Talk:English Standard Version/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

To Do List

I've added a To Do List for this article, it's on the top, but I'll post it here. Please keep track of things on that list so we can be coordinated and efficient in our work.


That's really nice of you. Thanks. BTW, since ESV's Translation Philosophy and History are first up. Perhaps these should incorporate little hints of things to come like "Colorada Springs Guidelines 1997", criticisms from scholars like Dr. Ben Witherington (?) (who allegedly recanted) etc. etc. so that the average reader would want to know more. RobertRosen (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually Translation Philosophy + History, simply won't be enough. What this page needs instead (working to be A class) is a) lede ("what is RSV") b) Background (ie. "why the RSV") [1], c) Translation methodology ("how") [2] d) Timeline ("when"/"where"/"who"). (Oh, I just thought I ought to disclose something which occured to me a few hours back - although I'm not a Christian or from any Abrahamic religion, I did go to a Catholic/Jesuit run school for about 10 years, but the priests were fairly careful not to directly expose the non-Christian kids to the Bible. So if either of you have CoI issues with this, I can recuse) RobertRosen (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with it. Feel free to add those things to the ToDo list, there is a link to edit it on the box and the formatting is just a numbered list. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
OK. I'll wait and see if Bas also has no problem with it. I'm not a participant in this exercise. I'm just here to give my tiny neutral opinions and suggestions for the both of you to implement. Anyway, reading up about the various Bibles is fascinating. The only exposure to the Bible I had was in the early '70s when a group of guitar strumming US hippies called the Children of God came to our school and handed out lots of colorful Bible comics saying the world was going to end in the year 1975 and we should get rid of all our worldly goods because God's spaceship/lifeboat didn't have enough space for material things. RobertRosen (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
No problems here, I would recommend keeping the ESV history a bit on the generic side. Blogs and personal websites tell different versions and there is not a lot of good sources.
Mostly I think removing the "use" section has cut out a lot of fluff. I think if a lot of current wording was condensed, that would help even more. There is also commentary about "liberal" RSV renderings and that is not correct. Often when translating comes from the Hebrew instead of the Gk LXX, Calvinists and Evangelicals pull out the "liberal" line. When in reality, its source is simply the Hebrew manuscripts. Good scholarly sources would show an explanation about Hebrew vs. Gk, not start calling things "liberal." Basileias (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Liberal is a technical term, and if the sources that are provided use that terminology then the article should as well. ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Blogs and personal sites use that term, rarely if ever a scholarly resource. If you believe the RSV is liberal, if I still prayed, I would pray you never become a theologian, seriously. Basileias (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
That is simply ridiculous, not to mention quite uncivil. A simple search for "liberal" and "RSV" on Google Books gives results like the following:
StAnselm (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Crossway states,
  • The RSV is a good translation (some have called it the finest translation of the 20th century), so the translators would not have to revise large swaths of it.
  • The RSV has wide scholarly acceptance.
  • Many prominent Christian leaders were trained on the RSV.
(http://www.crossway.org/blog/2006/02/origin-of-the-esv/)
So for Isa 7:14, if they translation "virgin" from the Gk that is conservative? lol!!! But if it comes from the Hebrew its liberal? lol!! Also, you may want to re-read that part from Blomberg. He stated "where liberal bias had been perceived." He never states it HAS liberal bias. This is what happens when you start with a view and then try and climb through sources to support that view. Also, outside of Southern Baptist circles Kostenberger is known as a pretty dim bulb. I am talkin 5 watts and below. He also contradicts what Crossway has stated (See Crossway blog post above), but that nothing new for Kostenberger . Basileias (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I was mainly responding to your uncivil comments directed at ReformedArsenal. He is perfectly entitled to believe the RSV is liberal - many people do. As for the article, I believe we should mention that the RSV has been perceived to be liberal, and that this is part of the background of the ESV. StAnselm (talk) 08:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@ User:StAnselm, This is a dispute between 2 editors seeking a 3rd opinion. There is also a previously expressed grievance by one of the editors involved about "tag teaming" by you and User:ReformedArsenal. WP:3 only works when there are 2 editors involved. To everyone else, I'll say this only once, this is an encyclopedic article about the ESV and not about the contents of the ESV. WP:AGF, WP:NPA RobertRosen (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This is way out of line, and I think you misunderstand your role as a third opinion. I've been editing this article and posting on the talk page for quite a while, and I am also interested in seeing the article improve. I was neutral about the tag, and didn't participate in that discussion, but this is not just about the presence of the tag. The liberal nature or otherwise of the RSV is highly relevant to discussion and description of the ESV. StAnselm (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of line? like blocking me from editing, reverting me three times and then accusing me of edit waring and then tag teaming me. Earlier you misconstrued what Blomberg was saying. Good sources and specifics please, not vague generality's. You have a couple sources using the term liberal, but it somewhat contradicts what the official Crossway line is. Others do not see the RSV as liberal. Neither did Crossway and they thought so much of it they updated it and that became the ESV. Basileias (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
You keep on throwing around the false accusation of tag-teaming, and there is absolutely no evidence to support it. You were edit warring, and I your reverted your edits. But I was finished reverting before User:ReformedArsenal and you had the dispute about the third party tag. He made no edits pertaining to the "essentially literal" clause. The fact that we agreed on the talk page does not constitute tag teaming. Tag teaming is considered to be a form of meatpuppetry - as such, it is a serious accusation requiring serious evidence. Yet you have consistently repeated the accusation. Please desist. StAnselm (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@Reformed Arsenal. That's some very nice work you've done there. I still have some problems with the referencing though. For eg. "Crossway 2012". Is this the ESV itself ? In which case it references itself on some controversial points. There's a glaring lack of page numbers in cites. Also, "Crossway Staff", this resolves to an corporate SPS blogpost - the description is misleading and the ref may not be usable on a controversial issue. Lets see if we can work around this. RobertRosen (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@StAnselm. I've seen through almost all the SPS pufferies, outright evasions, half-truths and similarly "weasel word" deceptions which fill the article page. At the present time I prefer not to give my final opinion (which BTW is not limited to the initial issue contained in the WP:3 request) till the regular editors take remedial steps on their own (including with my frank and often disagreeably blunt inputs). I appreciate your constant wish to actually participate in improving this bloated article. As a long term editor for such pages you are far better suited than me to improve its contents. As a 3rd Opinionator (!) I'm certainly not the one stopping you from doing what you wish to do (and especially as the valiant ReformedArsenal now seems to be exhausted from his excellent Herculean labour).
PS: the 2 warring editors have agreed that they have no issues with my neutrality. As a 3rd editor (independent of them) if you feel I am the 12th man here I can deliver my bouncer and send this article back to the pavilion. RobertRosen (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


