cheers, Tal Galili (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

 * I'm going to say no. This is material for a textbook, not an encyclopedia. Blahb31 (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We should add a section on skew-normal approximation
title says it all, see for example Ching-Hui Chang et. al.: "A note on Improved Approximation of the Binomiual Distribution by the Skew-Normal distribution" the American Statistician. Kjetil B Halvorsen 13:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjetil1001 (talk • contribs)

Mode proof doesn't define a_k
The proof of the mode doesn't define a_k. It's relatively clear that f(k) is meant, but that should be defined (or f used) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas Mueller (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * fixed. McKay (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Binomial distribution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140515145146/http://www.mbastats.net/Content/Basic_Prob/Binomial.html to http://www.mbastats.net/Content/Basic_Prob/Binomial.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Spoilers!
Is the "Spoilers!" in the conditional binomial proof section a joke? :) Nicolas Perrault (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Well... it is funny, but it is recently-added vandalism so I removed it. Bosons (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Binomial distribution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303182353/http://www3.stat.sinica.edu.tw/statistica/oldpdf/A3n23.pdf to http://www3.stat.sinica.edu.tw/statistica/oldpdf/A3n23.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113082307/http://psych.stanford.edu/~jlm/pdfs/Wison27SingleProportion.pdf to http://psych.stanford.edu/~jlm/pdfs/Wison27SingleProportion.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead readability
I think at its current state, the lead section is very opaque for a layperson. It's so full of technical jargons that only a person already familiar with these statistical terms would care to understand what this concept means. I think the lead should be much more accessible. It should use very simple language or have very simple language definition for each opaque jargon-y term. It should also contain concrete examples, preferably historically relevant examples, associated with the concept, to provide a very basic, graspable understanding of the topic. Zaheen (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The Manual of Style/Lead section says: "The lead ... should ... establish context, explain why the topic is notable..." and "avoid difficult-to-understand terminology" "....with the goal of making the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined. The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader." I don't think that is the case here at all. Zaheen (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Mean, Mode, Median seem off by a factor of n
Isn't the mean not the sum, but the sum divided by n? Similar errors appear to be made with the mode, median, variance, etc. I think skewness, kurtosis, and entropy could also be affected, but I don't know. When we look at the definition of this distribution it is clearly between 0 and 1 for all allowed values of p, k, and n; and yet if the mean is truly given by p*n, then with p=0.5 and n=3 we get 1.5 which is outside all output values. StephenJohns00 (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

 * The support of a binomial random variable is $$\{0,1,\ldots,n\}.$$ So it makes sense for the mean, median, and mode to fall somewhere within this range. The values listed in the article are correct.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 11:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

 * But shouldn't the mean listed on the binomial distribution page refer to the mean of the distribution and not the mean of a binomial random variable, which has a different definition, causing this confusion?StephenJohns00 (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

 * No, those are the same things. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The random variate section is weird
Currently the random variate section has this paragraph, which is kind of weird:

 * One way to generate random samples from a binomial distribution is to use an inversion algorithm. To do so, one must calculate the probability that P(X=k) for all values kfrom 0 through n. (These probabilities should sum to a value close to one, in order to encompass the entire sample space.) Then by using a pseudorandom number generator to generate samples uniformly between 0 and 1, one can transform the calculated samples U[0,1] into discrete numbers by using the probabilities calculated in step one.

For one, you can just do n bernoulli trials. You would need an absurdly large n for this be inefficient. Second, we have closed form expressions for the pmf that always add up to one, so if it does not, you miscalculated. Third, using the cumulative probability distribution would probably work better than the pmf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKing44 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Correct about cumulative distribution. The "close to one" refers to the fact that in practice it will be necessary to approximate the probabilities. The problem with n bernoulli trials is that you have to do them for each output value, while computing the cumulative probabilities only has to be done once followed by (say) a binary search of cost O(log n) for each output value. McKay (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 * True, but there's also an initial cost of generating the table, which might be prohibitively high depending on the number of values needed. This section seems a little iffy; I'll try to look into it a bit more if I get a chance.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 * After looking a bit, I found a paper which talks about the alias method, which we conveniently have an article on already. Maybe a brief mention could be made, but it's a fairly general method for any discrete distribution, so it probably wouldn't make much sense to go into great detail (and on second thought, I'm a bit skeptical that we should even be saying as much as we already are, given the generality of the process being described).  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Entropy
Entropy is given as entropy    = $$\frac{1}{2} \log_2 \left( 2\pi enp(1-p) \right) + O \left( \frac{1}{n} \right)$$ Is it possible to give a reference for that formula given that it is not standard textbook knowledge. Also it is unclear, what the operator/function O of 1 over n stands for. Thanks. (Sorry for all breaches of etiquette.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.217.250.44 (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm new and do not know the etiquette. Hence I will not update the page. However, it just came to my attention that you do not have the formula for entropy of the binomial distribution. it is 2^-S= ((N-U)/N)^N * (U/(N-U))^U, where in your notation N=n and U=np. The unit of S is in bits. I hope this helps, Jens Adler Nielsen Jens Adler Nielsen (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Issue with one of the tail bounds?
The current tail bound given for p=1/2, n/2>=k>=3n/8 fails for n=64, k=26. I believe, based on the Chernoff inequality immediately above it, the 16 in the exponent should be replaced with a 4. Also, I can't find a way to derive this apparent formula from anything in the provided source.

