Talk:American Standard Version

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Any examples of eliminated verses that conflicted with JW doctrine?

[edit] discussion of translational choices in NWT

The article contained a statement to the effect that the NWT was produced without explanation of its' renderings. This is incorrect. Reading the appendices in the NWT you will find the reasons the translators gave for their renderings.

Also, the incorrect statement that no other translation has been produced anaymously is a mistake, so I removed it as well.

Thank you. I concur with the change and your reasoning behind it. I own a (revised?) black-cover NWT (circa 1985 or 1990?) and have perused many copies of the original edition (green cover, circa 1978?). From memory (because I don't have it here ;) there are definitely some explanations behind the translation methodology, though many might disagree with the reasoning or find it insufficient. I thought that sentence was a bit odd in the article, but didn't think much about it at the time. Furthermore, I don't think any of that belongs in the ASV article, but the NWT article. It's sufficient for this article to just say that the Witnesses' use of the ASV was supplanted by the NWT.

BTW, your helpful edit suggests you'd make a useful regular Wikipedian. Please feel encouraged to create a user ID, log in, and continue helping. Jdavidb 20:17, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)