Ok... first of all, Bas... can we agree that if the sources that are provided use the term liberal, that the term liberal belongs in the article? Second of all, the "Crossway Staff" author tag is the listed author of the blog post. Thirdly, I understand that "crossway" is bad tag, when I get a change I'll go back and try to clear up which citations belong where and make them more clear. As far as the lack of page number, all I did was convert the existing references, I did not remove any page numbers that were present. And Bas, as far as your "If you believe the RSV is liberal, if I still prayed, I would pray you never become a theologian, seriously." statement... my oppinion of the RSV is absolutely irrelevant... as is yours. We are here to REPORT what others have said. Your posturing and chest pounding is absolutely unimpressive, nor is your ad hominem stance and statements. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

My point is a view get put out, it gets challenged, then people climb through for sources keep that view in the article.
To your question, to spray the RSV as "liberal," just to be liberal, will not work for me. So yes, I think liberal can be mentioned, however it should not be a huge theme. StAnselm provided a good source with the Blomberg quote. This article is about the ESV and sources will contradict about the RSV. StAnselm already has sources that contradict each other. Blomberg says "perceived," the others are more direct. RobertRosen my be a good one for thoughts on what to pull out of these sources. Back in the day, Wayne Grudem loved the RSV, so it could not have been that liberal...lol.
To your other question, I am fine with Crossway as a source for neutral information that scholarly references would not ever mess with. "Crossway staff" for me, is fine. So please keep going forward. Basileias (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
@RA, I have great faith (and hope) in you. Please WP:NPA. RobertRosen (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I was having fun needling him a litte, my fault. Basileias (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Moving towards closure on this article's neutrality dispute tag.

Since it seems that nobody is up to to contribute anymore, this article needs a WP:BOLD approach by an outsider to trim the "cruft", and so that the regular editors can properly re-build the article together. Will do so shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertRosen (talk • contribs) 06:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, have cleaned up much of the POV stuff and removed the tag. Have left in some SPS bits in "Deuterocanonicals/Biblical apocrypha". Henceforth add only clean text with (preferably neutral) refs. (If all of you are unhappy then I am happy). RobertRosen (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I am still unsure if I am allowed to contribute, but not by you. A lot of the fat is now gone. Thanks for your work. Basileias (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I also want to thank ReformedArsenal for the great work he put in for trimming over 10,000 bytes and his referencing. This allowed me to see exactly where the problem areas in the page were. RobertRosen (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Just so I'm clear, you deleted the reference by Grudem saying that some are opposed to dynamic equivalence because it is in conflict with Verbal Plenary because it didn't have a page... right? ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The article is about the ESV, not Grudem's personal views, however they would be appropriate in other articles. Basileias (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

@Reformed Arsenal. Since many of this article's sources/refs. do not seem to be accessible online, outside editors expect that editors who add material will follow WP norms and cite the claim properly. The poor referencing had allowed a lot of OR to be bunged in. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the page as long as at least 2 principles - WP:V, WP;NOR are strictly followed. FYI, I have no idea why I deleted the Grudem bits. This article was bloatware - I've tried to give both of you ;-) a clear field to play on again. I'm closing this WP:3 now. If things get out of hand again leave a message on my talk. RobertRosen (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

