Talk:The New Authorized Version

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Beginning the article

I have started the AV7 article this evening and wanted to point out up front that I have linked to a review I did at the bottom of the article (clearly marked as by the person starting the article). I did this for a few reasons:

  • First, because there is not (at least to my knowledge) a lot of reaction to AV7 at this time;
  • Second, because I wanted to keep the NPOV in the main entry and not include any opinion (such as why I feel AV7 is lacking as a translation) or what might be classified under Wikipedia as "original research";
  • And third, because I borrowed a good bit of the informational portion of the review for the article, and did not want to appear to be plagiarizing from someone else when I was actually borrowing from my own summary!

Any contributions anyone else might have to the article to improve it are certainly welcome. --MollyTheCat 23:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My link evidently upset someone

After writing the above, I received an e-mail on the morning of October 12 (actually sent the evening of the 11th, according to the timestamp), from someone signing themselves as "Sincerely, For the New Authorized Version Foundation" [sic--no signature following the "Sincerely"]. This person wrote at great length (nearly nine printed pages in 10 point Arial font) and concluded with "Finally, may I ask: how we can get the responses that we have provided to your criticisms posted so that they will be equally as accessible as your critical review?"

I usually do not acknowledge or respond to anonymous e-mails, but I had started an answer to this one when I found that on the morning of October 15, this same lengthy message sent to me had been posted, in slightly modified form, to this URL. Also, the URL had been added to the main Wikipedia article on "AV7" by "67.40.72.224" (evidently an anonymous user), described as "AV7 responses to the initial review."

I've now publicly responded to my anonymous e-mailer here. But I am not going to add this link to the main article, because I don't think the purpose of Wikipedia would be served by making the article a string of "response to the review"--"response to the response to the review"--"reply to the response prompted by our response"--and so forth.

And if I had it to do over again, I probably would not add the original link to the blog entry. I've described above the reasons I did so, which I still think are legitimate. But it appears I have greatly upset someone at this "foundation" with my link, and that was not at all my intention. If I had it to do over again, I would still make my blog comments, which I continue to believe are legitimate, but I would not have linked them from the article. However, since the link is already there, I'm not going to remove it now as that would be like vandalising useful information from the article.

Just thought I would explain this matter briefly to anyone interested. --MollyTheCat 09:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The AV7 response document has now been modified significantly from what I was responding to, as noted on that page, in reaction to the points that I made. The original response e-mail I received in PDF format is linked at my answer in case anyone wants to compare this with the revised AV7 response. --MollyTheCat 08:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What basis for "advert" tag?

I notice that someone (identified as 87.227.88.50 on 6 December 2006 at 22:05) has added an "advert" tag to the article. I don't think this is exactly a fair tag, though I have not at this time presumed to delete it.

It is true that much of the article quotes the "New Authorized Version Foundation" for their explanation of what their publication is about. The content of their description is so singular that, even though it might be taken as part of their own (understandable) attempts at promoting it, I contend that excerpts of it used in the article as a whole do not constitute an "advertisement." As is obvious from this response I wrote to the Foundation, I am by no means a supporter of the "AV7" and have commented in detail on many deficiencies I see in it. However, I did not feel it was appropriate to fill a Wikipedia article, which needs to maintain NPOV, with my own criticisms. If others publish appraisals of this version, it will probably be fitting at that time to include a neutral description of them in this article, in order to show the reception "AV7" has received.

I would be interested if anyone else had any thoughts on this, or could contribute any improvements that might strike a better balance on this article.--MollyTheCat 22:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)