This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr. Jason David BeDuhn, Ph.D. is redundant.
Dr. Jason David BeDuhn is correct.
Jason David BeDuhn, Ph.D. is correct.
Dr. Jason David BeDuhn, Ph.D. is not correct. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.2.74.222 (
talk)
10:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, the sentence "...which generated controversy when he found the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (published by Jehovah's Witnesses) and the New American Bible (published by the American Catholic Church) to be more accurate than other respected translations linked to Protestant constituencies." does not follow NPOV rules. By saying "he found" it implied that he discovered something of provable truth, whereas there is still much debate on the validity of the New World Translation. I feel that "he wrote that the" is much more appropriate since its true that he wrote that, but not as strong as "he found". Whisperwolf ( talk) 22:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
BeDuhn's book drew the conclusion that in his opinion the NWT was the most accurate, and it is right that Wikipedia reports that he drew the conclusion. But that conclusion is NOT SHARED among the bulk of his peers, and the majority of theological scholars disagree with him. As such, to present his opinions or conclusions as definite, not disputed, is a clear breach of WP:NPOV and as such I have reverted it to my wording again, and revised that section of the article so that the section can be appropriately flagged as NPOV disputed. Please read the guidelines on NPOV which clearly state that one authors opinion that is in conflict with the bulk of his peers is not to be represented as fact, as the wording you keep reverting this article to does. Whisperwolf ( talk) 20:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
This is not an ideal situation to have ones religious beliefs attacked by any means. However I must say that this book does justice to my beliefs for a change. Jehovah's Witnesses are not in the majority and neither was what Jesus himself was preaching to the Jewish community in his day. You get a sense that what he was instructing his disciples to do ("go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things".)was new and unpopular as is today. No one wants to be wrong in his belief, so I encourage all to thoroughly examine his beliefs without bias and see just where that leads you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctpreach1 ( talk • contribs) 10:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jason BeDuhn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@ David Menafee: The article asserts that BeDuhn's Truth in Translation has been 'controversial' along with other claims, almost all of which are entirely unsourced. Citations were requested in February 2021. If citations are not provided indicating that the subject has actually received attention by notable authorities, the subsection may be reduced or removed.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 07:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
It's perhaps more appropriate for a surname page or a disambiguation page, but since there are none: what's the etymology of BeDuhn? At first I thought it's a spoonerism for "DeBuhn", but "Buhn" isn't something you'd ordinarily find in any language that uses "De" in surnames. 195.187.108.4 ( talk) 18:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr. Jason David BeDuhn, Ph.D. is redundant.
Dr. Jason David BeDuhn is correct.
Jason David BeDuhn, Ph.D. is correct.
Dr. Jason David BeDuhn, Ph.D. is not correct. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.2.74.222 (
talk)
10:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, the sentence "...which generated controversy when he found the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (published by Jehovah's Witnesses) and the New American Bible (published by the American Catholic Church) to be more accurate than other respected translations linked to Protestant constituencies." does not follow NPOV rules. By saying "he found" it implied that he discovered something of provable truth, whereas there is still much debate on the validity of the New World Translation. I feel that "he wrote that the" is much more appropriate since its true that he wrote that, but not as strong as "he found". Whisperwolf ( talk) 22:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
BeDuhn's book drew the conclusion that in his opinion the NWT was the most accurate, and it is right that Wikipedia reports that he drew the conclusion. But that conclusion is NOT SHARED among the bulk of his peers, and the majority of theological scholars disagree with him. As such, to present his opinions or conclusions as definite, not disputed, is a clear breach of WP:NPOV and as such I have reverted it to my wording again, and revised that section of the article so that the section can be appropriately flagged as NPOV disputed. Please read the guidelines on NPOV which clearly state that one authors opinion that is in conflict with the bulk of his peers is not to be represented as fact, as the wording you keep reverting this article to does. Whisperwolf ( talk) 20:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
This is not an ideal situation to have ones religious beliefs attacked by any means. However I must say that this book does justice to my beliefs for a change. Jehovah's Witnesses are not in the majority and neither was what Jesus himself was preaching to the Jewish community in his day. You get a sense that what he was instructing his disciples to do ("go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things".)was new and unpopular as is today. No one wants to be wrong in his belief, so I encourage all to thoroughly examine his beliefs without bias and see just where that leads you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctpreach1 ( talk • contribs) 10:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jason BeDuhn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@ David Menafee: The article asserts that BeDuhn's Truth in Translation has been 'controversial' along with other claims, almost all of which are entirely unsourced. Citations were requested in February 2021. If citations are not provided indicating that the subject has actually received attention by notable authorities, the subsection may be reduced or removed.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 07:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
It's perhaps more appropriate for a surname page or a disambiguation page, but since there are none: what's the etymology of BeDuhn? At first I thought it's a spoonerism for "DeBuhn", but "Buhn" isn't something you'd ordinarily find in any language that uses "De" in surnames. 195.187.108.4 ( talk) 18:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)