So you just deleted things arbitrarily? That seems incredibly irresponsible... ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
An incredible display of another problem I have had with you and the other editor, you do not seem to comprehend. He clearly stated (i am paraphrasing a bit), material was removed due to no, poor, unverifiable or unqualified sources. Rosen has been very patient with everyone. If you are unsatisfied with the results of this, you should have worked with me. I would not have taken a guillotine to the article, however RobertRosen was well within wiki policy to do so. Basileias (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
So somehow you seem to think that even though he himself said "FYI, I have no idea why I deleted the Grudem bits." That I should have magically understood? I'm just trying to get clarification as to what the problem was with the source so I know what the next step should be. If the problem is "there is no page number" then my solution is to go to the library, get the book, and find a page number... if the problem is "You can't use a Crossway source in this article" then my solution is a different course of action all together. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
User:RobertRosen is well within his rights to delete material per WP:BRD - if you don't like a particular deletion, revert it, and then we can discuss it here. I suspect a lot of the material can be restored - when I have time, I will go through the revision history and see what I can do. But you will probably be able to do it first, ReformedArsenal. StAnselm (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I think Rosens one blooper can be forgiven. Moving on I would like to see sources everyone can verify, balanced, neutral and follow wiki guild-lines. Basileias (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrt "Grudem 2005". The book (Translating Truth) would not be a reliable source to make an argument about translation styles for the ESV. Firstly, it seems to be a collection of essays by the people who translated the ESV (this means no peer reviews or other editorial safeguards). Secondly as per the book it "advocates essentially literal Bible translation". Thirdly it is published by Crossway. Fourthly the line of argument that the guilloting editor is obliged to go a library, locate & read the entire book because the pages/para are not specified in the cite, is a crock - and more than sufficient grounds for any editor to excise such poorly cited material immediately. Fifthly, it seems Mr. Grudem is a crank (?) who at page 54 in that book seems to be making out a case that "God gave us a Bible which is a secret and hidden wisdom of God that non-Christians will not simply not understand and even Christians will only understand after repeated study, reflection, and meditation". That coupled with the fact that the book is titled "Translating Truth" makes a very poor case for it as an unbiased RS to be included in an enyclopedia. I'm also seeing online that most readers of the book (not Grudem's chapter alone) think the book makes a case for "literal" (word for word) translation rather than "Dynamic Equivalence" (sense for sense) translation. So if you use Grudem as a ref, use it wisely. RobertRosen (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all... I didn't say that YOU needed to go to the library... read more carefully. What I said is that if that is the reason why you cut it (which would be a valid reason) that I would need to go to the library and find it. Second of all, it is a collection of essays by the people who translated the ESV, however that does NOT mean that there are no peer reviews or other editorial safeguards. However, regardless of that, the authors of this book are well respected and credentialed individuals. You are going to have to PROOVE bias if you want to discredit them, otherwise they fit every definition of WP:RS that there is. Third, Wayne Grudem is not "a crank." He holds a PhD from the University of Cambridge, was a former president of the Evangelical Theological Society, and has published over 20 books, including one of the more widely used Systematic Theologies that there is. Collins has a PhD from Liverpool, Poythress has a PhD from harvard, and a ThD from Stellenbosch, and Ryken has a PhD from the University of Oregon. You are going to have to work pretty hard proving that they are disreputable sources who have fallen into some kind of marketing ploy with their writing. Finally, you don't seem to understand the content when you argue that the book making an argument for a literal translation rather than a Dynamic Equivalence is somehow problematic... since the ESV is not a Dynamic Equivalence translation. The ESV is a Formal Equivalence, which is a technical way of saying "Word for Word." ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Go ahead and edit the page. Just be careful that there's no Original Research and you use high quality sources. Crossway sources are deprecated for this article but not prohibited. RobertRosen (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi RA. Just for my knowledge, can you explain (in simple baby steps) what you did on the 6-7% and 20% edit. (NB: It seems to me you're comparing apples and oranges)). As I understood it, if we compared the RSV "word for word" with the ESV we would find a 6-7% "difference" (differences being of many kinds, # of words, words themselves, rearrangement of words etc."). I don't get the 20%. BTW whats the RS for this 6-7% claim ? It seems to me that you're trying to "hang" the 20% ref within the statement to fool a casual editor on the 6-7%'s claims lack of refs. RobertRosen (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't do anything, that was there when I got here. What it is saying is that there is a 6-7% difference (I'm assuming that 6-7% of the words are different, there are ways that this is calculated but I don't know exactly what they are). It is simply giving a point of reference to say that 20% of the whole content of the Bible is the NT, and using that to show by comparison how much has been changed. This is the same thing as when someone says "England is X square miles, that is the same size as Iowa." All it does is give a familiar point of reference. You need to look at the edit history more carefully before you throw out accusations about the intent of someone... especially when that person is not even the person who made the claim in the first place. This is the second time that you have flat out accused me of underhanded behavior with absolutely no basis in reality. ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Well if this article states that the ESV is derived from the RSV and it further states that there is a 7% difference between the 2,then that necessarily would mean that the ESV is within a 93% and 107% band of the RSV's content (end of story). A Hottentot wouldn't know England from Iowa. A Hindu wouldn't know the New Testament from the Quran. If you can't find a RS for the 7% claim, out it goes, but we'll leave the 20% bit in since its referenced (actually even the 20% claim is not referenced but is OR). RobertRosen (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The 6-7% number seems to come from the Strauss citation (which is currently commented out, I will validate the link tonight. The 20% reference is basic arithmetic... I was unaware that simple math problems needed to have sources to avoid WP:OR. If you want, I'm sure I can dig up a math book that says that 220 is about 1/5th of 844... ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Unless there is another view, I think the Strauss citation would be fine as long as there is not a dissenting source. If I do not see something appear I will look for a couple sources tonight maybe. Hope I have your permission to go back editing...lol <kidding!> Basileias (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
You chaps are doing excellently !!! Now I'm going to ask Bas to clean up the "Deuterocanonicals/Biblical apocrypha" section with RA to monitor him, mainly because Bas hasn't being pulling his weight so far like RA has. Bas, please always remember to keep discussing it with RA and St.A. I'm sorry I may not be able to have much time here for the next 48 hrs, so please don't do anything naughty while I'm away - scouts honor and all that. And once we're through with Deutero... lets start seriously ADDING material to this page again. RobertRosen (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I am back in the saddle? Woohoo. Give me a day or so. Basileias (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Revision language