69.119.31.14 (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Confirming the error. The closest formula in the source is in Proposition 7.3.2, page 46, and it provides the lower bound $$ F(k; n, \frac 1 2) \geq \frac{1}{15} \exp\left(\frac{-16 (\frac n 2 - k)^2}{n}\right) $$. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.150.242.62 (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Fisher information is actually expected Fisher information
Hi all, it seems to me that what is described here as the Fisher information is actually the expected Fisher information, i.e. expectation of the Fisher information (where the expectation is taken with respect to the data)

The actual Fisher information is: $$g_n(p) = \frac{x}{p^{2}}+\frac{n-x}{(1-p)^{2}}$$

For a derivation of the Fisher information, see example 2.10 of this book, and for a derivation of how taking the expectation leads to $$\text{E}_X[g_n(p)] = \frac{n}{p(1-p)}$$ see example 4.1 of the same book.

Should we change that in the page? Best

Ddreif (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2021 and 19 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Ziyanggod, C.Hua Wang, Jiang1725.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Consistent capitalization required on same page
In some places the article uses Binomial (not at start of sentence) and in others binomial. Universemaster1 (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

India Education Program course assignment
This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 19:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Why are equations suddenly not showing?
Something in Firefox? Found it: text color must be black. OveGjerlow (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Interpretation
I think some parts should be more accented in the first sentences of the interpretation section. I mean the sentence:

The binomial distribution is concerned with the probability of obtaining any of these sequences, meaning the probability of obtaining one of them

which is important, so should be almost repeated at the beginning, for example:

This probability formula means the probability of obtaining k successes in n trials for all possible combinations.

Then you can leave the rest: The formula can be understood as follows ...

Also, I know that Wikipedia has a unique problem with writing in plain language, but I would add a simple descriptive example that is easy to grasp: If we have a fair coin (p = 0.5) and two trials (n = 2), then if we want to get 2 heads (k = 2), there is only one possibility to achieve this (2! / (2!*0!) = 1), and since we need to get heads twice, it means that P = 0.5*0.5 = 0.25 (which is the same by our formula: P = 1*0.5^2*0.5^(2-2) = 0.25). Pawel.jamiolkowski (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Binomial distribution


text:
Talk:List of major biblical figures

[Untitled]
It's been a long time since I read the Bible, so I haven't bothered putting anything under prophets etc. as I don't really remember. You might do better, though, going through the Bible book by book and adding significant characters. And I should of course start /Bibliography to list The KJV and NIV translations. ;-) --KQ

I added all the prophets from the Old Testament. <>< tbc

I am fairly sure that there were more prophets than this in the Bible. I will have to check. -User:rmhermen

There are many more. Jewish tradition lists 48 prophets and 7 prophetesses. Many of them, however, had only one prophecy, so they should not be included. However, several more should be given space on this page. E=MC^2 T@lk

It is dubious to list Jesus under the heading of "Prophets". Most of the mainstream Christian denominations would disagree with this, or alternatively would see Jesus as a prophet and also much more than that. (Figuring this out from just the text of the Bible is tricky though.)

I don't really feel like jumping in and fixing this since religion can be a touchy subject and i lack the necessary diplomacy to write about it properly for an encyclopedia (also my knowledge is pretty rusty.) -- Anonymous

I'm a Christian, and I agree it's touchy. I left Jesus in the list of prophets, though, because he certainly filled that role. (He preached more about Hell and repentance than any other prophet, BTW.) There will always be tension between Jews and Christians about the Bible, anyway, but since "Bible" in common usage means the Christian Bible, while Jews refer to the Tanach, I think it's fair to treat Biblical figures from a Christian perspective. Let the entries of the individuals speak for themselves. <>< tbc

I am not sure why this page was ever added because there is already a List of Biblical names page. 69.3.16.31 15:40, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

''TBD: Someone went to the trouble of creating all these link placeholders, so I left them. But I cleaned them up, too. The concept of names in Wikipedia — especially when applied to Biblical names — is problematic. What to do about multiple names? What about the ambiguity of the unique people named John in the New Testament? These issues should be addressed before too many of these get filled in. <>< tbc''

 * This kind of problem has been discussed in a few places, and I've started rambling about it at talk:Naming conventions. -- Claudine

''TBD: maybe a Wikipedian chould contact Mr. Cramer about putting his writeup into the public domain. It's very thorough and would make an excellent contribution to the Wikipedia.

<>< tbc''

PROPHETS OF BIBLE
There were thousands of true prophets of God among the Jews in pristine age. Bible recorded few prophets from them. Jews says that Bible recorded only those prophets, whose messeges for future generation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.63.226.83 (talk • contribs).

Genealogical Tree
What about making a Genealogical Tree of Biblical figures? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucioseki (talk • contribs).

 * ✅ Done I've included an existing template with a genealogy from Adam to David, and rearranged the rest by categories in a way that is more likely to be useful. - Fayenatic london (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete list
I added the template New Testament people, that shows the list here is pretty incomplete. That is a better list. History2007 (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right - it's strikingly imcomplete! No Moses, no Abraham? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.206.39 (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Biblical names which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 02:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Lot
Shall we include Lot (biblical person)?

