First the remark about The Message had its popularity dropped is based on The Association of Christian Retailers given information. How is the ranking considered invalid when the association is a representative of retailers?
Secondly it did draw criticism from ministry of other church as poor paraphrase piece of work. Granted it may or may not be poor in its translation but it is a fact that it did draw criticism from theological perspective.
Last but not least, The Message uses coarse language is utterly clear and verifiable for anyone who wish to compare it with other translations. I have verified it with other translations to ensure that there is no biases on The Message. The language used in The Message may not be seem coarse language to you but have you considered what about young readers and/or Christians who read it?
For your reference. Thank you.
- The discussion needs to happen at the The Message (Bible) talk page. I will only respond there. Basileias (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I find it strange when the notes were removed on the basis that they were not verifiable? Were the citations, review from Ministry of church and original verses of other translations unverifiable?? These links still exist while they were made reference to.
If the note wants to state that The Message has dropped its popularity, who is in the better position to comment if the information published by the Association of Christian Retailers is seen as unreliable?
To prove that The Message is indeed using coarse language, what would be the best way to illustrate and prove? Of course by comparison with other translations. How else can it be done if readers were to review for themselves?
It is amazing to learn that ranking by association of retailers is considered unverifiable? Review done by ministry of church has no authority to comment from theological position? And comparison with other original translations is considered as biased?
Are you even remotely associated in the retail trade? Are you a clergy in any church to begin with?? Have you provided any counter argument or fact up to this point???
I was told that the notes were coatracking? I am not even the originator of The Message Page. It seems strange that the page does not allow neutral negative information to be stated for readers to evaluate and decide for themselves. Were there some kind of vested interest here to protect the publisher? Maybe there were biases on the editorial part?
Well I am equally skeptical about the integrity of the person who removed these notes when there was no counter argument or justification. It is obvious that there is editorial bias. Efforts were made to remove the notes and had presuppositions that references made were unreliable? The notes were to be considered vandalism? Merely using coined terms and making baseless accusations on another does not make one's position justified. Such tactic is simply an unacceptable Internet Troll behaviour in many internet forums. Shifting the focus on the subject matter onto another person does not justify one's views and/or conclusion is right.
No wonder in the academic communities, citations from Wikipedia are strictly forbidden due to such editorial biases. Well if you want to remove notes without any justification to promote your agenda, be my guest. I have been Wikipedia user for many years and I was a senior moderator in forums, whatever I read on the internet, I always take them with a pinch of salt. It is a shame for Wikipedia to have such editorial team. And Wikipedia is hoping that the academic communities can take Wikipedia seriously? Unfortunately I phrased it poorly, to be fair to the remaining members of the editorial team, I would say having you on board in the editorial team is a joke.
Mr Basileias get a life. I pity you if you happened to be a full time staff with Wikipedia.
Have a nice day :)
The Message (Bible)
editSee the talk page for the article in question. All sources used must have Verifiability. I am assuming you are new. You do not want to fall into original research when editing articles. Also, the edits you are doing are dancing around Coatracking. If you develop a reputation for that, experienced editors will not trust your work. Basileias (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Basileias, The editings were done with citations and comparison with several translations of Bibles. The Message had dropped its popularity from the circulation, it has drawn criticism from being a poor paraphrased version and its use of coarse language was found in the translation compared to other translations were factual. For your reference. Thank you.
Dec 2013
edit
Hello, I'm Basileias. I noticed that you made a change to an article, The_Message_(Bible), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Basileias (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Welcome!
editHello, LancelotSG, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Getting Started
- Introduction to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)