ReformedArsenal, I had place my edit back over yours. It was not to be disagreeable in a personal sense, but the sources says "the ESV is a moderate revision." Somehow the wording "translated differently" seems to be going past the intent of the source. There would need to be a source for this but I think you will find most change was to bring the language, at least parts, out of the 1950s. That needs a source though and I read that somewhere a long time ago. Basileias (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I did some work, enough I cannot be put in slacker status anymore. I am going to leave what I did set for a few hours because I want to make sure nobody needs to run for the Pepto. We all had to do that on election day, and more than once a month is enough. Basileias (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

@Basileias. You are not back in the saddle. You are back in harness. And RA is riding shotgun over you. RobertRosen (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
@RA. perhaps the lead-rewrite tag can be added when the actual content of the article is well defined and fleshed out. Just a suggestion. RobertRosen (talk) 05:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Have not forgot about this article, however I am finding and remembering from past editing here that sources are a problem for this article. Taking a nod from WP:GNG, this work would by very little pass the notability guidelines and from some editor standpoints could fall to what Wikipedia is not. There is not significant coverage that is third party, independent and has editorial oversight. However I have no plans to propose for deletion. I think there is enough sources to get it over the notability hump, barely. Basileias (talk) 04:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Just for information, User:RobertRosen is currently blocked indefinitely, so may not be able to contribute further to this page. StAnselm (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Something about that is really funny... I had a feeling about that guy. Either way, he got us working together instead of working against each other, so I can't complain too much. Any idea what got him blocked? ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a dispute over a political figure in India. I have a feeling it will get worked out and he will be back. It is on his talk page. Next step or take a break? Basileias (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
@RA "I'm" back. What you didn't know was that I'm an Admin over at a competing (and therefore much better) WikiWiki project. What you also didn't know was that I have personally edited tons of pages on heavily disputed religious subjects (I actually descend to wikipedia to take a break). I think each of you 3 are doing excellent work on your own (in everything you do) so don't sweat over articles like this one. RosenRobert (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
You have been reported for evading your block, so you are not back for long. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding stuff back

I've just seen a feedback post on this article: "This doesn't tell what the basis for the translation is. Thought for thought? word for word? sentence for sentence?" That's a pretty glaring omission - we really need to add some of the deleted material back into the article. StAnselm (talk) 07:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You are duplicating material in the intro and translation philosophy sections. I do not recall consensus on some of the martial that has been added back like you claimed in the edit notes. The use section was originally deleted because it was an advertisement, but the pruning is much better. Basileias (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The lead is going to get rewritten to reflect the body anyway, so we'll just have to make sure we don't have the redundancy when we do that. Also, I don't recall claiming consensus. Someone asked for the information, I put it back. I made it clear that the opinion given regarding inspiration was someone directly connected to the text, so the bias is disclosed. When discussing the translation philosophy, a person who helped develop that philosophy is an absolutely credible source. ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
In one of StAnselm edits note, he made a comment about consensus, it was not you I was meaning.
Translation philosophy? what philosophy are we referring to? Thanks. Basileias (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry - I shouldn't have used the word consensus - what I meant was the last consensus version of the article, from the 5th November. I thought it should be restored because we needed something there, even if it wasn't the best wording. (I did reword it a bit - "translators' stated purpose" means that it is indisputable.) For my part, I think we should refer to the Which Bible Translation Should I Use? book mentioned above to state that the ESV does, in fact, follow an "essentially literal" translation philosophy. StAnselm (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
There is not many sources so I am fine with it at this time. However it is not a reliable third party source, but this Bible work is so intramural that it is going to be hard to come by anything in the mainstream as I have looked more into this. Basileias (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
1st party does not equal unreliable. As I said, I made it clear that this is a source that is related to the original translators, and that it is their stated purpose and opinions. Who better to give us their opinions than they themselves. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I never stated 1st party equals unreliable, but it a lot of cases its not allowed or frowned on by wiki policy for obvious reasons. You have not listened to this since the beginning. You both are putting the article back into its problem state. Just because the third party perspective, which you called for RobertRosen was suspended, does not mean you get to undo the direction he set, which was in-line with wiki policy for sourcing. It does not matter now because it looks like you have attracted the attention of other experienced editors who like Robert, are just going to delete things that are not properly sourced. Basileias (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
You can't just say "it's unreliable because it's published by Crossway." The Crossway resources in this article serve to establish what Crossway's perspective is. There is no conflict of interest if the sources are declared to be related to the content, and if they are being used appropriately.
Again, another one of your many problems. I have never stated anything close to "it's unreliable because it's published by Crossway". It is about that the wiki rules are for sourcing. Basileias (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read things a little more carefully. According to WP:SELFSOURCE

