177:. This topic is not solely about JW's dogma but is a raging debate among bible translators of all faiths. Many languages have NT translations containing the divine name and the subject is very encyclopedic. Can we make the article NPOV? Absolutley! I'm currently working to remove the polemics from both sides of the JW debate and to bring in many more sourced points of view than just the JW and anti-JW opinions. For instance I have referenced to an Catholic Journal. I believe you just need to give this article time
357:
POV is such a sticky area to discuss. You've nominated two linked pages both of which discuss a non-trinitarian/trinitarian debate. When you nominated the List of Hebrew
Versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragramaton you mentioned that it was POV. I think you should retract that argument.
222:
Which demonstrates exactly nothing. Most (not "some") of those pages appear to be discussing the NWT either pro or con -- pro side being JW, con side not, which doesn't exactly constitute a debate. At least a few other hits are the very page under discussion or a mirror. In any event, serious debate
84:
270:
I am not convinced there are a great many reliable sources available for the subject, which must revolve around a JW-related debate perforce since this is the only significant group that favors the addition of the Divine Name to the New
Testament.
367:
Yes I did nominate two related articles for deletion. If anything, it militates against your personal attacks here, as they represented opposite sides of the argument. Your accusations of bias are entirely unfounded, and I once again demand their
149:' scriptural redactions, and I'm afraid it's irremediably non-encyclopedic. The appropriate place for this kind of criticism is in articles on Bible translations where these insertions are actually made, such as
79:
111:
106:
115:
98:
412:
145:
I see no way of editing this article where might approach NPOV. Although it represents a POV I happen to agree with, it's nothing but an extended argument against one of the
138:
430:
394:
385:
362:
352:
329:
306:
285:
262:
237:
217:
204:
185:
167:
63:
150:
295:
following the suggestions above. I think the box in the article is POV & out of place, Merge the list of references in the preceding article here.
318:
267:
I should point out that the article SV wants to cite is not the original, but an
English translation of it hosted on a Jehovah's Witnesses website.
102:
254:
mentions, which contradicts the current reading of this article, then I'll be happy that POV concerns are addressed, and as such would suggest
94:
69:
371:
Characterizing an article, and characterizing another editor, are two entirely different acts. If you can't see that, go away.
17:
381:
348:
281:
233:
200:
163:
446:
36:
445:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
209:
Well, maybe no "raging" but search for "Tetragrammaton New
Testament" and you'll find tons of pages, some but
317:
has identified his point of view as trinitarian, opposed to the idea of YHVH in the New
Testament. see
146:
391:
359:
326:
251:
214:
182:
419:
390:
There was only one editor of the article. You should retract your accusations of POV editing first.
378:
345:
278:
230:
197:
160:
60:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
373:
340:
335:
322:
314:
302:
273:
225:
192:
178:
174:
155:
49:
132:
259:
268:
85:
Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New
Testament (2nd nomination)
297:
439:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
80:
Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New
Testament
128:
124:
120:
338:. Argue on the merits of the proposal, or not at all.
153:-- and more briefly and with less advocacy than here.
223:on Scriptural translation is not conducted online.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
449:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
151:New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
250:Assuming material is added from the source
411:: This debate has been included in the
319:Talk:Tetragrammaton in the New Testament
334:I demand you withdraw this unwarranted
77:
413:list of Christianity-related deletions
7:
190:"A raging debate?" No. No it isn't.
95:Tetragrammaton in the New Testament
76:
70:Tetragrammaton in the New Testament
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
325:using this AfD to push a POV?
1:
431:05:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
395:15:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
386:09:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
363:04:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
353:02:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
330:20:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
307:18:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
286:09:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
263:07:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
238:09:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
218:23:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
205:20:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
186:07:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
168:05:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
64:00:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
466:
442:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
75:AfDs for this article:
147:Jehovah's Witnesses
433:
416:
384:
351:
284:
258:ing the article.
236:
213:pertain to JW's.
203:
166:
62:
457:
444:
428:
425:
422:
417:
407:
377:
344:
277:
229:
196:
173:I disagree with
159:
136:
118:
59:
56:
53:
34:
465:
464:
460:
459:
458:
456:
455:
454:
453:
447:deletion review
440:
426:
423:
420:
336:personal attack
252:User:SerialVerb
109:
93:
90:
73:
54:
51:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
463:
461:
452:
451:
435:
434:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
369:
310:
309:
290:
289:
288:
247:
246:
245:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
143:
142:
89:
88:
87:
82:
74:
72:
67:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
462:
450:
448:
443:
437:
436:
432:
429:
414:
410:
406:
396:
393:
389:
388:
387:
383:
380:
376:
375:
370:
366:
365:
364:
361:
356:
355:
354:
350:
347:
343:
342:
337:
333:
332:
331:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
311:
308:
304:
300:
299:
294:
291:
287:
283:
280:
276:
275:
269:
266:
265:
264:
261:
257:
253:
249:
248:
239:
235:
232:
228:
227:
221:
220:
219:
216:
212:
208:
207:
206:
202:
199:
195:
194:
189:
188:
187:
184:
180:
176:
172:
171:
170:
169:
165:
162:
158:
157:
152:
148:
140:
134:
130:
126:
122:
117:
113:
108:
104:
100:
96:
92:
91:
86:
83:
81:
78:
71:
68:
66:
65:
61:
58:
57:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
441:
438:
408:
372:
339:
296:
292:
272:
255:
224:
210:
191:
154:
144:
50:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
368:retraction.
382:(contribs)
349:(contribs)
282:(contribs)
234:(contribs)
201:(contribs)
164:(contribs)
313:Concern:
139:View log
211:not all
112:protect
107:history
379:(talk)
346:(talk)
279:(talk)
260:JulesH
231:(talk)
198:(talk)
161:(talk)
116:delete
133:views
125:watch
121:links
16:<
409:Note
303:talk
293:Keep
256:keep
129:logs
103:talk
99:edit
52:Citi
427:gle
424:rin
421:Sef
415:.
374:TCC
341:TCC
323:TCC
321:Is
315:TCC
298:DGG
274:TCC
226:TCC
193:TCC
179:TCC
175:TCC
156:TCC
137:– (
55:Cat
392:SV
360:SV
327:SV
305:)
215:SV
183:SV
181:.
131:|
127:|
123:|
119:|
114:|
110:|
105:|
101:|
48:.
418:—
301:(
141:)
135:)
97:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.