Talk:Today's New International Version

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Critics and supporters[edit]

If names are added into this section, then they should meet one of these criteria: a wikilink to an existing article (which would help establish why it's notable that they support or criticize), or in the event that no wiki article exists, a brief line establishing the same. Otherwise, it seems rather meaningless to add names to a list of critics or supporters with no context. Ἀλήθεια 18:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concern is valid but by the criteria you require all names would then need to be removed. In the past it appears trying to get to a middle ground in this article looked hard, as with any religious topic. The names removed were once cited but the citation has changed but a few names have slipped in that I've never heard of. This section probably need updating but if you're not familiar with even people like Barker, Strauss, etc. then this may not be your area. I'm going to probably place most of the names back but if you want to removed the entire section, I suppose I'm OK with that but it might re-open one of the old edit wars if any old timers cruz through. Basileias (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you say "all names would then need to be removed". It seems only names which don't establish any context for why their criticism or support is notable would need to be removed. For instance, if they are notable enough for their own wiki article (as in Adam Hamilton), then a reader need only follow the link to see why it matters whether or not they support the TNIV. If, on the other hand, no wiki article exists to establish this context for the reader, a simple statement would suffice (if they are indeed notable enough to mention). All I'm really asking is for someone to fill in the blanks below (I've suggested two)...

(list moved below after edits)

Perhaps these people are indeed notable enough for their own article in wikipedia, but until they have one, context is required. Ἀλήθεια 01:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OH! Well if that's all then that is legit, but you could have added that information yourself instead of a mass delete. By doing a mass delete for your first edit, I misunderstood. I'll add info maybe later this week. Basileias (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I would have been content to leave them out, but if editors feel strongly that they should be included, all I ask is for some context. I'll leave them inline in the text of the article and revisit in a week. I've also restore McManus, as he is included in the prior source, as well as Haggard, with a new source. Ἀλήθεια 02:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I goofed on McManus and Haggard wasn't listed but I'm fine with both being restored. I probably won't touch things for a while in case another editor decides to jump in and take things in a third direction. If I don't have things completed in a while go ahead and remove them. I'll work on it when I get more time. Basileias (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started articles for the following:

I have deleted the following (as positive reviewers) from this article:

Please feel free to add any back in once their notability has been established, either with a wikipedia article, or with one line of context telling the reader why it is significant that they support this project. Ἀλήθεια 05:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following were on the translation team, and probably notable enough for wikipedia articles:

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Today's New International Version. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Date Format[edit]

