No edit summary Tag: Visual edit |
m (spam) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | Throughout the series, characters had made references to religious beliefs. Here is a list of some references. |
||
| − | {{DISPLAYTITLE:m Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about the Internet encyclopedia. For Wikipedia's home page, see Wikipedia's Main Page. For Wikipedia's visitor introduction, see Wikipedia's About Page. For other uses, see Wikipedia (disambiguation). "The Free Encyclopedia" redirects here. For other encyclopedias, see List of encyclopedias. Wikipedia A white sphere made of large jigsaw pieces, with letters from several alphabets shown on the pieces Wikipedia wordmark The logo of Wikipedia, a globe featuring glyphs from several writing systems[notes 1] [show] Screenshot Type of site Online encyclopedia Available in 299 languages Owner Wikimedia Foundation Created by Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger[1] Slogan(s) The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit Website wikipedia.org Alexa rank Steady 5 (Global, January 2018) Commercial No Registration Optional[notes 2] Users >309,812 active users[notes 3] and >72,982,901 registered users Launched January 15, 2001; 17 years ago Current status Active Content license CC Attribution / Share-Alike 3.0 Most text is also dual-licensed under GFDL; media licensing varies Written in LAMP platform[2] OCLC number 52075003 Wikipedia (/ˌwɪkɪˈpiːdiə/ (About this sound listen) WIK-i-PEE-dee-ə or /ˌwɪkiˈpiːdiə/ (About this sound listen) WIK-ee-PEE-dee-ə) is a free online encyclopedia with the mission of allowing anyone to create or edit articles.[3][not in citation given] Wikipedia is the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet,[4][5][6] and is ranked the fifth-most popular website.[7] Wikipedia is a project owned by the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation.[8][9][10] Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001, by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger.[11] Sanger coined its name,[12][13] a portmanteau of wiki[notes 4] and encyclopedia. There was only the English-language version initially, but similar versions in other languages quickly developed, which differ in content and in editing practices. With 5,565,572 articles,[notes 5] the English Wikipedia is the largest of the more than 290 Wikipedia encyclopedias. Overall, Wikipedia comprises more than 40 million articles in 299 different languages[15] and, as of February 2014, it had 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors each month.[16] As of March 2017, Wikipedia has about 40,000 high-quality articles, known as Featured Articles and Good Articles, that cover vital topics.[17][18] In 2005, Nature published a peer review comparing 42 science articles from Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia, and found that Wikipedia's level of accuracy approached that of Encyclopædia Britannica.[19] Time magazine stated that the remarkably open-door policy of allowing anyone to edit had made Wikipedia the biggest and possibly the best encyclopedia in the world and it was testament to the vision of Jimmy Wales.[20] Wikipedia has been criticized for allegedly exhibiting systemic bias, presenting a mixture of "truths, half truths, and some falsehoods",[21] and, in controversial topics, being subject to manipulation and spin.[22] Contents [hide] 1 History 1.1 Nupedia 1.2 Launch and early growth 1.3 Milestones 2 Openness 2.1 Restrictions 2.2 Review of changes 2.3 Vandalism 3 Policies and laws 3.1 Content policies and guidelines 4 Governance 4.1 Administrators 4.2 Dispute resolution 5 Community 5.1 Diversity 6 Language editions 7 Critical reception 7.1 Accuracy of content 7.2 Quality of writing 7.3 Coverage of topics and systemic bias 7.4 Explicit content 7.5 Privacy 7.6 Sexism 8 Operation 8.1 Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia movement affiliates 8.2 Software operations and support 8.3 Automated editing 8.4 Wikiprojects, and assessments of articles' importance and quality 8.5 Hardware operations and support 8.6 Internal research and operational development 8.7 Internal news publications 9 Access to content 9.1 Content licensing 9.2 Methods of access 10 Cultural impact 10.1 Readership 10.2 Cultural significance 10.3 Sister projects – Wikimedia 10.4 Publishing 10.5 Scientific use 11 Related projects 12 See also 13 References 13.1 Notes 14 Further reading 14.1 Academic studies 14.2 Books 14.3 Book reviews and other articles 15 External links History Main article: History of Wikipedia Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger Nupedia Logo reading "Nupedia.com the free encyclopedia" in blue with large initial "N" Wikipedia originally developed from another encyclopedia project called Nupedia Other collaborative online encyclopedias were attempted before Wikipedia, but none were as successful.[23] Wikipedia began as a complementary project for Nupedia, a free online English-language encyclopedia project whose articles were written by experts and reviewed under a formal process.