Twillisjr (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:List of major biblical figures


text:
List of major biblical figures

The Bible is a collection of canonical sacred texts of Judaism and Christianity. Different religious groups include different books within their canons, in different orders, and sometimes divide or combine books, or incorporate additional material into canonical books. Christian Bibles range from the sixty-six books of the Protestant canon to the eighty-one books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church canon.

Prophets

 * Samuel
 * Enoch

Kings

 * David
 * Solomon

Priests

 * Aaron
 * Eleazar
 * Eli
 * Phinehas

Tribes of Israel
According to the Book of Genesis, the Israelites were descendants of the sons of Jacob, who was renamed Israel after wrestling with an angel. His twelve male children become the ancestors of the Twelve Tribes of Israel.

 * Asher
 * Benjamin
 * Dan
 * Gad
 * Issachar
 * Joseph, which was split into two tribes descended from his sons:
 * Tribe of Ephraim
 * Tribe of Manasseh
 * Judah
 * Levi
 * Naphtali
 * Reuben
 * Simeon
 * Zebulun

Maccabees

 * Eleazar Avaran
 * John Gaddi
 * John Hyrcanus
 * Jonathan Apphus
 * Judas Maccabeus
 * Mattathias
 * Simon Thassi

Greek rulers

 * Alexander the Great
 * Antiochus III the Great
 * Antiochus IV Epiphanes
 * Philip II of Macedon

Persian rulers

 * Astyages
 * Darius III

Others

 * Baruch
 * Tobit
 * Judith
 * Susanna

Jesus and his relatives

 * Jesus Christ
 * Mary, mother of Jesus
 * Joseph
 * Brothers of Jesus
 * James (often identified with James, son of Alphaeus)
 * Joseph (Joses)
 * Judas (Jude) (often identified with Thaddeus)
 * Simon
 * Mary of Clopas
 * Cleopas (often identified with Alphaeus and Clopas)

Apostles of Jesus
The Thirteen:
 * Peter (a.k.a. Simon or Cephas)
 * Andrew (Simon Peter's brother)
 * James, son of Zebedee
 * John, son of Zebedee
 * Philip
 * Bartholomew also known as "Nathanael"
 * Thomas also known as "Doubting Thomas"
 * Matthew also known as "Levi"
 * James, son of Alphaeus
 * Judas, son of James (a.k.a. Thaddeus or Lebbaeus)
 * Simon the Zealot
 * Judas Iscariot (the traitor)
 * Matthias

Others:
 * Paul
 * Barnabas
 * Mary Magdalene (the one who discovered Jesus' empty tomb)

Priests

 * Caiaphas, high priest
 * Annas, first high priest of Roman Judea
 * Zechariah, father of John the Baptist

Prophets

 * Agabus
 * Anna
 * Simeon
 * John the Baptist

Other believers

 * Apollos
 * Aquila
 * Dionysius the Areopagite
 * Epaphras, fellow prisoner of Paul, fellow worker
 * John Mark (often identified with Mark)
 * Joseph of Arimathea
 * Lazarus
 * Luke
 * Mark
 * Martha
 * Mary Magdalene
 * Mary, sister of Martha
 * Nicodemus
 * Onesimus
 * Philemon
 * Priscilla
 * Silas
 * Sopater
 * Stephen, first martyr
 * Timothy
 * Titus

Secular rulers

 * Agrippa I, called "King Herod" or "Herod" in Acts 12
 * Felix governor of Judea who was present at the trial of Paul, and his wife Drusilla in Acts 24:24
 * Herod Agrippa II, king over several territories, before whom Paul made his defense in Acts 26.
 * Herod Antipas, called "Herod the Tetrarch" or "Herod" in the Gospels and in Acts 4:27
 * Herodias
 * Herod the Great
 * Philip the Tetrarch
 * Pontius Pilate
 * Salome, the daughter of Herodias
 * Quirinius

Roman Emperors

 * Augustus
 * Tiberius
 * Claudius

title: List of major biblical figures


text:
British & Irish Lions

The British & Irish Lions is a rugby union team selected from players eligible for the national teams of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. The Lions are a test side and most often select players who have already played for their national team, although they can pick uncapped players who are eligible for any of the four unions. The team tours every four years, with these rotating between Australia, New Zealand and South Africa in order. The most recent test series, the 2021 series against South Africa, was won 2–1 by South Africa.

From 1888 onwards, combined British rugby sides toured the Southern Hemisphere. The first tour was a commercial venture, undertaken without official backing. The six subsequent visits enjoyed a growing degree of support from the authorities, before the 1910 South Africa tour, which was the first tour representative of the four Home Unions. In 1949 the four Home Unions formally created a Tours Committee and for the first time, every player of the 1950 Lions squad had played internationally before the tour. The 1950s tours saw high win rates in provincial games, but the Test series were typically lost or drawn. The series wins in 1971 (New Zealand) and 1974 (South Africa) interrupted this pattern. The last tour of the amateur age took place in 1993. The Lions have also played occasional matches in the Northern Hemisphere either as one-off exhibitions or before a Southern Hemisphere tour.