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Crossway clearly fits the description of this kind of source, which is EXPLICITLY allowed. If you think it should be excluded based on one of those five reasons, make your case. Until then, stop complaining about it, Crossway is completely WP:RS the way it's being used in this article. ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
More than enough times you have accused me of stating and saying things I have not said or meant. More for an example and for other readers since your most recent accusation. "You can't just say "it's unreliable because it's published by Crossway."" You go right ahead and do your own interpretations. I am not the only other editor you will continue to have problems with. I think at this point further dialog with you just is not going to work. Basileias (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Does Crossway fit the description from WP:SELFSOURCE or not? The way I read it, it absolutely can be used in this article. I've tried to reason with you, I've tried to work with you, and all I've gotten is "You can't use crossway, they publish the ESV" with no real explanation as to why that makes them not WP:RS, and now that I've pointed out that WP:RS explicitly says that a first party source is legit when the article is about itself, you pull this immature move. Good game Bas... ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section was added back by an IP "per consensus" here. I reverted this as trolling, partially on the basis of the IP's talk page comment, which I removed. The same IP has added back the criticism section here, with the edit summary "Put material back per last consensus". Now, does anyone feel the section should remain, given its reliance on self-published sources? StAnselm (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I think a criticism section is appropriate, and I'm not sure that Strauss' essay is self published. Ostensibly it was published by Bethel Seminary in San Diego, and the Seminary would have had other professors read it and sign off on it before they put their name on it. The Mounce source is a little tricky, because it is a blog, but it is a blog that he writes as an employed author at Zondervan. I tend to think this is WP:RS even if it is a blog. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I templated that IP. I dislike criticism sections, really dislike. They usually invite and cause trouble. However most of the sources are nothing even close to self-published yahoos. Mounce is a noted expert. The problems with the section is WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:SYN and most of all WP:TLDR. I think it can be trimmed down to a few sentences. Basileias (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section condensed

I trimmed the section down to "just the facts." I removed the information sourced to Wayne Leman. It looks self published but googling reveals he is a translation expert of some note to tribes of first nations. If someone restores it I probably will not fight it. I do believe it qualifies as self published and not sure what new it adds. I did do a bit of WP:OR with the Strauss claim and added "original ESV." The ESV has since gone through wording updates and his criticisms may not even apply anymore. I would not read too much into the Strauss criticism because I think it then moves into WP:UNDUE. Basileias (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Use

The Use section needs a lot of work. Right now it's basically just a collection of statements by publishers saying what they use the text for. We should try to find some 3rd party sources for that section, or trim it down to a list style that has something like


The following Bibles use the ESV as their text

  1. Bible 1
  1. Bible 2
  1. Bible 3


With full citation notes for each of them. ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly reliably sourced. A number of notable study Bibles use the ESV - that certainly strikes me as worthy of inclusion in here, along with any official denominational adoptions, etc. But that the moment we are just listing these study Bibles, and I don't think we need to do any more than that. StAnselm (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Setting Up better Archiving

When I set up the Archive, I did it wrong, hopefully this will fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs) 02:22, 11 December 2012‎ (UTC)

Recent edits and origin of the ESV

Recent edits about the origin of the ESV are called a second hand tale by Crossway. This has been thoroughly beat to death on this talk page. Please review if you have questions. (http://www.crossway.org/blog/2006/02/origin-of-the-esv/). Basileias (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi-

I'm aware that Crossway disputes these accounts: I cited the blog post you link on this subject in my edit. However, just because Crossway denies these reports does not mean that they aren't true. One of the authors of the WORLD Magazine article was involved in the central events leading into and through the Colorado Springs Guidelines sessions, and has collected contemporaneous documentation that the idea of revising the RSV to create a competitor to (T)NIV on gender and Messianic proof-text translation issues was under discussion with the subsequent principals of the ESV at the time leading into and immediately after the issuance of the Guidelines.