[11] Nupedia was founded on March 9, 2000, under the ownership of Bomis, a web portal company. Its main figures were Jimmy Wales, the CEO of Bomis, and Larry Sanger, editor-in-chief for Nupedia and later Wikipedia. Nupedia was licensed initially under its own Nupedia Open Content License, switching to the GNU Free Documentation License before Wikipedia's founding at the urging of Richard Stallman.[24] Sanger and Wales founded Wikipedia.[25][26] While Wales is credited with defining the goal of making a publicly editable encyclopedia,[27][28] Sanger is credited with the strategy of using a wiki to reach that goal.[29] On January 10, 2001, Sanger proposed on the Nupedia mailing list to create a wiki as a "feeder" project for Nupedia.[30] External audio The Great Book of Knowledge, Part 1, Ideas with Paul Kennedy, CBC, January 15, 2014 Launch and early growth Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001, as a single English-language edition at www.wikipedia.com,[31] and announced by Sanger on the Nupedia mailing list.[27] Wikipedia's policy of "neutral point-of-view"[32] was codified in its first months. Otherwise, there were relatively few rules initially and Wikipedia operated independently of Nupedia.[27] Originally, Bomis intended to make Wikipedia a business for profit.[33] Wikipedia gained early contributors from Nupedia, Slashdot postings, and web search engine indexing. By August 8, 2001, Wikipedia had over 8,000 articles.[34] On September 25, 2001, Wikipedia had over 13,000 articles.[35] By the end of 2001, it had grown to approximately 20,000 articles and 18 language editions. It had reached 26 language editions by late 2002, 46 by the end of 2003, and 161 by the final days of 2004.[36] Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted until the former's servers were taken down permanently in 2003, and its text was incorporated into Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia passed the mark of two million articles on September 9, 2007, making it the largest encyclopedia ever assembled, surpassing even the 1408 Yongle Encyclopedia, which had held the record for almost 600 years.[37] Citing fears of commercial advertising and lack of control in Wikipedia, users of the Spanish Wikipedia forked from Wikipedia to create the Enciclopedia Libre in February 2002.[38] These moves encouraged Wales to announce that Wikipedia would not display advertisements, and to change Wikipedia's domain from wikipedia.com to wikipedia.org.[39] Though the English Wikipedia reached three million articles in August 2009, the growth of the edition, in terms of the numbers of articles and of contributors, appears to have peaked around early 2007.[40] Around 1,800 articles were added daily to the encyclopedia in 2006; by 2013 that average was roughly 800.[41] A team at the Palo Alto Research Center attributed this slowing of growth to the project's increasing exclusivity and resistance to change.[42] Others suggest that the growth is flattening naturally because articles that could be called "low-hanging fruit"—topics that clearly merit an article—have already been created and built up extensively.[43][44][45] In November 2009, a researcher at the Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid (Spain) found that the English Wikipedia had lost 49,000 editors during the first three months of 2009; in comparison, the project lost only 4,900 editors during the same period in 2008.[46][47] The Wall Street Journal cited the array of rules applied to editing and disputes related to such content among the reasons for this trend.[48] Wales disputed these claims in 2009, denying the decline and questioning the methodology of the study.[49] Two years later, in 2011, Wales acknowledged the presence of a slight decline, noting a decrease from "a little more than 36,000 writers" in June 2010 to 35,800 in June 2011. In the same interview, Wales also claimed the number of editors was "stable and sustainable".[50] A 2013 article titled "The Decline of Wikipedia" in MIT's Technology Review questioned this claim. The article revealed that since 2007, Wikipedia had lost a third of the volunteer editors who update and correct the online encyclopedia and those still there have focused increasingly on minutiae.[51] In July 2012, The Atlantic reported that the number of administrators is also in decline.[52] In the November 25, 2013, issue of New York magazine, Katherine Ward stated "Wikipedia, the sixth-most-used website, is facing an internal crisis".[53] Wikipedia blackout protest against SOPA on January 18, 2012 File:Wikipedia Edit 2014.webm A promotional video of the Wikimedia Foundation that encourages viewers to edit Wikipedia, mostly reviewing 2014 via Wikipedia content Milestones In January 2007, Wikipedia entered for the first time the top-ten list of the most popular websites in the U.S., according to comScore Networks. With 42.9 million unique visitors, Wikipedia was ranked number 9, surpassing The New York Times (#10) and Apple (#11). This marked a significant increase over January 2006, when the rank was number 33, with Wikipedia receiving around 18.3 million unique visitors.[54] As of March 2015, Wikipedia has rank 5[7][55] among websites in terms of popularity according to Alexa Internet. In 2014, it received 8 billion pageviews every month.