Name
The Shaw and Shrewsbury team first played in 1888 and is considered the precursor of the British & Irish Lions. It was then primarily English in composition but also contained players from Scotland and Wales. Later the team used the name British Isles. On their 1950 tour of New Zealand and Australia they officially adopted the name British Lions, the nickname first used by British and South African journalists on the 1924 South African tour after the lion emblem on their ties, the emblem on their jerseys having been dropped in favour of the four-quartered badge with the symbols of the four represented unions.

When the team first emerged in the 19th century, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was one single state. The team continued after the Irish Free State was set up in 1922, but was still known as the British Lions or British Isles. The name "British & Irish Lions" has been used since the 2001 tour of Australia. The team is often referred to simply as the Lions.

Anthem
As the Lions represent four rugby unions, which cover two sovereign states, they do not currently have a national anthem. For the 1989 tour, the British national anthem "God Save the Queen" was used. For the 2005 tour to New Zealand, the Lions management commissioned a song, "The Power of Four", although it was met with little support among Lions fans at the matches and has not been used since.

Colours and strip
For more than half a century, the Lions have worn a red jersey that sports the amalgamated crests of the four unions. Prior to 1950 the strip went through a number of significantly different formats.

Unsanctioned tours
In 1888, the promoter of the first expedition to Australia and New Zealand, Arthur Shrewsbury, demanded "something that would be good material and yet take them by storm out here". The result was a jersey in thick red, white and blue hoops, worn above white shorts and dark socks. The tours to South Africa in 1891 and 1896 retained the red, white and blue theme but this time as red and white hooped jerseys and dark blue shorts and socks. The 1899 trip to Australia saw a reversion to red, white and blue jerseys, but with the blue used in thick hoops and the red and white in thin bands. The shorts remained blue, as did the socks although a white flash was added to the latter. The one-off test in 1999 between England and Australia that was played to commemorate Australia's first test against Reverend Matthew Mullineux's British side saw England wear an updated version of this jersey. In 1903, the South Africa tour followed on from the 1896 tour, with red and white hooped jerseys. The slight differences were that the red hoops were slightly thicker than the white (the opposite was true in 1896), and the white flash on the socks introduced in 1899 was partially retained. The Australia tour of 1904 saw exactly the same kit as in 1899. In 1908, with the Scottish and Irish unions not taking part, the Anglo-Welsh side sported red jerseys with a thick white band on tour to Australia and New Zealand. Blue shorts were retained, but the socks were for the first time red, with a white flash.

Blue jerseys, the Lions named and the crest adopted
The Scots were once again involved in Tom Smyth's 1910 team to South Africa. Thus, dark blue jerseys were introduced with white shorts and the red socks of 1908. The jerseys also had a single lion-rampant crest. The 1924 tour returned to South Africa, retaining the blue jerseys but now with shorts to match. It is the 1924 tour that is credited as being the first in which the team were referred to as "the Lions", the irony being that it was on this tour that the single lion-rampant crest was replaced with the forerunner of the four-quartered badge with the symbols of the four represented unions, that is still worn today. Although the lion had been dropped from the jersey, the players had worn the lion motif on their ties as they arrived in South Africa, which led the press and public referring to them as "the Lions".

The unofficial 1927 Argentina tour used the same kit and badge, and three heraldic lions returned as the jersey badge in 1930. This was the tour to New Zealand where the tourists' now standard blue jerseys caused some controversy. The convention in rugby is for the home side to accommodate its guests when there is a clash of kit. The New Zealand side, by then already synonymous with the appellation "All Blacks", had an all black kit that clashed with the Lions' blue. After much reluctance and debate New Zealand agreed to change for the Tests and New Zealand played in all white for the first time. On the 1930 tour a delegation led by the Irish lock George Beamish expressed their displeasure at the fact that while the blue of Scotland, white of England and red of Wales were represented in the strip there was no green for Ireland. A green flash was added to the socks, which from 1938 became a green turnover (although on blue socks thus eliminating red from the kit), and that has remained a feature of the strip ever since. In 1936, the four-quartered badge returned for the tour to Argentina and has remained on the kits ever since, but other than that the strip remained the same.

Red jerseys
The adoption of the red jersey happened in the 1950 tour. A return to New Zealand was accompanied by a desire to avoid the controversy of 1930 and so red replaced blue for the jersey with the resultant kit being that which is still worn today, the combination of red jersey, white shorts and green and blue socks, representing the four unions. The only additions to the strip since 1950 began appearing in 1993, with the addition of kit suppliers logos in prominent positions. Umbro had in 1989 asked for "maximum brand exposure whenever possible" but this did not affect the kit's appearance. Since then, Nike, Adidas and Canterbury have had more overt branding on the shirts, with sponsors Scottish Provident (1997), NTL (2001), Zurich (2005), HSBC (2009 and 2013), Standard Life Investments (2017) and Vodafone (2021).

1888–1909
The earliest tours date back to 1888, when a 21-man squad visited Australia and New Zealand. The squad drew players from England, Scotland and Wales, though English players predominated. The 35-match tour of two host nations included no tests, but the side played provincial, city and academic sides, winning 27 matches. They played 19 games of Australian rules football, against prominent clubs in Victoria and South Australia, winning six and drawing one of these (see Australian rules football in England).

