Talk:Bible translations into English/Archive 1

message: This needs serious work...but more importantly, it is from this web site.  They claim to offer the book free, but do not appear to be releasing it under the GFDL.  Do we put up the possible copyright infringement boilerplate? Jwrosenzweig 23:37, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: If the book is in fact from 1912, we do not need their permission.  I've gone through and added some very rough sectional headings, and some basic links.  Much of the information here is already in the series of articles about individual translations.  Alfred's translations need to be added, as well as perhaps Wulfila's.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 01:52, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added another heading to get the ToC into view, and put a heading on the critique at the end so it shows in the ToC.  I have also tried to be more specific about the nature of the source's partiality, and changed the header note so it's clear that Wikipedia may now get to work and change this text to something more useful. seglea 02:05, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problem

message: I have decided to add the  template to the article since this article still has some incorrect statements that McAfee wrote. Comments? - iHoshie 04:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  factual dispute temp added 

message: One comment that probably has little to do with the beef of this article: Elizabeth I was actually a very devoted Protestant, who had studied the works of Philip Melanchton (Luther's successor) deeply. --L. 15:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor thing 

message: Shouldn't this article, well, continue after the KJV?  To be honest, the whole text should probably be scrapped and replaced...why do people think it's okay to use century old books for discussions of things that have histories beyond a century ago? john k 22:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's terrible. It's a direct copy from a highly POV website. Jayjg (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow, this article is problematic 

message: I cleaned up the article a bit, also it seems that the arguments of the original POV and cleanup tags are no longer valid. --Vizcarra 22:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed POV, cleanup 

message: I think this page should be renamed "English Translations", particularly since it's main reference seems to be as a spin-off from the general worldwide "translations" page (but I don't know how to do this).  Someone oblige? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brusselsshrek (talk • contribs) 13:08, 15 December 2005.
:Whoa there! This page certainly needs the word "Bible" in its title. How about English Bible translations instead?
:On a separate note, let's split the Comparison section into its own article. Melchoir 21:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like User:Codex Sinaiticus already saw to the title. I still prefer my suggestion (obviously), since it fit better with the other English translation articles in :Category:Bible versions and translations... but I'm hardly passionate about it. Melchoir 21:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks! You have no idea how hard it was to find that reference article, either... anyway, this is kind of off-topic. Melchoir 21:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename? 

message: Done. See Comparison of English Bible translations. Melchoir 08:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: Why does this article contain so much at the beginning on ancient translations of the Bible? Doesn't all of that material belong in Bible translations? Dovi 13:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early translations