[56] On February 9, 2014, The New York Times reported that Wikipedia has 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors a month, "according to the ratings firm comScore."[16] On January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia participated in a series of coordinated protests against two proposed laws in the United States Congress—the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)—by blacking out its pages for 24 hours.[57] More than 162 million people viewed the blackout explanation page that temporarily replaced Wikipedia content.[58][59] Loveland and Reagle argue that, in process, Wikipedia follows a long tradition of historical encyclopedias that accumulated improvements piecemeal through "stigmergic accumulation".[60][61] On January 20, 2014, Subodh Varma reporting for The Economic Times indicated that not only had Wikipedia's growth flattened but that it has "lost nearly 10 per cent of its page-views last year. That's a decline of about 2 billion between December 2012 and December 2013. Its most popular versions are leading the slide: page-views of the English Wikipedia declined by 12 per cent, those of German version slid by 17 per cent and the Japanese version lost 9 per cent."[62] Varma added that, "While Wikipedia's managers think that this could be due to errors in counting, other experts feel that Google's Knowledge Graphs project launched last year may be gobbling up Wikipedia users."[62] When contacted on this matter, Clay Shirky, associate professor at New York University and fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Security indicated that he suspected much of the page view decline was due to Knowledge Graphs, stating, "If you can get your question answered from the search page, you don't need to click [any further]."[62] By the end of December 2016, Wikipedia was ranked fifth in the most popular websites globally.[63] Openness Number of English Wikipedia articles[64] Wikipedia editors with >100 edits per month[64] Differences between versions of an article are highlighted as shown Unlike traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia follows the procrastination principle[notes 6][65] regarding the security of its content.[65] It started almost entirely open—anyone could create articles, and any Wikipedia article could be edited by any reader, even those who did not have a Wikipedia account. Modifications to all articles would be published immediately. As a result, any article could contain inaccuracies such as errors, ideological biases, and nonsensical or irrelevant text. Restrictions Due to the increasing popularity of Wikipedia, popular editions, including the English version, have introduced editing restrictions in some cases. For instance, on the English Wikipedia and some other language editions, only registered users may create a new article.[66] On the English Wikipedia, among others, some particularly controversial, sensitive and/or vandalism-prone pages have been protected to some degree.[67][68] A frequently vandalized article can be semi-protected or extended confirmed protected, meaning that only autoconfirmed or extended confirmed editors are able to modify it.[69] A particularly contentious article may be locked so that only administrators are able to make changes.[70] In certain cases, all editors are allowed to submit modifications, but review is required for some editors, depending on certain conditions. For example, the German Wikipedia maintains "stable versions" of articles,[71] which have passed certain reviews. Following protracted trials and community discussion, the English Wikipedia introduced the "pending changes" system in December 2012.[72] Under this system, new and unregistered users' edits to certain controversial or vandalism-prone articles are reviewed by established users before they are published.[73] The editing interface of Wikipedia Review of changes Although changes are not systematically reviewed, the software that powers Wikipedia provides certain tools allowing anyone to review changes made by others. The "History" page of each article links to each revision.[notes 7][74] On most articles, anyone can undo others' changes by clicking a link on the article's history page. Anyone can view the latest changes to articles, and anyone may maintain a "watchlist" of articles that interest them so they can be notified of any changes. "New pages patrol" is a process whereby newly created articles are checked for obvious problems.[75] In 2003, economics PhD student Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low transaction costs of participating in a wiki create a catalyst for collaborative development, and that features such as allowing easy access to past versions of a page favor "creative construction" over "creative destruction".[76] Vandalism Main article: Vandalism on Wikipedia Any change or edit that manipulates content in a way that purposefully compromises the integrity of Wikipedia is considered vandalism. The most common and obvious types of vandalism include additions of obscenities and crude humor. Vandalism can also include advertising and other types of spam.