The first tour, although unsanctioned by rugby bodies, established the concept of Northern Hemisphere sporting sides touring to the Southern Hemisphere. Three years after the first tour, the Western Province union invited rugby bodies in Britain to tour South Africa. Some saw the 1891 team – the first sanctioned by the Rugby Football Union – as the England national team, though others referred to it as "the British Isles". The tourists played a total of twenty matches, three of them tests. The team also played the regional side of South Africa (South Africa did not exist as a political unit in 1891), winning all three matches. In a notable event of the tour, the touring side presented the Currie Cup to Griqualand West, the province they thought produced the best performance on the tour.

Five years later a British Isles side returned to South Africa. They played one extra match on this tour, making the total of 21 games, including four tests against South Africa, with the British Isles winning three of them. The squad had a notable Irish orientation, with the Ireland national team contributing six players to the 21-man squad.

In 1899 the British Isles touring side returned to Australia for the first time since the unofficial tour of 1888. The squad of 23 for the first time ever had players from each of the home nations. The team again participated in 21 matches, playing state teams as well as northern Queensland sides and Victorian teams. A four-test series took place against Australia, the tourists winning three out of the four. The team returned via Hawaii and Canada playing additional games en route.

Four years later, in 1903, the British Isles team returned to South Africa. The opening performance of the side proved disappointing from the tourists' point of view, with defeats in its opening three matches by Western Province sides in Cape Town. From then on the team experienced mixed results, though more wins than losses. The side lost the test series to South Africa, drawing twice, but with the South Africans winning the decider 8 to nil.

No more than twelve months passed before the British Isles team ventured to Australia and New Zealand in 1904. The tourists devastated the Australian teams, winning every single game. Australia also lost all three tests to the visitors, even getting held to a standstill in two of the three games. Though the New Zealand leg of the tour did not take long in comparison to the number of Australian games, the British Isles experienced considerable difficulty across the Tasman after whitewashing the Australians. The team managed two early wins before losing the test to New Zealand and only winning one more game as well as drawing once. Despite their difficulties in New Zealand, the tour proved a raging success on-field for the British Isles.

In 1908, another tour took place to Australia and New Zealand. In a reversal of previous practice, the planners allocated more matches in New Zealand rather than in Australia: perhaps the strength of the New Zealand teams and the heavy defeats of all Australian teams on the previous tour influenced this decision. Some commentators thought that this tour hoped to reach out to rugby communities in Australia, as rugby league (infamously) started in Australia in 1908. The Anglo-Welsh side (Irish and Scottish unions did not participate) performed well in all the non-test matches, but drew a test against New Zealand and lost the other two.

1910–1949
Visits that took place before the 1910 South Africa tour (the first selected by a committee from the four Home Unions) had enjoyed a growing degree of support from the authorities, although only one of these included representatives of all four nations. The 1910 tour to South Africa marked the official beginning of British Isles rugby tours: the inaugural tour operating under all four unions. The team performed moderately against the non-test teams, claiming victories in just over half their matches, and the test series went to South Africa, who won two of the three games. A side managed by Oxford University — supposedly the England rugby team, but actually including three Scottish players — toured Argentina at the time: the people of Argentina termed it the "Combined British".

The next British Isles team tour did not take place until 1924, again in South Africa. The team, led by Ronald Cove-Smith, struggled with injuries and lost three of the four test matches, drawing the other 3–3. In total, 21 games were played, with the touring side winning 9, drawing 3 and losing 9.

In 1927 a short, nine-game series took place in Argentina, with the British isles winning all nine encounters, and the tour was a financial success for Argentine rugby. The Lions returned to New Zealand in 1930 with some success. The Lions won all of their games that did not have test status except for the matches against Auckland, Wellington and Canterbury, but they lost three of their four test matches against New Zealand, winning the first test 6–3. The side also visited Australia, losing a test but winning five out of the six non-test games.

In 1936 the British Isles visited Argentina for the third time, winning all ten of their matches and only conceding nine points in the whole tour. Two years later in 1938 the British Isles toured in South Africa, winning more than half of their normal matches. Despite having lost the test series to South Africa by game three, they won the final test. This is when they were named THE LIONS by their then Captain Sam Walker.

1950–1969
The first post-war tour went to New Zealand and Australia in 1950. The Lions, sporting newly redesigned jerseys and displaying a fresh style of play, managed to win 22 and draw one of 29 matches over the two nations. The Lions won the opening four fixtures before losing to Otago and Southland, but succeeded in holding New Zealand to a 9–9 draw. The Lions performed well in the remaining All Black tests though they lost all three, the team did not lose another non-test in the New Zealand leg of the tour. The Lions won all their games in Australia except for their final fixture against a New South Wales XV in Newcastle. They won both tests against Australia, in Brisbane, Queensland and in Sydney.

In 1955 the Lions toured South Africa and left with another imposing record, one draw and 19 wins from the 25 fixtures. The four-test series against South Africa, a thrilling affair, ended in a drawn series.

The 1959 tour to Australia and New Zealand marked once again a very successful tour for the Lions, who only lost six of their 35 fixtures. The Lions easily won both tests against Australia and lost the first three tests against New Zealand, but did find victory (9–6) in the final test.

