Talk:List of major textual variants in the New Testament

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2021. The result of the discussion was merge.

New article

Created article. Tonicthebrown (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

Without citing any sources, this article lacks verifiability. All material published in Wikipedia mainspace must be verifiable, and must include inline citations that directly support the material. Gabeedman (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the texts themselves are the source, but I won't remove you tagging until you're convinced of that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Convincing aside, even encyclopedic articles require inline citations. Whence comes the material? From what source(s) is it drawn? This unreferenced article is ripe for deletion. Gabeedman (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. They only need inline citations if the contents would be challenged. Since the translations themselves are two sources, they should be added as part of a bibliography. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had not realized that the Novum Testamentum Graece was published in English, not Greek. All joking aside, this article does not contain any Greek text. Moreover, this article's title is not Textual variation between the Byzantine and Alexandrian text-types. Yet, that accurately summarizes its contents. Gabeedman (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly implied that it's an English translation of the text. I mentioned in the merge discussion that it's not clear which translation that is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an English translation, but of which critical text? UBS or SBLGNT or another? Not only is the translation undefinable, but the critical edition behind the translation is likewise undefinable. Gabeedman (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues

This unsourced 2011 article has been tagged (contested) since April 2017. There is an outdated merge tag with consensus to merge but never closed. The lack of notability as well as the original research tags never addressed are ground for seeking deletion. Merging an unsupported (contested) article into an already large article does not seem to be favorable and would be just be moving original research from one location to another. Otr500 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I copied this comment to Talk:Textual variants in the New Testament#Merger Discussion, at the bottom of the New Comments subsection. wbm1058 (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion proposal

@Otr500: @Wbm1058: @Gabeedman: @Walter Görlitz: I have proposed the article for deletion. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do we merge?

What do we merge to Textual variants in the New Testament? I am against merging "major" textual variants whose importance (i.e. if it is a major variant or not) is not supported by a RS. Veverve (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: @Wbm1058: @Gabeedman: @Walter Görlitz:; also pinging @Ritchie333: since you closed the RfD, hoping you have some advice. Veverve (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the wrong person to ask. I did not think it needed to be merged. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am against moving what is deemed as original research to degrade another article. That is apparently the consensus though as the article has been referred to as a "notable subject for theology". The term is very broad and out of three identified, Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and critical text, found at the bottom of the article (but with zero sources in 10 years as noted by the Nom in the AFD),

This is a paper or study, not in an appropriate order (define the "major textual variants", then break it down. As it stands now supporters seem to like the idea no matter how bad the presentation. Read the fourth paragraph of the lead, "30,000 variants", "150,000–200,000 variants", "200,000 to 400,000 variants", "10,000 Latin manuscripts", as high as "750,000", or "500,000" variants".

The seems to be a consensus to include religious joke articles on Wikipedia. Of the 14 people !voting to keep or merge the best answer concerning sources was "The sources being compared (the King James Version and New American Standard Bible, 1995 edition) are the references.".

The things we once deemed important like WP:verifiability (policy), reliable sources and WP:inline citations that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material with specific reliable source(s) that support it., no original research (policy) and even the Five pillars indicate we are not to have personal studies and manuscripts on Wikipedia, if they are still deemed important.

When a closer fails to consider WP:Discardable: The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. we get the results such as we did. Another policy is Wikipedia:Deletion policy and #5, #6, and #7 are "Reasons for deletion".

I would suggest to merge the three identified in the "List of major textual variants in the New Testament" section (down to the next subsection) and leave out the rest. At least that can be found in sources. Otr500 (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]