[77] Sometimes editors commit vandalism by removing content or entirely blanking a given page. Less common types of vandalism, such as the deliberate addition of plausible but false information to an article, can be more difficult to detect. Vandals can introduce irrelevant formatting, modify page semantics such as the page's title or categorization, manipulate the underlying code of an article, or use images disruptively.[78] White-haired elderly gentleman in suit and tie speaks at a podium. American journalist John Seigenthaler (1927–2014), subject of the Seigenthaler incident Obvious vandalism is generally easy to remove from Wikipedia articles; the median time to detect and fix vandalism is a few minutes.[79][80] However, some vandalism takes much longer to repair.[81] In the Seigenthaler biography incident, an anonymous editor introduced false information into the biography of American political figure John Seigenthaler in May 2005. Seigenthaler was falsely presented as a suspect in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.[81] The article remained uncorrected for four months.[81] Seigenthaler, the founding editorial director of USA Today and founder of the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, called Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales and asked whether he had any way of knowing who contributed the misinformation. Wales replied that he did not, although the perpetrator was eventually traced.[82][83] After the incident, Seigenthaler described Wikipedia as "a flawed and irresponsible research tool".[81] This incident led to policy changes at Wikipedia, specifically targeted at tightening up the verifiability of biographical articles of living people.[84] Policies and laws External video Jimbo at Fosdem cropped.jpg Wikimania, 60 Minutes, CBS, 20 minutes, April 5, 2015, co-founder Jimmy Wales at Fosdem Content in Wikipedia is subject to the laws (in particular, copyright laws) of the United States and of the U.S. state of Virginia, where the majority of Wikipedia's servers are located. Beyond legal matters, the editorial principles of Wikipedia are embodied in the "five pillars" and in numerous policies and guidelines intended to appropriately shape content. Even these rules are stored in wiki form, and Wikipedia editors write and revise the website's policies and guidelines.[85] Editors can enforce these rules by deleting or modifying non-compliant material. Originally, rules on the non-English editions of Wikipedia were based on a translation of the rules for the English Wikipedia. They have since diverged to some extent.[71] Content policies and guidelines According to the rules on the English Wikipedia, each entry in Wikipedia must be about a topic that is encyclopedic and is not a dictionary entry or dictionary-like.[86] A topic should also meet Wikipedia's standards of "notability",[87] which generally means that the topic must have been covered in mainstream media or major academic journal sources that are independent of the article's subject. Further, Wikipedia intends to convey only knowledge that is already established and recognized.[88] It must not present original research. A claim that is likely to be challenged requires a reference to a reliable source. Among Wikipedia editors, this is often phrased as "verifiability, not truth" to express the idea that the readers, not the encyclopedia, are ultimately responsible for checking the truthfulness of the articles and making their own interpretations.[89] This can at times lead to the removal of information that is valid.[90] Finally, Wikipedia must not take sides.[91] All opinions and viewpoints, if attributable to external sources, must enjoy an appropriate share of coverage within an article.[92] This is known as neutral point of view (NPOV). Governance Further information: Wikipedia:Administration Wikipedia's initial anarchy integrated democratic and hierarchical elements over time.[93][94] An article is not considered to be owned by its creator or any other editor and is not vetted by any recognized authority.[95] Wikipedia's contributors avoid a tragedy of the commons by internalizing benefits. They do this by experiencing flow and identifying with and gaining status in the Wikipedia community.[96] Administrators Editors in good standing in the community can run for one of many levels of volunteer stewardship: this begins with "administrator",[97][98] privileged users who can delete pages, prevent articles from being changed in case of vandalism or editorial disputes, and try to prevent certain persons from editing. Despite the name, administrators are not supposed to enjoy any special privilege in decision-making; instead, their powers are mostly limited to making edits that have project-wide effects and thus are disallowed to ordinary editors, and to implement restrictions intended to prevent certain persons from making disruptive edits (such as vandalism).[99][100] Fewer editors become administrators than in years past, in part because the process of vetting potential Wikipedia administrators has become more rigorous.[101] Bureaucrats name new administrators, solely upon the recommendations from the community. Dispute resolution Wikipedians often have disputes regarding content, which may result in repeatedly making opposite changes to an article, known as edit warring.