Additionally, if you look at the ESV Translation Oversight Committee, you'll see that over half of them were signatories to the Colorado Springs Guidelines, and/or to the subsequent Statement of Concern about the TNIV Bible, objecting to these same elements of the TNIV translation. This includes General Editor J. I. Packer, Vern Poythress, Wayne Grudem, and others who have a long and abiding history of academic and other activity centered on promoting these issues in Biblical translation and elsewhere in the Church. You can see examples of this from the publications on their Wiki pages and/or academic homepages, such as this from Poythress, and the book The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God's Words (written by Grudem and Poythress, with a laudatory blurb by Packer on the front cover, which is centrally concerned with the use of gendered translation as it regards the revision of the NIV/NIVI/TNIV in particular (indeed, it was later reissued (revised/updated?) as The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy). You can also see eg. this interview with Packer (including embedded links to previous chunks thereof), and the close association of all three and other ESV principals with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

Put together with the internal evidence from the preface of the ESV itself, which (as mentioned in one of the sources I'd linked in my edit) dedicates a substantial chunk of text to these issues, I think that there is enough documentation and evidence supporting the account of the genesis of the ESV given by WORLD Magazine, Witherington, and others, to merit having their version presented, alongside Crossway's own. Mikalra (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that you have people like Grudem, Packer, and Poythress saying the opposite... and that is a major BLP issue. ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
(Is that you again, Basileias?) First, I don't see that it's a BLP issue: this is not an article about any of these individuals specifically, but about the ESV. Second, even if it were, it seems to me that this would still meet the criteria for BLPs. They don't require that the individual in question not dispute any elements in the account -- just that it's properly sourced, etc.

Mikalra (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it was me. If we have one source saying "Person A said X" and Person a saying "I never said X" there is going to have to be some pretty amazing evidence for it to NOT be a BLP issue. ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, contemporaneous documentation collected by Bayly includes correspondence at the time with these same actors. And, again, there is the extensive circumstantial evidence of the players' involvement in the Colorado Springs Guidelines, the CBMW, and their own extensive writings on these various subjects, showing their strong preoccupation.Mikalra (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
We have been down this road before. None of sources are third party and neutral. Half are blogs. Basileias (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. None of them are neutral -- on either side. Half of them are blogs -- on either side. (Currently, in fact, the source on the history is Crossway's staff blog denying the alternative account). I don't see, again, that conflicting accounts means that one version of the events gets put in the Wiki entry and the other one gets no discussion at all.Mikalra (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The wiki sourcing policy is quite clear and it has been covered on the talk page. Self-published and questionable sources (blogs) can be used as sources of information on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Blog information is not allowed when it involves claims about other parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). Especially information that is not peer-reviewed. Sources should be based on reliable and third-party sources, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking, not heresy or opinion, especially when it could be wrong. That policy creates a stop to coatracking. Basileias (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Gideons

A reference to the Gideons using the ESV has been removed on the basis that it "does not add anything to the article". But it seems to me that it does - it shows the usage of the ESV, in a similar way to the mention of the study Bibles already in the article. I think the text should be reinstated. StAnselm (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Why cannot it go into the Gideons article? It says more about them and a self source would qualify there. The trouble in the past with the use section and this article is it becomes about ESV promotion. That does not serve a fact based article. Also, it comments the ESV New Testament will be updated for their use. In a way, it takes it out of being an ESV New Testament in a way. Agree or no? The mic is yours. Basileias (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Basileias and StAnselm! As for refs, it seems that WP:RS discourages using 1st party refs, which makes sense. However this is something I haven't seen anywhere else (except for this Gideon blogger - blogs are verboten as refs). So, when I added this the magazine was the best ref I could find for now. As for the the Use section becoming an ESV promo page, I can see it happening. Crossway (the publishers) are pretty good at this. I do plan to add a write up on Bible versions in the Gideon article. - Thanks, Hoshie 21:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I believe the Gideons article is a better place, with a "good" source. We generally do not chronicle in bible articles on every ounce of their use. It becomes promotion filled with peacock and puffery terms. That blog stated "The lady on the phone told me that the version of the ESV distributed by the Gideons is not the same as the ESV you’d find in a book store." There needs to be a more solid source. However, if and when this happens, having a modified ESV version in use and with a good source, may be notable in the ESV article. Basileias (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Basileias! I Agree with ya on both points. I think if we were to mention every group and organization that switches to the ESV, I think it could get crowded. BTW, I recently switched to the ESV. Do I get a mention? :-) - Thanks, Hoshie 23:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you have notable third party coverage? LoL. Basileias (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
If neither of you particularly want it in, I'm happy to drop it, until we get some significant coverage on the Gideons' switch, and/or revision. StAnselm (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I am either way. I just want to see a solid source that adheres to the guidelines. If fudging is allowed with church sites, personal websites, blogs, se
The original source cited is the official publication of the Gideons, and WP:ABOUTSELF clearly allows an organization's 1st party statements to be used as WP:RS when the statement is supporting a claim about that party. There is no reason why this source cannot be used. The only real question is if this constitutes using a self published source to comment on something outside of that organization. I would say no, because even though it is in the ESV article, the statement is substantiating a claim about the Gideons and their use of a particular publication. I don't have a particular dog in the fight, but this hardly represents fudging according to Wikipedia policy. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Crossway mentions Dead Sea Scrolls

