Talk:New International Reader's Version

Some thoughts, now that I have put up a stub for this Bible translation:

First of all, I can't think of a more delicate way to phrase "more accessible for people who have difficulty reading English". Basically, the NIV is 8th grade reading level material, and the NIRV is third-grade reading level material.

Second of all, the license for the NIV and NIRV (similiar, but in .doc format) require me to include the long copyright at the end of the entry if we include sample verses unless you can convince me that a single verse translated qualifies for "fair use" (which it probably does).

The exact paragraph in the license is as follows:

a) Individuals: You are permitted to reproduce the NIV® Text solely for personal, non-commercial use, as  described in this limited revocable license Agreement. For these uses, the NIV® Text may be  quoted in written format, up to and inclusive of 50 verses, without express written permission from IBS,  provided the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted  account for five percent (5%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted. This  limited  license may be revoked and/or modified at any time by IBS in its sole and absolute discretion.

[...]

If the reproduction is in a web page or other comparable online format, the following notice must appear on each page on which NIV® Text is reproduced (this is followed by the notice I placed on the stub entry)

- Sam


 * I think the license for use of the NIV/NIRV is not compatible with the Wikipedia License; but a single verse from the Bible used for comparison purposes is surely protected by Fair Use. Samboy 21:48, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't we be including if anything the NIRV's notice not the NIV's? Rmhermen 22:05, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * The wording for the NIRV license is almost identical, and the entry has both NIV and NIRV exercepts. - Sam
 * British copyright permits brief quotations without consent. I believe the law of other countries is similar.  Thus no problem arises.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Contesting PROD
Some one had marked this for PROD. I would suggest that all widely-circulated translations of the Bible, the most widely publihsed book in the world are notable. I do not know this translation, but that is not surprising since I am a native English speaker. Translations of this kind (including the Good News Bible are designed primarily for whom English is a second (or subsequent) language that they do not speak or understand well. Such people manage better with a version using a smaller vocabulary and simplet syntax.   Peterkingiron (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Abbreviation
In this edit an editor  has added NIRV as an alternative to NIrV. I reverted the bold edit because those are the same thing, and because the sources provided actually use NIrV. The Bible Gateway uses NIRV in an all caps heading but NIrV in all sentence case usage. Nevertheless this edit has been reverted back in. Please would you, per WP:BRD, now self revert and discuss here until we find a consensus. Why does it make sense to list this alternative capitalisation? How is the reader informed by this? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sirfurboy, my curiosity was aroused when I saw NIrV in use: I would be interested to know why the lower case 'r' is used, as the standard form of the abbreviation would be NIRV. The word "Reader's" remains capitalised. I had thought that the Biblica site (reference [3] in the article) would have helped but this refers to NIV now, not the New International Reader's Version. However, the capitalised abbreviation is used by Biblica at https://www.biblica.com/bible/nirv/genesis/1/ etc. so I think the reader needs to be informed that both forms are in use. The article should perhaps state that NIrV is more "official", and ideally could explain why. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I presume the lower case is asserted because there is a definite NIV brand, and the publishers wish to assert that the NIrV is the readers version of the NIV, in the same way that they branded the NIV 2011 as the NIV, rather than "revised NIV" or similar. I don't have a source for that, but NIrV does appear to be the official abberviation, as per the sources. Biblica also use that form when talking about the version, and that "read online" section appears to merely show an inconsistency. I simply do not see what the reader gains by putting "or NIRV" all over the place either, as that usage comes under the heading of "obvious".Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy to leave the abbreviation as it is. BobKilcoyne (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)