Talk:Gender-neutral Bible

Merge Discussion March 2013

This feels to me like a subtopic of the Bible translation article, not its own article. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Steven, Thanks for making the suggestion. I feel like this should remain a stand alone article. As you can see, the term is widely used and has been quoted by many notable organizations. Making Bible translations is becoming easier and easier due to a multitude of scholars and the inexpensive cost of printing. Bibles that niche to certain worldviews will become more common. I believe this will lead to a greater emphasis on the gender-neutral issue for Bibles. I would also state that I'm fairly well studied on the issue. For religious people, this is a very important topic. My hope is that others will expand the article. Since it was only recently created, I would like to give others more time to develop the page. I would not be opposed to information on this page being added to the site you suggested. That's my two cents, I look forward to what others have to say. Toverton28 (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Me, too. If this develops more, I'm happy to leave it in place, too. (Renamed to "Gender-neutral" per capitalization MOS, but I'm sure you don't have a problem with that.) Let's see what happens ... StevenJ81 (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources & POV

The cbmw.org is not a neutral source and is being used to add material to the article. This is more of an advocacy group and this article is being setup to only say what the advocacy groups say. Also tagging it as POV. Basileias (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Basileias, I believe you are simply misinformed about CBMW. They are a group of very notable theologians. Members include Wayne Grudem, Daniel Akin, C. J. Mahaney, Albert Mohler, and many more: http://cbmw.org/council-members-2/. They are a multi-denominational group that represents traditional Christian theology on gender. This is not simply an advocacy group, but a group that represents traditional evangelicalism. . . which is a significant part of Christianity in America.

I would also note that the quote was not to state their point of view, but rather to source the NIV comparison quotes. Please leave these materials up until others have a chance to speak to the issue. Again, the source is to show the NIV quotes are accurate. Toverton28 (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Cbmw.org and sbc.net are advocacy organizations. They are not third party neutral news sites. WP:RSUW what you are entering is lacking reliable sources and could create an undue weight. Also, another article which I think, you once supplied (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-11-19-newbible_N.htm), says "the New Bible drops gender-neutral language of '05 version." Also those people are Reformed. They are not part of mainstream evangelicalism. Basileias (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

PFD

Should this article be deleted or merged with another? There is already other articles covering this topic. Gender in Bible translation for instance. Basileias (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to cross link this page with others. . . see NIV. This should bring editors and additional contributions. I would like to leave the page up rather than merge material. Toverton28 (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

But then we have multiple articles all with their small pieces. Basileias (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Significant Southern Baptist Convention member editing?

Mr. Overton,

When a significant contributor to an article appears to have a close connection with its subject, generally it’s supposed to be identified because it can be considered a conflict of interest (WP:COI).

Are you a member of the Southern Baptist Convention? That would be the same organization you using as a significant source. And submitted resolution over this subject matter to the SBC in 2014?

That would be a pretty close connection. An article identifies a Mr. Overton (Toverton28?) (http://www.bpnews.net/40502/mental-health-motion-has-pastors-passion) in connection with the SBC resolution using information supplied from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Information you source from both groups to add to this article.

A Mr. Overton is mentioned in the comments of this blog article. (http://www.dennyburk.com/the-sbc-resolution-on-the-niv) I believe on your talk page you have been cautioned already about using sources so close to the subject matter. Like ironically an article from Baptist Press news, Southern Baptist Convention.

Are you this Mr. Overton? Even if you are, it does not mean you cannot contribute to these articles or Wikipedia, but its frowned on to used Wikipedia as a promotion vehicle for the Southern Baptist Convention and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

Also, it appears instead of asking for a third opinion (WP:3O), you are asking groups for aid. That could be taken as canvassing.

Basileias (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Gender-neutral Bible be merged into Gender in Bible translation. I think that the content in the Gender-neutral Bible article can easily be explained in the context of Gender in Bible translation, and the Gender in Bible translation article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Gender-neutral Bible will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. I would like to start by migrating the information to the other articles talk page. Basileias (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender-neutral Bible has already closed with a consensus to merge this article to Gender in Bible translation. In other words, you may proceed with the merger now without having to propose here. I would encourage you to be WP:BOLD and integrate the information how you see fit. I might do it myself. Mz7 (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I will place it on the talk page of Gender in Bible translation. Then I will start the merge. Thank you. Basileias (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)