After the glittering decade of the 1950s, the first tour of the 1960s proved not nearly as successful as previous ones. The 1962 tour to South Africa saw the Lions still win 16 of their 25 games, but did not fare well against the Springboks, losing three of the four tests. For the 1966 tour to Australia and New Zealand John Robins became the first Lions coach, and the trip started off very well for the Lions, who stormed through Australia, winning five non-tests and drawing one, and defeating Australia in two tests. The Lions experienced mixed results during the New Zealand leg of the tour, as well as losing all of the tests against New Zealand. The Lions also played a test against Canada on their way home, winning 19 to 8 in Toronto. The 1968 tour of South Africa saw the Lions win 15 of their 16 provincial matches, but the team actually lost three tests against the Springboks and drew one.

1970–1979
The 1970s saw a renaissance for the Lions. The 1971 British Lions tour to New Zealand and Australia, centred around the skilled Welsh half-back pairing of Gareth Edwards and Barry John, secured a series win over New Zealand. The tour started with a loss to Queensland but proceeded to storm through the next provincial fixtures, winning 11 games in a row. The Lions then went on to defeat New Zealand in Dunedin. The Lions only lost one match on the rest of the tour and won the test series against New Zealand, winning and drawing the last two games, to take the series two wins to one.

The 1974 British Lions tour to South Africa was one of the best-known and most successful Lions teams. Apartheid concerns meant some players declined the tour. Nonetheless, led by the esteemed Irish forward Willie John McBride, the tour went through 22 games unbeaten and triumphed 3–0 (with one drawn) in the test series. The series featured a lot of violence. The management of the Lions concluded that the Springboks dominated their opponents with physical aggression. At that time, test match referees came from the home nation, substitutions took place only if a doctor found a player unable to continue and there were no video cameras or sideline officials to prevent violent play. The Lions decided "to get their retaliation in first" with the infamous "99 call". The Lions postulated that a South African referee would probably not send off all of the Lions if they all retaliated against "blatant thuggery". Famous video footage of the 'battle of Boet Erasmus Stadium' shows JPR Williams running over half of the pitch and launching himself at Van Heerden after such a call.

The 1977 British Lions tour to New Zealand saw the Lions drop only one non-test out of 21 games, a loss to a Universities side. The team did not win the test series though, winning one game but losing the other three.

In August 1977 the British Lions made a stopover in Fiji on the way home from their tour of New Zealand. Fiji beat them 25–21 at Buckhurst Park, Suva.

1980–1989
The Lions toured South Africa in 1980, and completed a flawless non-test record, winning 14 out of 14 matches. The Lions lost the first three tests to South Africa, only winning the last one once the Springboks were guaranteed to win the series.

The 1983 tour to New Zealand saw the team successful in the non-test games, winning all but two games, but being whitewashed in the test series against New Zealand.

A tour to South Africa by the Lions was anticipated in 1986, but the invitation for the Lions to tour was never accepted because of controversy surrounding Apartheid and the tour did not go ahead. The Lions did not return to South Africa until 1997, after the Apartheid era. A Lions team was selected in April 1986 for the International Rugby Board centenary match against 'The Rest'. The team was organised by the Four Home Unions Committee and the players were given the status of official British Lions.

The Lions tour to Australia in 1989 was a shorter affair, being only 12 matches in total. The tour was very successful for the Lions, who won all eight non-test matches and won the test series against Australia, two to one.

1990–1999
The tour to New Zealand in 1993 was the last of the amateur era. The Lions won six and lost four non-test matches, and lost the test series 2–1. The tour to South Africa in 1997 was a success for the Lions, who completed the tour with only two losses, and won the test series 2–1.

2000–2009
In 2001, the ten-game tour to Australia saw the Wallabies win the test series 2–1. This series saw the first award of the Tom Richards Trophy. In the Lions' 2005 tour to New Zealand, coached by Clive Woodward, the Lions won seven games against provincial teams, were defeated by the New Zealand Maori team, and suffered heavy defeats in all three tests.

In 2009, the Lions toured South Africa. There they faced the World Cup winners South Africa, with Ian McGeechan leading a coaching team including Warren Gatland, Shaun Edwards and Rob Howley. The Lions were captained by Irish lock Paul O'Connell. The initial Lions selection consisted of fourteen Irish players, thirteen Welsh, eight English and two Scots in the 37-man squad. In the first Test on 20 June, they lost 26–21, and lost the series in the second 28–25 in a tightly fought game at Loftus Versfeld on 27 June. The Lions won the third Test 28–9 at Ellis Park, and the series finished 2–1 to South Africa.

2010–2019
During June 2013 the British & Irish Lions toured Australia. Former Scotland and Lions full-back Andy Irvine was appointed as tour manager in 2010. Wales head coach Warren Gatland was the Lions' head coach, and their tour captain was Sam Warburton. The tour started in Hong Kong with a match against the Barbarians before moving on to Australia for the main tour featuring six provincial matches and three tests. The Lions won all but one non-test matches, losing to the Brumbies 14–12 on 18 June. The first test was followed shortly after this, which saw the Lions go 1-up over Australia winning 23–21. Australia did have a chance to take the win in the final moments of the game, but a missed penalty by Kurtley Beale saw the Lions take the win. The Wallabies drew the series in the second test winning 16–15, though the Lions had a chance to steal the win had it not been because of a missed penalty by Leigh Halfpenny. With tour captain Warburton out of the final test due to injury, Alun Wyn Jones took over the captaincy in the final test in Sydney. The final test was won by the Lions in what was a record win, winning 41–16 to earn their first series win since 1997 and their first over Australia since 1989.