I found the Dead Sea Scrolls missing from the Old testament on the ESV page, but not in the NRSV, and NIV pages.

http://www.crossway.org/bibles/esv/translation/manuscripts/

Says it on their homepage they use dead sea scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls are Jewish Hebrew Bible scrolls! The Jews are in Israel. I don't see how anyone is afraid of some Egyptian pyramids mentioned in the scrolls. The Mexican pyramids are even older then the either Dead Sea Scrolls or Egyptian pyramids.

renegadeviking

It said in their post they just "consulted," for exceptional and difficult cases. Basileias (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Readability

Crossway self-reported a FK grade level of 7.4, while the infobox says 8.0 according to Rose Publishing 2007.
Not sure if there's a clean way to state both numbers in the infobox, so I'll just leave the information here... --D昌양 (Talk) 05:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:English Standard Version/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aussie Article Writer (talk · contribs) 05:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


Initial review (not actually failed)

Note: before Aussie Article Writer was blocked, they posted the following two sections. Although the next section claims that the article was failed, it was not, in fact, failed, and the review was set to continue when the block occurred. A new reviewer will be needed to do the detailed review that Aussie Article Writer did not get around to conducting. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 1, 2021, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: There are structural issues in the article
2. Verifiable?: Pass Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: I am not convinced it covers everything
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass Pass
5. Stable?: Pass Pass
6. Images?: Pass Pass

My biggest criticism is in the structure. The lead section doesn’t summarise, it seems to cram a lot of what should be in the body into the lead.

I also think that much of “criticism” should be placed into the history section. I find “criticism” sections problematic, because really most of this is around the philosophical approach to the translation by the translators. There also seems to be an overly unbalanced take on gendered language (this is my opinion).

I am also curious if there are not more articles in religious and theological journals about the ESV.

I have therefore not done my more detailed GA review as we need to deal with structural issues first.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

I will look at this shortly, but I’m afraid this article has some major issues. I’m not sure a GA review will fix them. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Aussie Article Writer, thank you so much for helping review this article. I really appreciate it. I have been its primary editor over the past year. It's open to critique! VistaSunset (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I’m sure it can be fixed eventually, I’m asking a friend help me review this article. The ESV went through enormous review, and the gender-neutral language issue seems to take up a disproportionate amount of the article. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Aussie Article Writer, just letting you know that I have now finished my work on a major restructuring of the entire article (whew!). The lead section is now concise and the "Criticism" section has been merged with the "History" section. The article also features a little bit of new content, along with new citations. I guess it's just difficult to avoid talking about the gender-neutral language debate too much, as the ESV has been somewhat central to it. I have also done my own comb through Google Scholar, and I couldn't find any other applicable and/or tidy scholarly sources. The article should be ready for review again. I think that the status of this page is still currently "In review", according to the GA page? Please let me know if you have any further feedback or comments, or if there is anything I can help with. VistaSunset (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Speaking of new citations, these include a couple of quality comments from Tim Challies surrounding the ESV. VistaSunset (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh wow, that's looking a heck of a lot better! I will have another look, soonish. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

New reviewer needed

I've changed the status of this nomination to "second opinion" in the hopes that a new reviewer can be found that way, since Aussie Article Writer has been blocked and cannot continue this review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheers BlueMoonset, much appreciated. VistaSunset (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Starts GA 2nd Opinion

Hope to get to this shortly. Thank you --Whiteguru (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

 

Observations

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  • Infobox is has a number of useful elements. Inclusion of reading level is a plus. I am nonplussed with the link to UBS. May we have an explanation?
  • Lede is strong and robust and captures the essence of Crossways in producing this version.
  • Right after <ref>15</ref> there is the mention of Grudem. This is a bit abrupt as a reader does not know who Grudem is?
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • Does there need to be a section on Translation Oversight Committee ?? Consider
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  • Strauss certainly hit the translation crew with a trout. Mounce's reply is excellent and is a very good/totally relevant citation inclusion (as it explains translation philosophies).
  • Mounce describes various points regarding his view of the need for both formal and functional translations. is a concise summary.
  • Post-publication → would 'Reception' be a better heading?
  • 'the best of the best' of the KJV tradition." [citation needed]
  • Inclusion of Reference 30 is excellent.
  1. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  • Interesting list of editors there, a couple of clerks in there as well!!! VistaSunset, you have certainly done the hard yards.
  • 326 editors, 99 page watchers, top editor is VistaSunset with 281 edits. Average of 312 page views per day.
  1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  • The photo is described as a geometric shape, this is not true.It's a photo of a book. I need to look at the policy on taking photos of books and using them in articles. I have run into an issue with this before as a GA Reviewer; If I recall aright, the photographer has to declare the purpose of the photograph, and then release it with a CC-by-SA creative commons licence.
  • OK, I found what I was looking for. See below.
  • Would it not be better to grab an image from Crossway and use the standard non-free declaration?
  • {{Non-free book cover|image has rationale=yes|category=Religious book cover images}}
  • And list the image in [[Category:Religious book cover images]]
  1. Overall:
  • This article is well scribed, and as discretion is the better part of valour, leaving the bulk of debate on gender-neutral language to the earlier confabulation by the Greek translators is a good decision.
  • I have raised some issues above, open to discussion there.
  • We need to resolve the book photo issue.
  • When we resolve these minor issues, this will be a Good Article. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