@Walter Görlitz: added a use mdy date format template yesterday. The article is about an international version of the Bible that has both UK and American publishers, translators etc. and was developed under an International organisation. No first contributor to the article asserted the right to use mdy dates so I have removed the template to test consensus on this. I am not sure we need to specify a date format, in any case, as the article currently uses no dates displayed to the reader at present, this is not a major issue. This talk section should test consensus as to whether we need to specify a date format and what that should be. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: I was simply attempting to follow MOS:DATEUNIFY. There were no dates used in the prose, only in references. At the point that I made the edit, there were three date formats used: ISO 8601, DMY and MDY. The two former styles are used by different reference-finding tools while the latter is not. I made the assumption that if a reference was added with MDY, and with an American publisher, that should be the date format used. Per MOS:DATERET I could not find any references used by early 2007. By mid 2007 an incorrect date format (29th March 1997) that is closely associated with dmy was used in prose (it's immediately beside a WP:NOTUSA violation as well) and it was quickly removed. This was the first addition of a reference date (2007-11-30T05:19:08 (UTC)). One additional ISO-8601 date was added as references subsequent to that and by my first edit on the article (2008-10-08T00:20:52‎ (UTC)) there was still no clear date format. It does not appear to have been placed on my watchlist as by my next edit (2012-08-20T14:25:56‎ (UTC)) we have primarily ISO-8601 date formats and one, sole MDY date (see the "February 13–20, 2002" date). That reference is still present, so I'm arguing that DATERET would point to that date as the one we should fall to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: Thanks for responding so quickly. MOS:DATEUNIFY indicates that date formats should be consistent, but the USEMDY template doesn't need to refer to the references section where all the dates in this article are. The references, as you say, were mostly in ISO 8601, which is my clear preference for the reference section because (1) it is an international standard, and (2) ISO date formats are logically big-endian, which is how we write other numbers (but that is my Computer Science background talking ;) ). You mention MOS:DATERET, and as this article did have, as you say, mostly ISO dates (I am not sure, without looking at the history, by whom), it seems to me that the argument for ISO dates is just as strong. That is - there may be one old reference in one format, but the majority of the refs were in ISO format.
Still, at this point, it is worth noting that there may not be many interested editors to this article, and going forward, the question is what is the best date format to use for the reference section. My preference is ISO. I hope I can persuade you that this would be best for this article's refs because the TNIV is the product of the International Bible Society (now renamed). Yet I wouldn't want to fall out over it, and if no other editors are watching this page to express a view, I am not going to start reverting your date formats. Even so, we don't need the template on the page. The template refers to the text, and the references just have to be consistent . Some MDY articles use ISO dated references. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ISO is generally only used for scientific articles. The choices before us are MDY and DMY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ISO is the recommended date format of the W3C for information presented on the web[1]. It is also not wholly used in sciences. Nottingham University, UK, for instance has it as a preferred style in all departments. I don't think we need to limit ourselves to a parochial format just because of some sensibility that we cannot use ISO dates just because the article is not about a scientific topic. The argument for ISO dates is clear as follows:
(1) It is an International standard format that is in line with the Wikipedia manual of style MOS:DATEFORMAT (and compatible with autoformatting by user preference);
(2) It avoids suggesting an article about an international collaboration has strong national ties; and
(3) It has been the settled format of this page since the end of 2007.
On point 3, as you note, the first date ref was DMY and problematic, and removed. Then at 3:17 on 22 Nov 2007, a ref was added that read "January 2002" which is a plain English date but does not express a preference as there is no day given. The next reference added with a date was on 16 December 2007 at 5:19, and this used an ISO date. As far as I can tell, all dates since followed the ISO convention and that was the clear settled preference of this page for 12 years. I don't think it should have been changed per MOS:DATERET. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an ISO project though and ISO-8601 is not a recommended date format here although software-related articles use the format.
I'm sorry if I implied that the problematic DMY was used as a reference. It was used in prose: "USA "World Magazine" 29th March 1997".
Again, ISO will not stand as a date format in references in this article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus on Wikipedia on date formats in references. ISO style are therefore perfectly acceptable in the ref section. The DMY/MDY templates are for the main section. ISO will stand for references. No wikipedia policy requires their removal.
Nevertheless I have waited to see if any other editors have a view and it appears to be just us. As we are clearly in disagreement, I propose a compromise. I propose we use DMY because (1) that was what was first used by an editor and (2) because MDY is standard only in the US. Every other country in the anglosphere uses DMY or YMD. Those that use YMD accept DMY as an alternative. YMD is not available to us, so DMY makes sense. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There actually is. WP:DATEUNIFY is clear that "Dates in article body text should all use the same format" while "Publication dates in an article's citations should all use the same format". However, they do not need to be the same format. So now we're back to DATERET, so MDY stands again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MDY does not "stand". MDY is what you changed all the dates to. The dates were ISO. First use was DMY. No policy requires MDY and if we cannot agree on going back to the ISO that you changed everything from, then I invoke first usage. DMY stands. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Over the course of the article, there was a mix of date formats for the references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There were 14 ISO format dates and two or three that were not. That is why I said you should not have changed it. However, I believe the suggestion of DMY is a fair compromise and it accords with first usage on the page. Thus I will add the use DMY now. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zondervan is an American company. While the translators were international, the NIV is not. There are "International English" versions as well, but the base is American. DMY is not a compromise, it's the wrong format based on the guidelines before us. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zondervan is only the US publisher. The publisher is Hodder & Stoughton in the UK and EU. I added that to the page. Copyright lies with Biblica - the *International* Bible society. No strong national ties apply here. Would you like to make a request for editor assistance, or should I? -- Sirfurboy (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. You are correct Biblica is an American company. Strong National Ties. No need for "editor assistance" (I suspect you mean WP:3O or something similar) as you have no leg on which to stand. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly it is because (1) we are not in agreement, so no consensus, and (2) you cannot argue there are strong national ties for a Bible version that is called the Today's New _International_ Version, is published separately in different countries by different publishers, with different regional versions, and is an international collaboration under the auspices of the _International_ Bible society, merely because the international body is constituted in America rather than, say, Geneva. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed a request for a third opinion now. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion requested[edit]

Hello, I've picked this up from WP:3O. I will of course read the full comments in the discussion above (and relevant parts of the article itself), but it would help as a start if both of you could summarise the central issue quite briefly, and what your position is, so that I can get the arguments clearly into focus. My thanks. FrankP (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editor A:

