Talk:List of Bible translations by language

message: In the section on Hawaiian, I have changed:
*"A new translation of the New Testament in Hawaiian Pidgin, titled Da Jesus Book, was published in 2000 by Wycliffe Bible Translators."
to:
*"A translation of the New Testament in Hawaiian Pidgin, titled Da Jesus Book, was published in 2000 by Wycliffe Bible Translators."
Otherwise, it sounds like the (newer) Hawaiian Pidgin translation and the (older) Hawaiian translation are two versions in the same language, which they are not. Hawaiian Pidgin is spoken by perhaps the majority of locally born inhabitants of Hawaii today; it is an English-based pidgin. Hawaiian is a Polynesian language, the original language of the Hawaiian islands, now spoken by a small minority of the population and an endangered language undergoing (important) revival efforts. I will try to place quotes from both language versions in the article; that should make the point much clearer! --A R King 08:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawaiian Pidgin is not Hawaiian 

message: Another, related, suggestion. This article is extremely long.  Yet structurally it is simply a table of contents "Contents (by language)" which is itself an index into multiple, independent, per-language sections.  I suggest that each per-language section become (be promoted to) an article in its own right: "Bible translations (Afrikaans)", etc. Then, when that is done, the List of Bible translators article can be merged, language by language, into the corresponding new "Bible translations (language)" article. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a great idea. There are already some such articles — Chinese Bible Translations, German Bible translations, Slavic translations of the Bible, Spanish translations of the Bible, and Welsh Bible — going forward, let's try to establish a single naming convention — but moving most of this content into separate articles, even if they're stubs, seems to make a lot of sense. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Let's see if I understand this proposal: This article would be the "main" article on "Bible Translations by Language".  For languages where an article would not be a stub, there would be a link to the article, with no content here. For languages where an article would be a stub, the content will be in this article.  "Stub", for this specific context, means "an article that simply contains the name of the translator, and the year that the Bible was translated into that language". If there are two or more translations, translators, or editions of the Bible in that language, it would be an article. If that understanding is correct, then the restructuring is a good thing.  jonathon (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Gray areas are easy enough to deal with, as they arise. The Wikipedia Foundation legal people can deal with the admin issues related to GFDL requirements.jonathon (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are good reasons to move forward according to the consensus discussed above. Occasionally, editors ignore the consensus, such as is discussed here and here.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

text: By request for comment, I meant peer review Request for feedback (it's been one of those days). Jminthorne (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agreee with your work and thank you for it. I suggest, as per above, to create as many new Articles, one for each language, as possible, and to transform this page in something similar to a list. A ntv (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested re-structure and merge

message: When I edited this article to reformat the tables, I removed the copious amount of year-linking (e.g. 2007) that I found, but some of it has been replaced. As per WP:MS Overlinking and underlinking, please refrain from linking to years unless you feel it's absolutely necessary or relevant to the context.
I also removed a lot of red links; perhaps some of them should have been left, but I felt there were far too many and they didn't seem to be too relevant. I won't remove any more red links unless it becomes a problem again, but following WP:Red links, please make sure that anything you redlink is actually notable enough to warrant an entire article.
Thanks. Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking years and red links

message: I get the distinct impression that there is slight judgmental Point Of View in the "Venus Latina" section: [quote] "They were never rendered independently from the Hebrew or Greek; they vary widely in readability and quality, and contain many solecisms in idiom, some by the translators themselves, others from literally translating Greek language idioms into Latin...All of these translations were made obsolete by St. Jerome's Vulgate [/quote]
Were made obsolete? Although in modern times there much value placed on having translations independent of the Greek Septuagint, and it seems fitting to describe the motivations for replacing the piecemeal translations-- these translations are a historical artifact and presently only studied as such. In the article here, it sounds like a recommendation is being made against them. For instance, in what sense were they "obsolete?" Historically speaking, because of the limitations of trade, scarceness of paper and scribes, literacy rate, etc., St. Jerome's was not universally available. It also is not clear here if St Jerome's was specifically endorsed by the Pope or other Catholic authorities, or if a declaration was made against previous translations. Just a little historical context would helpful here Cuvtixo (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the Vetus Latina :) but you are basically right: if the situation as reported is a matter of broad academic consensus, we should point to a reference substantiating this. So, you are free to request a citation for the statement (add ). --dab (𒁳) 08:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venus Latina -- subtle point of view problems? 

message: I'm not sure if it is appropriate to add that Vision 2025 is experimenting with OLPC computers, for Bible Translations.  (This was covered at BibleTech 2008.)  I thought the speaker said that if the pilot is successful, they will be able to start work on every language by 2020, if funding is available. I can't find that comment in the audio files that are available.  :( jonathon (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern translation efforts