[102][103] Over time, Wikipedia has developed a semi-formal dispute resolution process to assist in such circumstances. In order to determine community consensus, editors can raise issues at appropriate community forums,[notes 8] or seek outside input through third opinion requests or by initiating a more general community discussion known as a request for comment. Arbitration Committee Main article: Arbitration Committee The Arbitration Committee presides over the ultimate dispute resolution process. Although disputes usually arise from a disagreement between two opposing views on how an article should read, the Arbitration Committee explicitly refuses to directly rule on the specific view that should be adopted. Statistical analyses suggest that the committee ignores the content of disputes and rather focuses on the way disputes are conducted,[104] functioning not so much to resolve disputes and make peace between conflicting editors, but to weed out problematic editors while allowing potentially productive editors back in to participate. Therefore, the committee does not dictate the content of articles, although it sometimes condemns content changes when it deems the new content violates Wikipedia policies (for example, if the new content is considered biased). Its remedies include cautions and probations (used in 63% of cases) and banning editors from articles (43%), subject matters (23%), or Wikipedia (16%). Complete bans from Wikipedia are generally limited to instances of impersonation and anti-social behavior. When conduct is not impersonation or anti-social, but rather anti-consensus or in violation of editing policies, remedies tend to be limited to warnings.[105] Community Main article: Wikipedia community File:Wikimania - the Wikimentary.webm Video of Wikimania 2005 – an annual conference for users of Wikipedia and other projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, was held in Frankfurt am Main, Germany from August 4 to 8. Each article and each user of Wikipedia has an associated "Talk" page. These form the primary communication channel for editors to discuss, coordinate and debate.[106] File:Editing Hoxne Hoard at the British Museum.ogv Wikipedians and British Museum curators collaborate on the article Hoxne Hoard in June 2010 Wikipedia's community has been described as cult-like,[107] although not always with entirely negative connotations.[108] The project's preference for cohesiveness, even if it requires compromise that includes disregard of credentials, has been referred to as "anti-elitism".[109] Wikipedians sometimes award one another virtual barnstars for good work. These personalized tokens of appreciation reveal a wide range of valued work extending far beyond simple editing to include social support, administrative actions, and types of articulation work.[110] Wikipedia does not require that its editors and contributors provide identification.[111] As Wikipedia grew, "Who writes Wikipedia?" became one of the questions frequently asked on the project.[112] Jimmy Wales once argued that only "a community ... a dedicated group of a few hundred volunteers" makes the bulk of contributions to Wikipedia and that the project is therefore "much like any traditional organization".[113] In 2008, a Slate magazine article reported that: "According to researchers in Palo Alto, 1 percent of Wikipedia users are responsible for about half of the site's edits."[114] This method of evaluating contributions was later disputed by Aaron Swartz, who noted that several articles he sampled had large portions of their content (measured by number of characters) contributed by users with low edit counts.[115] The English Wikipedia has 5,565,572 articles, 32,841,147 registered editors, and 136,434 active editors. An editor is considered active if they have made one or more edits in the past thirty days. Editors who fail to comply with Wikipedia cultural rituals, such as signing talk page comments, may implicitly signal that they are Wikipedia outsiders, increasing the odds that Wikipedia insiders may target or discount their contributions. Becoming a Wikipedia insider involves non-trivial costs: the contributor is expected to learn Wikipedia-specific technological codes, submit to a sometimes convoluted dispute resolution process, and learn a "baffling culture rich with in-jokes and insider references".[116] Editors who do not log in are in some sense second-class citizens on Wikipedia,[116] as "participants are accredited by members of the wiki community, who have a vested interest in preserving the quality of the work product, on the basis of their ongoing participation",[117] but the contribution histories of anonymous unregistered editors recognized only by their IP addresses cannot be attributed to a particular editor with certainty. A 2007 study by researchers from Dartmouth College found that "anonymous and infrequent contributors to Wikipedia [...] are as reliable a source of knowledge as those contributors who register with the site".[118] Jimmy Wales stated in 2009 that "(I)t turns out over 50% of all the edits are done by just .7% of the users... 