Following his winning tour of Australia in 2013, Warren Gatland was reappointed as Lions Head Coach for the tour to New Zealand in June and July 2017. In April 2016, it was announced that the side would again be captained again by Sam Warburton. The touring schedule included 10 games: an opening game against the Provincial Barbarians, challenge matches against all five of New Zealand's Super Rugby sides, a match against the Māori All Blacks and three tests against. The Lions defeated the Provincial Barbarians in the first game of the tour, before being beaten by the Blues three days later. The team recovered to beat the Crusaders but this was followed up with another midweek loss, this time against the Highlanders. The Lions then faced the Māori All Blacks, winning comfortably to restore optimism and followed up with their first midweek victory of the tour against the Chiefs. On 24 June, the Lions, captained by Peter O'Mahony, faced New Zealand in Eden Park in the first Test and were beaten 30–15. This was followed by the final midweek game of the tour, a draw against the Hurricanes. For the second Test, Gatland recalled Warburton to the starting team as captain. In Wellington Regional Stadium, the Lions beat a 14-man New Zealand side 24–21 after Sonny Bill Williams was red-carded at the 24-minute mark after a shoulder charge on Anthony Watson. This tied the series going into the final game, ending the side's 47-game winning run at home. In the final test at Eden Park the following week, the teams were tied at 15 points apiece with 78 minutes gone. Romain Poite signaled a penalty to New Zealand for an offside infringement after Ken Owens received the ball in front of his teammate Liam Williams, giving New Zealand the opportunity to kick for goal and potentially win the series. Poite, however, decided to downgrade the penalty to a free-kick after discussing with assistant referee Jérôme Garcès and Lions captain Sam Warburton. The match finished as a draw and the series was tied.

2020–present
Warren Gatland was Lions head coach again for the tour to South Africa in 2021. In December 2019, the Lions' Test venues were announced, but the tour was significantly disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, and all the games were played behind closed doors. South Africa won the test series by two games to one. In the deciding third test, Morne Steyn again kicked a late penalty to win the series. In 2024, it was announced that Andy Farrell would succeed Gatland as the Lions head coach. A women's Lions team was established in 2024, with their inaugural tour to New Zealand to take place in 2027.

Overall test match record
.

Overall test series results

Format
The Lions now regularly tour three Southern Hemisphere countries; Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. They also toured Argentina three times before the Second World War. Since 1989 tours have been held every four years. The most recent tour was to South Africa in 2021.

In a break with tradition, the 2005 tour of New Zealand was preceded by a "home" fixture against Argentina at the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff on 23 May 2005. It finished in a 25–25 draw. A similar fixture was held against Japan before the 2021 tour of South Africa at Murrayfield, with the Lions winning 28-10.

On tour, games take place against local provinces, clubs or representative sides as well as test matches against the host's national team.

The Lions and their predecessor teams have also played games against other nearby countries on tour. For example, they played Rhodesia in 1910, 1924, 1938, 1955, 1962, 1968 and 1974 during their tours to South Africa. They were also beaten by Fiji on their 1977 tour to New Zealand. In addition, they visited pre-independence Namibia (then South West Africa), in 1955, 1962, 1968 and 1974.

There have also been games in other countries on the way home. These include games in in 1959 and 1966, East Africa (then mostly Kenya, and held in Nairobi), and an unofficial game against Ceylon (future Sri Lanka) in 1950.

Lions non-tour and home matches
The Lions have played a number of other matches against international opposition. With the exception of the matches against Argentina in 2005 and Japan in 2021, which were preparation matches for Lions tours, these matches have been one-offs to mark special occasions.

The Lions played an unofficial international match in 1955 at Cardiff Arms Park against a Welsh XV to mark the 75th anniversary of the Welsh Rugby Union. The Lions won 20–17 but did not include all the big names of the 1955 tour, such as Tony O'Reilly, Jeff Butterfield, Phil Davies, Dickie Jeeps, Bryn Meredith and Jim Greenwood.

In 1977, the Lions played their first official home game, against the Barbarians as a charity fund-raiser held as part of the Queen's silver jubilee celebrations. The Baa-Baas line-up featured JPR Williams, Gerald Davies, Gareth Edwards, Jean-Pierre Rives and Jean-Claude Skrela. The Lions included 13 of the team who played in the fourth test against New Zealand three weeks before and won 23–14.

In 1986, a match was organised against The Rest as a warm-up to the 1986 South Africa tour, and as a celebration to mark the International Rugby Board's centenary. The Lions lost 15–7 and the planned tour was subsequently cancelled.

In 1989, the Lions played against France in Paris. The game formed part of the celebrations of the bi-centennial of the French Revolution. The Lions, captained by Rob Andrew, won 29–27.

In 1990, a Four Home Unions team played against the Rest of Europe in a match to raise money for the rebuilding of Romania following the overthrow of Nicolae Ceaușescu in December 1989. The team used the Lions' logo, while the Rest of Europe played under the symbol of the Romanian Rugby Federation.

Player records

 * Players in bold are still active at international level.
 * Only matches against full international sides are listed.