message: This article is missing information about important translations of the Bible in the Coptic, and Ge`ez languages.  There is also a very ancient partial translation in sankrit.  
The Article at times does a good job of showing which Bibles are Catholic, Orthodox and `quasichristian` protestant translations but is some cases, it is not so clear.  This is a very important issue for readers of the article and I ask that you endevear to put accurate information on all Bible translations showing which group of Christians it belongs to.  Let us face the truth in this, Catholics do not trust protestants at all when it comes to the Bible nor should we after they threw out seven books.  I know that protestants and Orthodox do not trust Catholics, though I consider this just a blind prejudice.  In any event, every version of the Bible listed here needs to be marked as a Catholic, protestant or Orthodox.
In Japan the early version of the Bible actually has been preserved.  It is called the Mitedake.  It is written entirely in Katakana characters and is not meant to be read aloud but only to be looked at.  There are several of these still in existance and are kept by Japanese Catholics in Japan.  These Bibles were used during the time when Christianity was illigal in Japan.  Most of them are very old, some almost 500 years old.  They are written on sheets of cloth that are meant to be rolled up or layed flat in a box for storage.  They are considered an important treasure by the Catholic Church in Japan and though they are no longer used, the families that own them hold a kind of special prestige among the Catholic faithful here as proof of their 500 years of the family being Catholic and surviving the pursecution.  Several of these Mitedake Bibles were recently studied and the Japanese Chanel NHK did a 2 hour report about the Hidden Christians that included information about these Bibles and video of the families and the Bibles were shown on Japanese TV.  One of these Bibles was destroyed during the reign of Meiji my Samurai in Tsuwano Japan as a form of torture, since the Catholics who used it in secret for 300 years were forced to watch it burn.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: I deleted the phrase "but it was still considered quite difficult to understand for the average Zulu person."  It has had a "cite needed" tag since November 2007. I seriously doubt that it is any more difficult to read for a native user of Zulu, than the KJV is for a native user of English.  I don't know which edition of the Zulu Bible I have, but it isn't any more difficult for me to read, than Illanga (http://www.ilanganews.co.za/) is.
The sentence "Work on the Old Testament is in progress, and should be completed around 2016." was deleted, because the article at http://www.biblesociety.org/wr_329/329_26.htm implies that it has been completed. What I can't tell is if the 1986 date is for the "new" Zulu orthography, or if it is a brand new translation. The South African Bible Society website doesn't clarify the issue. jonathon (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Zulu

message: The section on Modern Greek is in bad english ("revisioned" etc.) and besides sounds rather mixed up and generally uninformative. I suspect this could do with a great deal of tidying up (better: rewriting from scratch?) but don't have the expertise (or time) to do that myself, so I'm just asking for someone out there with the ability to attend to this if possible. For one thing, As far as I know the Vamvas translation was written in the mid-nineteenth century and therefore it is misleading to mention this AFTER a 1901 edition (of what? which translation?) has been introduced in the text. Altogether, could we have some reliable facts and a clear exposition? Thanks. Alan --A R King (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Greek 

message: The Revised Korean Version is called in my Korean Bible Korean Revised Version. Shall we change the present name?AurinKo (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Korean

message: There many places here where it says "Main  article  - translations of Bible into Language X" but then the link is in red, indicating that Wikipedia does not have an article with that title. Can some one please remove these misleading references to articles that are not in Wikipedia? For example, there is a sub-heading "Translations of the Bible into Xhosa" and then it says "Main article  - translations of the Bible into Xhosa" but Wikipedia does not have an article of that name. I agree it is of interest to know that the whole Bible has been translated into Xhosa, but unless Wikipedia actually did have an article on the subject, we do not really need to put in the misleading red link.ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, but was there any specific reason why you didn't do the task yourself? Huon (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's related to the ongoing since 2009 stop-start-efforts to break out notable languages into their own articles. Looking at it now, seems like all but Kazakh have been done. What should be left are minor languages. Or ones where a Bible translation has little significance. The remaining redlinks being removed is about time, except Kazakh, and I'll fix that now by breaking it out. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Can some one please remove the red links?

message: Is it worth mentioning here that the Bible has been translated into Klingon?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it is worth mentioning, in the trivia department. But how much of the Bible have they done? Pete unseth (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  see http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Klingon%20Bible%20Translation%20Project Looks like rather more than Quenya so I would think it should be added. LothianLiz (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Bible in Klingon

message: The German translations are missing AurinKo (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't some in the German article? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  German 

message: This article needs a complete reorganization. Editor2020 (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Editor2020. There was a discussion to break out to individual articles. Looks okay to me. Other than that I can't see why Dakota is still here. It's still in A-Z. What's the problem? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to this article? 

message: Should not the title of this article be a List of Bible translations by language?  That would be more in keeping with Wikipedia convention. Peaceray (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that most of the languages have a separate article, this article does look very unpleasing as it currently stands.  I would suggest moving all the remaining languages into separate articles where possible, and converting this article into a tabular list of the first translation of the Bible in each language, with columns for the first translation of any part of the Bible, first translation of the NT, and first translation of the entire Bible; and renaming the page accordingly. BabelStone (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, now that the last significant chunk - the Native American languages - have gone a move to List of... is justified. However, the list still serves as an incubator for new articles, so please don't anyone go deleting the stubs that are still here. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Reformatting done.  There may be minor errors, so interested editors are invited to check.  Thanks to all who have worked to achieve this over the last few years. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should not the title be a "List of Bible translations by language"? 

message: I was searching for a list of languages by date they were translated into the bible. The present format of this article makes it very difficult to gather this information. I was hoping for something similar to wikipedia article of List of languages by first written accounts.
66.81.29.56 (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  List by date of translation 

message: Are Karen & Kareni really two different languages? Pete unseth (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karen & Kareni?