The tools used to "expand" sources, many of which I have used, either use ISO-8601 date formats or DMY. The dates used in the article were not consistent. WP:TIES link it to an American company and so MDY is correct. We cannot make them all ISO-8601. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editor B:
Thanks, I’ll be editor B. The position from my point of view is as follows:
Editor A wished to clean up date formats and chose to add USEMDY to do so. I think we both agree that consistent date formats are good practice, but my position is that MDY is wrong because:
# The first article contributor to use a date used DMY
# The major contributors have almost all gone with YMD in references, which is where all the dates are
# The article is about an international translation with no strong national ties (the translation has localised versions and different publishers in different countries).
Editor A has argued that we are unable to leave it as YMD (I disagree). I proposed a compromise of DMY based on first usage by an editor on the page, but he disagrees.
Thanks again. — Sirfurboy (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for contributing, and waiting for me to take stock of the situation.
As it stands, the article body contains no dates apart from simple mentions of years like 1984, which are not in dispute. All the dates at issue are in the references. User:Walter Görlitz attached a {{Use mdy dates}} template. The two of you seem to disagree about whether the dates were (a) not consistent, or (b) almost all YMD (ISO-8601), before that time. I'll leave that aside for a moment.
As far as the National Ties argument goes, I really don't think it works. Yes, Biblica may be a US organisation, but their mission has always been to spread the Bible internationally and multilingually. Anyway, the article is not about Biblica, it's about the TNIV, which is intended for audiences worldwide and is internationalised into US and British English versions (maybe others too, I dont know?). So I don't see that WP:TIES can be convincing for this article.
The MOS specifically states that "Special rules apply to citations", and the relevant guidelines are found at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_style. Now this is only a guideline, but this sort of issue has in the past been sufficiently contentious for them to cite an ArbCom ruling (2006) as follows:
Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. The arbitration committee ruled in 2006: "Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike."
On that basis, and having tried to consider all the factors involved, I can only see one recommendation open to me, namely, to keep the citation style as it was before the application of the template, with the exception that any references that were not in whatever was actually the predominant style at that time should be changed to be in accordance with that predominant style.
That's my conclusion from what has been set out in your discussion. I hope that is acceptable, although of course I remain open to further discussion if it is needed. What I would say is - there are probably better ways all three of us could be using our time to improve Wikipedia than having an extended debate about date formats. FrankP (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no template for using ISO-8601 dates, but fine, we can keep it at that. There is no way to apply that date using the current referencing tools though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks both. I have now converted the five anomalous dates to ISO style. Three were MDY, one was DMY and one had no day specified so was unclear. I checked the source date (1 Jan) and fixed that. I also found a dead link. I will see what I can do about that now. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You forced an incorrect date format on two works. I reverted those. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Christianity Today article is dated 1 January 2002.[2]. There was nothing wrong with the date I applied. The Christian Century article appears in the issue for the week of 13-20 February, so I assumed it was published on the 13. I have checked and the web page citation is, in fact, in error. That issue was published on 12 February 2002. I will put it back with the correct date. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. CT is a monthly, but they have to post on a specific date. You're assuming a correct date, but then again that's how we go here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So the purpose of a date in a citation (along with everything else in the citation) is to allow someone to find the cited article and use it to verify the claim being made and read what it has to say on the subject. If Christianity Today put 1 January on their article and we say it is in the 1 January article, then this allows someone to find the article regardless of whether someone actually pushed the button to publish the piece (no doubt written weeks or months before) on 31 December, 1 January or the next working day after 1 January. It is like everything else. We go with what the source says. The source says 1 January. Happy New Year btw :) -- Sirfurboy (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is only one reason for including a date for a reference. Once it's linked, there are several tools that begin to archive content.
If Christianity Today published the piece, it was ready for shelves in mid-December and would have appeared before the web content. It's like everything else I've experienced with you to-date: you changed the content to suit your opinion. And for the record, the article claims it was posted to the web on January 1, not 1 January. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record allowing ISO-8601 is a compromise. If someone wants to come along and apply a standard date format, I will support MDY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The InternetArchiveBot and similar look at the URL primarily. They can also make use of accessdate, but don't require anything from date. As regards the CT date, if there is another published "published date" in the source, I am more than happy to use that. I changed the content to match the date in the source. My opinion on the date is clearly irrelevant. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“Confessional terms are such as …”[edit]

I’ve removed the following line from the section on gender-neutral language, as it seemed ungrammatical and I couldn’t parse any meaning:

Confessional terms for this kind of language are such as gender-inclusive.

Was this a remnant of some past half-completed edit? If not, could someone rewrite it to make the meaning more clear, or at least explain it here? Thanks. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what it means. Thanks for removing it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Today%27s_New_International_Version&oldid=1210731142"