524 people... And in fact the most active 2%, which is 1400 people, have done 73.4% of all the edits."[113] However, Business Insider editor and journalist Henry Blodget showed in 2009 that in a random sample of articles, most content in Wikipedia (measured by the amount of contributed text that survives to the latest sampled edit) is created by "outsiders", while most editing and formatting is done by "insiders".[113] A 2008 study found that Wikipedians were less agreeable, open, and conscientious than others,[119][120] although a later commentary pointed out serious flaws, including that the data showed higher openness, that the differences with the control group were small as were the samples.[121] According to a 2009 study, there is "evidence of growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to new content".[122] Diversity Wikipedia editor demographics (2008) One study found that the contributor base to Wikipedia "was barely 13% women; the average age of a contributor was in the mid-20s".[123] A 2011 study by researchers from the University of Minnesota found that females comprised 16.1% of the 38,497 editors who started editing Wikipedia during 2009.[124] In a January 2011 New York Times article, Noam Cohen observed that just 13% of Wikipedia's contributors are female according to a 2008 Wikimedia Foundation survey.[125] Sue Gardner, a former executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, hoped to see female contributions increase to 25% by 2015.[126] Linda Basch, president of the National Council for Research on Women, noted the contrast in these Wikipedia editor statistics with the percentage of women currently completing bachelor's degrees, master's degrees and PhD programs in the United States (all at rates of 50 percent or greater).[127] In response, various universities have hosted edit-a-thons to encourage more women to participate in the Wikipedia community. In fall 2013, 15 colleges and universities — including Yale, Brown, and Pennsylvania State — offered college credit for students to "write feminist thinking" about technology into Wikipedia.[128] A 2008 self-selected survey of the diversity of contributors by highest educational degree indicated that sixty-two }} |
||
| + | |||
| − | Throughout the series, characte[[Category:Lists]] |
||
| + | ==List== |
||
| + | *In [[Play it Again, D.W.]], Catherine calls for "Solomon-like wisdom." She does this by adding a line of tape around the whole house to divide the place. This is referencing the time in the Bible when Solomon offers to cut a baby in half, being fought over by two mothers. |
||
| + | *in [[Arthur's Perfect Christmas]], there are many mentions of the Bible such as David Read commenting that he based his food on what people would eat back in ancient Bethlehem when Jesus was born. |
||
| + | *In [[The Secret Life of Dogs and Babies]], [[Kate Read|Kate]] says a quote similar to Isaiah 11:6 . |
||
| + | *In [[Arthur, It's Only Rock and Roll]], Mrs. McGrady says "'Render unto Caesar', ya know! But you've rendered unto Caesar too much!" The original phrase ("render unto Caesar") was a quote from Jesus Christ. |
||
| + | *In [[Francine's Split Decision]], Brain explains that to understand the significance of a ''bar mitzvah'', one would "have to go back to the beginning of the Jewish people, when Abraham and Sarah begat Isaac, who begat Jacob, who begat Joseph, who begat-" |
||
| + | *In [[Sue Ellen Chickens Out]], Brain says after eating a chicken sandwich from the restaurant [[Chickin Lickin']], he says "Ah! The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak!" This is another quote from Jesus Christ. |
||
| + | [[Category:Lists]] |
||
[[Category:Religion and mythology]] |
[[Category:Religion and mythology]] |
||
[[Category:A to Z]] |
[[Category:A to Z]] |
||
Revision as of 05:24, 6 February 2018
Throughout the series, characters had made references to religious beliefs. Here is a list of some references.
List
- In Play it Again, D.W., Catherine calls for "Solomon-like wisdom." She does this by adding a line of tape around the whole house to divide the place. This is referencing the time in the Bible when Solomon offers to cut a baby in half, being fought over by two mothers.
- in Arthur's Perfect Christmas, there are many mentions of the Bible such as David Read commenting that he based his food on what people would eat back in ancient Bethlehem when Jesus was born.
- In The Secret Life of Dogs and Babies, Kate says a quote similar to Isaiah 11:6 .
- In Arthur, It's Only Rock and Roll, Mrs. McGrady says "'Render unto Caesar', ya know! But you've rendered unto Caesar too much!" The original phrase ("render unto Caesar") was a quote from Jesus Christ.
- In Francine's Split Decision, Brain explains that to understand the significance of a bar mitzvah, one would "have to go back to the beginning of the Jewish people, when Abraham and Sarah begat Isaac, who begat Jacob, who begat Joseph, who begat-"
- In Sue Ellen Chickens Out, Brain says after eating a chicken sandwich from the restaurant Chickin Lickin', he says "Ah! The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak!" This is another quote from Jesus Christ.