Most caps
Updated 7 August 2021

Most points
Updated 31 July 2021

Most tries
Updated 31 July 2021

title: British & Irish Lions


text:
Talk:Bible

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2022
Change "Believers in the Bible generally consider it to be a product of divine inspiration, while understanding what that means and interpreting the text in various ways." to: "Believers in the Bible consider it to be a product of divine inspiration, while understanding what that means and interpreting the text in various ways." Nathan Pintos (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

 * Why remove "generally"? Levivich (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Decline. I do not support this change and the reason is within the sentence itself: because it is seen in different ways. Everyone does not consider it divinely inspired even if they consider themselves "believers". Removing "generally" implies a universal agreement that does not exist.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. 👍 Sheanobeano (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Dating
The use of CE and BCE is objectionable, especially in the context of writing about the Bible. It makes no sense at all especially when CE and BCE are counted from the same point as AD and BC: the (formerly accepted) date of the birth of Christ. It seems to be the height of wokery.

Paleo-Hebrew wrongly identified as a cuneiform language.
A paragraph in the "Development and history" section reads: "The earliest manuscripts were probably written in paleo-Hebrew, a kind of cuneiform pictograph similar to other pictographs of the same period." I'm no expert in the matter but as soon as I read this I thought this is wrong. I checked the Wikipedia article on paleo-Hebrew and it does not mention cuneiform nor pictographs. 92.41.50.173 (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Yes
 * the paleo Hebrew language used letters even though they looked like pictures they were letters 77.137.73.225 (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2023
Diverse religious communities have compiled religious texts into various official collections. The earliest known collection consisted of the initial five books of the Bible. This information highlights the historical significance of religious texts as a means of preserving cultural and spiritual beliefs for future generations. Yumyam (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The Bible
The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, 'the books') is a collection of religious texts or scriptures, some, all, or a variant of which, are held to be sacred in Christianity, Judaism, Samaritanism, Islam, Baha'i'ism and many other religions. The Bible is an anthology, a compilation of texts of a variety of forms, originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. These texts include instructions, stories, poetry, and prophecies, and other genres. The collection of materials that are accepted as part of the Bible by a particular religious tradition or community is called a biblical canon. Believers in the Bible generally consider it to be a product of divine inspiration, but the way they understand what that means and interpret the text varies.

NaS (2023) Yumyam (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2023
Please change “includes instructions” to sometimes includes instructions. With all the antisemitism at the moment it pays for people researching to have understanding. The jewish “bibles” as you call them do not contain instructions, they are purely history books of ancestors. The mishkan t’filah shows instructons for proggressive judeans and there are many factions each with their own prayer/instruction book. Correction9 (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are no instructions in Leviticus? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

edit request of Illustrations section
Following the recent major progress in AI, adding an AI section here is super important in my opinion. Consider adding the following:

The intersection of the Bible and artificial intelligence marks a transformative evolution in the way religious narratives are visualized and interpreted. Historically, artists meticulously crafted images to depict scenes from the Bible, offering a tangible and visual connection to the sacred text. Today, with the advent of artificial intelligence, a new chapter unfolds. AI technologies enable the creation of stunning visual representations by analyzing textual descriptions and generating intricate images that capture the essence of biblical stories. This fusion of ancient scriptures with cutting-edge AI techniques not only preserves the rich tradition of visual storytelling but also opens new avenues for exploring and understanding the timeless narratives contained within the Bible. The marriage of religious tradition and technological innovation in the visualization of the Bible through AI serves as a testament to the dynamic interplay between faith and the advancements of the digital age.

A great example for this is BiblePics.co project, where you can read the bible with AI generated images + talk to biblical characters with the help of AI Selihay (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Problems with the above text include WP:OR, WP:PUFFERY and, if the final sentence is supposed to be part of it, WP:PROMO.
 * Not that "AI and the Bible" or something similar isn't a topic with sources . It may very well have a place somewhere on WP. A new article, perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

 * I saw the website: the idea is nice, but the end result is poor quality, e.g. people before God created people. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder what AI-Moses says if you ask him if Jesus is the son of God. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Since it has the Gospel of Matthew, it is obviously a Christian website. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2024
Noted CE is instead of AD. To maintain consistency with the historical importance of BC/AD, AD should be utilised. Jpeters9 (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Common Era is both more important and more neutral than Anno Domini. Jesus is not our dominus.Dimadick (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This has been discussed extensively - in archives 2, 8, 15, 16, and probably others. Consensus each time has been that BCE/CE is preferred since this article discusses both the Jewish and Christian Bibles. Were it about the Christian Bible only, BC/AD might be appropriate. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Paleo-hebrew is alphabetic, not pictographic
“The earliest manuscripts were probably written in paleo-Hebrew, a kind of cuneiform pictograph similar to other pictographs of the same period.” Plain wrong. Paleo-hebrew is alphabetic, not pictographic. Earlier cuneiform writings, esp from Sumeria and Ugarit, were incorporated, but the Bible is a much later work (c. 1100 BCE) arising around the time of the development of the first alphabet of proto-Hebrew or paleo-Hebrew. Philip.e.kahn (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

 * I'll pass on paleo-Hebrew, but I don't know any scholar worth his salt who dates the Bible to 1100 BCE. Or any book of it, whatsoever. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bible