Talk:Wycliffe USA

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: " 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
The section on 'Controversy and criticism' starts: 'Wycliffe Bible Translators has come under criticism from anthropologists and Third World Nationalists.' I would be nice if we could have a reference to one or two critical statements from a Third World Nationalist. 
--Andrzej Gandecki (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recently published books? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestions for neutrality 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New criticism section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wycliffe terminology 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Vickers 

message: I just made an edit to clarify what all of Protestantism considering essential to it's very essence, instead of such a narrow application as the original language in this section seemed to indicate. The very foundation of Protestantism is based in the principle of Sola Scriptura (going back to Martin Luther and the 95 Theses in 1517), not just this organization, or a flavor of Protestantism, that the original language suggested. Godfollower4ever (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy and methods 

message: The term 'dedicated' is not an accurate reflection of what this organization feels is it's purpose. 'madated' is far more of an accurate term to reflect how it feels about it's purpose. This is reflected in it's mission statement (which is in religous lingo, but it is present), and it also is addressed in the Philosophy and Methods section of this article. It is inconsitent to use the term 'dedicated'. Thus the reason for my edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Godfollower4ever (talk • contribs) 22:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I was looking for information on EasyEnglish. Our article was apparently merged into this article, in 2005, but nothing remains (it looks like it was removed in April 2007, as part of a mass cleanup by one editor). Please take a look, and see if anything can be re-integrated? Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  EasyEnglish