Talk:Bible translations into Chinese

Catholic/Non-Protestant-specific Bibles

Here is a website with some information on pre-Protestant bible work in china: http://www.inst.at/trans/16Nr/09_4/dong-sheng16.htm --ElCuervitoAzul (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason why this page (Chinese Bible Translations) contains no information on Catholic/Non-Protestant-specific Chinese Bibles? Thank you --131.238.108.230 21:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Do you have any info that could be added? The history does detail some early attempts by the Jesuits in translation. But since publishing the Scriptures in Chinese was not a high priority, the main bulk of the history falls into the Protestant realm. The main article Bible translations seems to indicate that there were some translations eventually published in the middle of the twentieth century by the Roman church.Brian0324 17:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jean Basset (1662-1707) and Joachim Enjobert de Martiliat (1706-1755), French missionaries of the Société des Missions Ėtrangères de Paris, translated but did not publish parts of the New Testament. Robert Morrison drew upon their manuscripts in their translation.Entenman 20:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Koryuji Buddhist Temple(広隆寺) in Kyoto has a copy of the Gospel of Matthew in Chinese that dates to the ninth century. I've seen references to other Chinese manuscripts of the Bible, or portions thereof, from the First millennium, in Shinto Shrines in Japan.jonathon (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you find references (books, authoritative websites, etc.) for these? Then they can be added as sourced information to the article. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Page Move

"Translations" is not a proper noun, so I believe it should be moved according to Wikipedia naming conventions. If no one objects, I will move it soon.--Danaman5 17:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Where will you move it to? I do not understand why "Translations" is not a proper noun. Awb49 12:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

NET Chinese

It's a little unclear from their website, are the NET Bible folks translating a Chinese Version?--Alfredie (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Titles

This article needs to conform to one style regarding titles. We have Dr., Rev., Rev. Dr., etc... What are the criteria used to apply titles?--Scotchorama (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hakka

I have read a New Testament translation into Hakka published by the Bible Society in Taiwan in the 1990s [1]. – Kaihsu (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

This article offers a lot of informations but I think that they can be better presented. I plann to work on this article in next few days so if anybody interested for cooperation send a message on my user page. --Vojvodaeist 13:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Translations by Chinese native speakers?

The article really needs information on translation efforts by native speakers of Chinese. Currently only efforts by Westerners are described (except for the one Russian priest mentioned in passing). When and where did native Chinese Christian translation efforts start? Which versions come from native speakers? etc. -- 77.187.136.231 (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Mandarin reference bible and Robert Morrison's Xin Yi Zhao Shu

http://books.google.com/books?id=oYhtAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=EHBSAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=oo_rkKKKKvIC&pg=PA19&dq=xin+yi+zhao+shu&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PEbSUMnLF6GU0QHWpYHoCw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=xin%20yi%20zhao%20shu&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Vetus et Novum Testamentum: ¬The Pentateuch : in Chinese, Volume 1

http://books.google.com/books?id=KQo7AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

External links

The article WP:EL does indeed suggest that for External Links "one should generally avoid... Any site that does not provide a unique resource," but the second part of the sentence is "beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." I take this to mean that the External Links must deal with subjects which a fully developed article would cover, not that the links have to be unique resources.

Besides, this is a guideline, not policy, and "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."

Readers of the article are in need of as much help as they can get, and the links should be useful in improving the article.

Cheers in any case, ch (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL it is NOT our responsibility to save their souls by pointing them to 6 copies of the bible. "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The justification is that the links are to material that would be included if this became a featured article. Please do not bring up irrelevant considerations as to whether anyone's soul would be saved by including a link to a translation of the Bible. Nor are all the links to translations.

For comparison, King James Version#External links has 8 External Links.

The double negative in the guideline doesn't help, but it's still clear: We should avoid (not "never include") any site that "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." That is, we may include sites which do provide a unique resource within what the article would contain. Since every site is unique, that's not a problem.

I'm tempted to sign off with "God Bless You"! ch (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi RedPen -- I took the liberty of looking through your contributions and can see that you are an experienced and concerned editor, but please explain what policy now prevents adding a Wiki to External Links, why the others which were not Wikis were also deleted, and why a consensus is needed to add material when it otherwise meets stated criteria. I am genuinely puzzled. Cheers ch (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The WP:EL is clear. we do not link just to link. there are a gazzillion bible translations on the web. you need to provide a justification AND gain consensus for each link as to why we should be linking there. " it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." "Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter. When in doubt about the appropriateness of adding new links, make a suggestion on the article's talkpage and discuss with other editors." "A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable." and PARTICULARLY "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." four copies of links to translations are NOT unique resources.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

User:CWH, User:TheRedPenOfDoom I looked earlier at the edit history on this article when User:TheRedPenOfDoom blanked the umbrella Talk:Bible translations into the languages of China, which is inevitably about the 100s of minority languages spoken by the 5% rather than about Chinese. So I am colored by that to expect disruptive uninformed deletions from User:TheRedPenOfDoom and neutral to the other editor reverting such deletions. Trying to be objective however, User:TheRedPenOfDoom is right and wrong with this deletion, right that we do not link for the sake of it, but wrong to identify that in this case because he/she doesn't know the topic or the category. In fact we do link in these articles where there is an online version of the translation, just as we link to town's official homepages or singer's homepages. Provided the actual translation is notable (that it exists in paper, that it is sponsored by one of the main Bible Societies etc) then we can and do link to online versions within this category. Just as the Beowulf article has the following:

• Full digital facsimile of the manuscript on the British Library's Digitised Manuscripts website
• Beowulf manuscript in The British Library's Online Gallery
• Annotated List of Beowulf Translations: The List — Arizonal Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies

So I side with User:CWH in restoring TheRedPenOfDoom's deleted links. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Further revisions

There are many good features to this article already, especially its rich cast of characters, breadth, and images, but I suggest further revisions to eventually raise it to Good Article status.

I took the liberty of moving the consolidating the list of translations to the article List of Chinese Bible translations.

Further revisions include consolidating the one paragraph sections which deal with only a single translation; expanding covering of Catholic translations; expanding coverage of Chinese scholars who in earlier times were referred to anonymously as "helpers," or "assistants"; supplying notes and references; and tightening up. Please help or give advice! ch (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I have found the source from which much of the early page was copied: James Thomas, and Alexander Wylie, "The Bible in China: A Record of Various Translations of the Holy Scriptures," in Arnold Foster, Christian Progress in China: Gleanings from the Writings and Speeches of Many Workers (London: Religious Tract Society, 1889), 29-46. Google Books.

I will rewrite and give proper sourcing as I continue to revise. ch (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)