Talk:Wycliffe Bible Translators

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments


Contents

[edit] Wycliffe terminology

For some reason there is an insistence on using the term "unreached people groups." I'll explain why I don't feel this should be included. The first and most obvious reason is that the term connotes Christian bias and is therefore POV. This is not a term that an anthropologist would use and therefore it does not belong in a scholarly entry.

I understand that this is the term that Wycliffe itself uses, but this doesn't matter. If an article on the KKK referred to black people using a bad word because "that is what the KKK calls them" this would not justify the use of the term. The term "cultures with little exposure to Christianity" is more to the point, more accurate, and less biased. This article is not a guide to Wycliffe terminology. Perhaps a seperate article to that effect could be started.

If someone has an extremely good reason why it is absolutely necessary that this term be included and can explain themselves to my satisfaction, then it needs to go in the "Philosophy and methods" section, not at the top of the article. Pianoguy 23:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand that they are speaking about people who have never heard (unreached by the)the Gospel.I presume that you understand the Gospel It is more of an interenal reference to: People who have never heard the need to turn from sin and be saved from it and it's effects though the work of Jesus Christ.And had a chance to make a choice for or against god.

Exposure to chritianity is a little different than preaching the gospel of Christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.71.23 (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is not what the term means- the point is that the term is not in general use outside a certain community, is a "loaded" term, and as such, does not merit inclusion in an academic article. You prove my point by saying "internal reference" which, to me, is sufficient reason to strike the term.

As encylopedia editors we need to strive to keep our own views out of our writing, no matter how important we feel they may be. We need to strive to use neutral language- "unreached" is not neutral. Pianoguy 18:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New criticism section

I have written a first draft of a new criticism section for this article, from a much more scholarly standpoint. It is only a beginning, and it will need to be fleshed out and added to. I suspect that many will wish to include a statement from Wycliffe defending itself, which seems entirely reasonable, so long as Wycliffe's viewpoint is neither promoted nor condemned by the article.--Pianoguy 05:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for neutrality

I propose a goal for bringing the neutrality of this article into line with traditional encyclopediac standards by the end of the month. I propose the following initial steps:

1) Rewriting the "method" section from a more objective standpoint 2) Rewriting the criticism section altogether 3) Citing additional sources, preferably not affiliated with Wycliffe Bible Translators

I have attempted to remove as much bias as possible from the "method" section, although I am not entirely convinced that what is left is worth keeping. This section needs to be much tighter than it was before, and should be a dispassionate descrpition of Wycliffe's basic operational methods.

I have also pared down the "mission" section considerably for the same reason. I suggest that it be absorbed into another section.

The "vision" section was removed as it was essentially another version of the already biased "mission" section. The "recent developments" section made virtually no sense and was eliminated.

The "criticism" section is completely unacceptable in its current form. I suspect it was copied out of a pamphlet designed to promote the orginization, in either case it clearly reflects the views of someone supportive of the organiziation. I suggest that it be scrapped and rewritten completely. Pianoguy 22:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interdenominational?

I have attempted to solve the "interdenominational" controversy by rewriting the sentence in question, describing Wycliffe only as a "nonprofit" organization. I believe this is more accurate, to the point, and less biased. Pianoguy 21:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole article reads like propaganda pap. Just one small point: Which denominations do they work with or for? If no other clarification comes forward, I'll change "interndenominational" to "evangelical Christian". —Babelfisch 07:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

They claim to be "an interdenominational, non-sectarian, 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, non-profit mission organization"[1], so I would suggest you make no such change unless you have a source to the contrary. Some of it certainly needs work for a neutral tone e.g., "Western Christians are still learning to open their hearts to supporting 'national' brothers and sisters" (I recall it used to be worse). — Matt Crypto 07:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to quote another section of this article:
This type of Protestantism adheres to the principle of sola scriptura and regards Biblical texts as the authoratative infallible and inerrant word of God. Wycliffe's methods, while aiding in spreading the Christian gospel cross-culturally, emphasize a Protestant understanding of the faith.
They obviously don't include Orthodox or Catholic Christians. To call that "interdenominational" is misleading or at least inaccurate. Something like "interdenominational Evangelical Christian" would be more accurate, but that combination doesn't make much sense. —Babelfisch 00:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps. I came across [2], which seems to be, in part, a fundamentalist response to WBT accomodating Roman Catholics in some way. We could do with some solid sources on this. — Matt Crypto 09:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course it's always possible to be more sectarian and more exclusivist. That article by the Fundamental Baptist website Way of Life quotes Charles Turner of the Baptist Bible Translators Institute, formerly with New Tribes Mission. This is like the Communist Party of Albania accusing the Communist Party of China of having deviated from the path of truth. You can't be Catholic and be a missionary with Wyliffe Bible Translators. —Babelfisch 01:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The article says Wycliffe is "interdenominational or parachurch." The article on parachurch organizations says, "Parachurch organizations are a vehicle by which evangelical Christians work collaboratively both outside their and across their denominations to engage with the world in mission, social welfare and evangelism." (italics added) And interdenominational does not neccesarily mean omnidenominational either.

