Talk:Gideons International

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] article criticisms

This article is essentially a brief description of the Gideons and a list of critiques against them. It needs the organisation's history, quotes from those who support it, and it needs to be placed within a broader context. This is truly only a stub now. However, some useful information may still be derived from this.

It is marked a stub, and I think that the article has no claim to be anything else. The critics are actually just a commentary I wrote right after reading a Gideon New Testament; I didn't mean to make it an attack against the Gideons, only to underline some traits of their presentation. I think you did a great job at improving my feeble prose. :) Rama 09:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The French texts refer to the Christ as "CHRIST" (without a definite article, and in capitals), which is a characteristic trait of U.S.-based fundamentalist Christian organisation.

This is not terribly clear. Does this mean that the French translation(s) distributed by the Gideons uses a non-standard form for the title? "CHRIST" instead of "le Christ"? It might help to specify what particular French translation this is. Or are you referring to the French preface to the French translation that the Gideons distribute?
Anyway, saying that this is "a characteristic trait of U.S.-based fundamentalist Christian organisation" is maybe misleading. It's normal English usage not just among fundamentalist Protestants, but also mainstream Protestants and Catholics, to use "Christ" and not "the Christ" in most contexts. It may be that the French preface was written by someone whose first language wasn't French and was unduly influenced by the usage of English-speaking Christians.
Besides this, the article seems to have some POV issues - too biased against the Gideons and evangelical Protestants in general. --Jim Henry 22:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In French, "regular" Christians say "le Christ", and extremely scarecely just "Christ". Systematically saying "Christ" is a caracteristic trait of fundamentalist evangelical movements, typically whose roots are in the USA (even native speakers use this unusual trait); and the capitalisation "CHRIST" is really extremelly unusual among "mainstream" Christian movements.
The "CHRIST" issue is present in the preface (written by the Giddeons); the original biblic text uses the usual translations "Jesus-Christ" or "le Christ" (this particular copy is the translation by Louis Segond). Rama 23:04, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Preface

I replaced the back-translation from the French preface to the Gideon Bible with what appears to be its English original. There seem to be a few differences.

I would question whether anyone seeing a Gideon Bible, with any familiarity at all with the structure of the Bible at least, could mistake this text for a passage of Scripture. In the Gideon New Testament I am looking at, the text is followed by a brief index of passages for those who "need help" or are "in trouble," the famous translations of John 3:16 into multiple languages, and finally, the table of contents for the New Testament.

There are legitimate questions that can be asked about Gideon Bibles. I'm not at all sure that their densely printed Bibles with minimal apparatus are the best way to introduce people to the reading of Scripture. Without context and helps, a new Bible reader is apt to become bored or confused; at a very minimum, where the New Testament quotes the Old, a cross reference should be given. Gideon Bibles are hard to read, and not very good for serious Bible students. The accusation that they are misleading readers by mixing their own commentary into Scripture seems fairly wide of the mark, though. -- Smerdis of Tlön 03:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I really don't think the current section on the preface has any place in an encyclopedia. It could go in a criticism section, if we have evidence that notably significant levels of criticism have occurred; but an editor's opinion that something is worthy of criticism is not encyclopedic.
Does anyone have a good reason why this section, from 'The unsigned preface in...' up to '...its sacred content")', should not be removed? TSP 15:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
How so ? The preface of this bible is a document in itself, and can be cited as such. It needs not be alluded to by others to be mentionned here. Rama 15:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Ah, indeed - the preface can be cited so far as to say "there is a preface; this is what it says". However, the assertion that the preface is written in a way which may lead to it being confused with a part of the bible, and the comparison with Biblical style, is controversial Original Research, which is forbidden in Wikipedia. TSP 15:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brokn lnks

  • Iron Mountain, Montana ?
  • Locomotive breath (fixed).

What else to say ? I'm glad to find that reference to a Beatles'one. And the habit of opening haphazard a book like a Bible to find an answer to any question or to no question in particular is not so bad. Especially when you're alone in a hotel room and your gal has gone. --Harvestman 20:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hotel Transportation

Could we at least provide a notice that there is a dispute? Enough people believe this and try to change it that it deserves some discussion instead of blind, ignorant removal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.169.32.114 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.30.189.203 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There are at least 50 people who believe this is fully plausable and possible, two of which are christian who read from the books given out by Gideons International. Give us at least a dispute, or you are going against god's word and punishing those who follow him. Peace bee with you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.146.19.236 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The text in question appears to be copied from the following site: Unknown Armies - Rumors - Street Theory, which opens with: "Street-level rumors, story seeds, and anything else a crackpot will tell you for a pack of smokes". Not exactly factual content! -- MightyWarrior 14:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that one could simply add this in as a "references in popular culture" thingy. "A popular internet meme suggests that holding the doorknob blah blah blah", something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.76.80 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 22 July 2006

It looked like blatant trolling to me when I first saw it, I think it should be left out entirely. Amusing, but inappropriate for Wikipedia. Uncyclopedia on the other hand... ;) Good to see the page is protected now. --70.17.45.238 22:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's blatant trolling. I first saw a screenshot on 4chan's /b/ channel, where the thread-starter posted a screenshot of the edited entry and made the sarcastic comment, "What have I done?" It's a juvenile game to them. Shanada 08:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It's an urban legend is all. Lots of people believe them. i changed the text to read "An urband legend states..." and then the full text of the legend as it was. That should provide enough context. Now if someone would just provide a link to a source, we'd be all set.LiPollis 08:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apollo 8 mission

Thought the bit added to the trivia section was more BS, but some research proved otherwise: http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apollo8.htm Shanada 08:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auxiliary

Perhaps some information should be given about the Auxiliary as well. 68.113.47.82 17:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Only men can become Gideons, their wifes form their own organisation i.e. The Auxiliary Group —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.185.23 (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)