Whiteguru, thanks very much for your help! I have now resolved the main points that you brought up. I'll jump through them all quickly:

  1. I feel that UBS in the infobox shouldn't need an Efn (I personally think that doing so would be odd, as that should be the purpose of the wikilink), so I haven't made any changes here. The UBS article explains that Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft is a member of UBS. It's a little tricky this one, but I feel that this is fine to leave.Green tickY
  2. I have tweaked the wording surrounding Grudem near ref 15 to be less abrupt. It's better now! Green tickY
  3. The Translation Oversight Committee section is relevant to briefly detail the major contributors that worked on the project. There was a small disagreement a while back surrounding how this should be rendered. I'm satisfied with how this section stands. Green tickY
  4. I would personally prefer to keep the sub-heading "Post-publication", as this ties nicely with the "Pre-publication" sub-heading. I feel that "Reception" wouldn't work as well. Green tickY
  5. Quoting Grudem saying "'the best of the best' of the KJV tradition" belongs to an immediately prior citation (minus an Efn). I think that adding it again would be an unnecessary duplicate? My sense is that this is a quote, and you need to cite. Just put the previous citation in straight after it, duplication and all, yea.
  6. I have now added an appropriate Non-free image to the infobox, including an accompanying caption. Green tickY

Please let me know if you have any further comments. Thanks again for your help! VistaSunset (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

...also! Just out of curiosity, what reference was reference 30 specifically? I can't see the one (via numbering) I think you're referring to in either Read or Edit. VistaSunset (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC) It was the list of changes given out by Crossway; it is a signal inclusion - and gives evidence - to understanding transitivity and reading of the bible. There will never be a static reception of The Bible. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 

 Passed

 

Post-GA, I have tidied the citations to adhere to MOS:REFPUNCT and avoid citation overkill. VistaSunset (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

This article recently had the "Primary source" tag removed. Primary sources are classified as original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved, etc, etc. What was added for sources after that tag was removed was a definite "primary source" and questionable secondary sources.

waynegrudem.com – The translations editor and lead. Without a doubt! A primary source.

bible-researcher.com is a self-published website that based on views expressed, is dancing around the edges of a primary source. It's also self-published and no established study in biblical languages or language translation experience.

baptistbulletin.org – While a secondary source, questionable as a reliable secondary source.

www.apbrown2.net – A personal website with no established study in biblical languages. This is far removed from being established as a reliable secondary source.

Views like "Accuracy improved," "Commendation," claims of "liberal influences," "essentially literal, the meaning of each Greek Hebrew word faithfully represented…" are all within a definite opinion category. These views require better sources. Basileias (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

From a reader: So, I came to this article to -- you know -- learn why in the heck anyone needed a new translation and why this particular translation seems to be orthodoxy among evangelicals and the American religious right. Gender inclusive language is a bizarre reason, when the New English Bible had been published and had been extremely thoroughly scholarly researched. (It was a real translation and not "based on" another translation.) I have run into places where ESV users trumpet particular verses where the wording is KJV (particularly the passage in Romans condemning homosexuals), where other modern translations (i.e. people who go back, choose best possible source documents, work through them) either recognize that the koine word was not the one used for homosexuals or broaden the word to licentious behavior. I wanted to know why. I never found an occasion where ESV seemed more accurate or more poetic (or more literal, for that matter), but it surely seems in perfect alignment with current American cultural struggles. I wanted to know why.
Why this "translation based on RSV" (that sentence doesn't make sense; one doesn't do a translation based on another translation; such an effort is called a paraphrase)? Why the adoption by the more politically active protestant churches? Unfortunately, this article simply tells me that it is a holy, perfect, literal document full of happiness and joy. Yeah, I'd say the accounts are primaries. Hithladaeus (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Primary Source Question: Does this mean we cannot use explantory information from the preface or the introduction of the book? We need to find someone who read the preface and introduction then mentioned it a published article? Is that correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auctoris (talk • contribs) 21:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources

I think we need to start compiling a list of scholarly sources for the ESV:

It might also be worthwhile looking at:

- Aussie Article Writer (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:English_Standard_Version/Archive_2&oldid=1171277580"