12.37.33.3 01:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, According to my dad, who is a Wycliffe member:
1. We don't follow Catholic doctrine.
2. We don't accept Catholics as members.
3. We serve all. This has created some misunderstanding over things like giving nuns rides in Jaars airplanes. But our practice has always been to serve everyone.
4. We encourage all to use the Scriptures we translate.
5. Individual teams will vary on how they relate to the Catholic church within the area where they serve. Some will do things like translating Scripture passages used in the Catholic lectionary, reasoning that it is a good way to get the Scriptures to the people. Some will criticize that.

12.37.33.3 17:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The use of the term "interdenominational" is appropriate in this context. Most style guides for writing on religion do not refer to the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox branches of Christianity as "denominations," nor do these churches refer to themselves as denominations. These churches have not fractured into denominations, and there is generally only one body that can be referred to by the name "Roman Catholic" or "Eastern Orthodox." (The various national churches that comprise Eastern Orthodoxy: Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc. are not considered denominations either.) In contrast, there is not one body that can be referred to as "the Protestant church." Protestantism exists in various bodies under a variety of names, which is what "denomination" means: de=of, nomen=names -- a variety of names. Therefore, any group or movement composed of members of various Protestant denominations is referred to as "interdenominational." (Just Google the term "interdenominational" and see what I mean.) If the group consisted of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant members, it would be referred to as "ecumenical," not "interdenominational." BrJohn 02:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

So they are Evangelical Christian and interdenominational, and I had not understood they word "interdenominational" correctly. —Babelfisch 07:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Not all protestants would consider themselves Evangelical. Wycliffe accepts all who adhere to a statement of faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zaphonbb (talk • contribs) 07:39, 24 April 2006.

FWIW, there are several Catholic denominations that are not directly affiliated w/ the Church of Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism#Other_demominations). Not the least of which the Old Catholic Church —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.116.98.179 (Charter Communications, St. Louis, MO; talk • contribs) 10:56, 17 August 2006.

Please sign your contributions. —Babelfisch 07:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This has the making of a good article but, in my opinion, needs a rewrite - as it is attempting to say too much. The contributor above is right in saying it reads like propaganda and, while I broadly support the aims of Wycliffe, I think we should understand that the article needs to be understood by readers who may not do so. There is much good material here - let's not get hung up on one or two controversial (and probably dispensable) words. – Agendum 22:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

From my understanding of the conversation thus far, the confusion on the term "interdenominational" seems to have been cleared up. Removing NPOV tag.--Son of thunder 00:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually enjoyed the conversation above ... it was enlightening ... and I hope that you keep it as part of the article, regardless of how it ends up. theostudy ...

[edit] Criticism

"see the article SIL International for criticism of the work of SIL/Wycliffe"

I can't see any criticism of Wycliffe on the article SIL International. Should the word "Wycliffe" be deleted from this sentence? And if so, does the sentence need to be there at all? There is already a link to the SIL International article in the previous sentence, which can be followed to see the whole article about SIL, criticism and all. Woodwardmw 18:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

SIL International is the sister organisation of Wycliffe. There is so much overlap that they can't be separated. The criticism in the SIL article is directed at both organisations. It should not be deleted. —Babelfisch 02:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Then should the sentence be changed to "see the article SIL International for more information about the work of SIL/Wycliffe". If there is "so much overlap that they can't be separated" then readers should be pointed to the whole SIL article, not just the section on criticism. Woodwardmw 14:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

deleted some redundancies, and edited some language for neutrality. Buddhagazelle 02:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)buddhagazelle


Gasp! you guys, if you count a "powerful positive argument" as criticism them you all bow down an criticize my shiny. this is a mockery of NPOV.

" are another powerful positive argument for the value of Wycliffe's work, and peer views of Wycliffe appear very positive (e.g. Question 8 in www.gfa.org/gfa/faqs). Wycliffe has also been a part of translating 710 New Testaments and Bibles, representing over 78 million people, and are working on about 1,400 others." windmaker 28 feb

[edit] NPOV

This article reads like it's been taken straight from some promotional material and definitely needs to be tweaked/rewritten/expanded to conform to NPOV. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 22:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What seem particularly POV to you? I don't see anything in the article that pushes opinion one way or the other about them, it just states facts. Could you please tell us a little about what information seems to you to contradict nPOV? --Homecomputer∴Peace 19:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Aside from the illerate language of this article, which requires a rewrite, it takes a very strong POV, in particular with the section entitled, Criticism, which is in fact a strongly-worded justification for their doctrinal beliefs and behavior... Much of this article needs to either rewritten to state simple facts or it should be deleted in its entirety... Stevenmitchell 02:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to say, that I forgot to login when I reinstated the sentence on Vision 2025. --Paulmorriss 14:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recently published books?

Are there any recently published books about Wycliffe? There are several older texts, but curious if we can cite something new. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Vickers

The Vickers quotation is from one of the most reliable scientific journals of anthropology. It is not something that somebody wrote into the editor of a newspaper. It is backed up by exhaustive research and the peer-review system. It is neither biased nor somebody's viewpoint. As such it is entirely appropriate in this article. Pianoguy (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Vickers quotation is fine. However, I didn't remove the Vickers quotation, but rather a different sentence, which is neither NPOV nor supported by the source; let's just quote Vickers, which speaks for itself -- we don't need to add interpretation. — Matt Crypto 18:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
That sounds fair, I'm satisfied with that. I did revert to the original citation system because it looks more professional to me- Wikipedia does allow this system. Pianoguy (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)