Vital articles: Level 5 / Philosophy C‑class
Ginza Rabba has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do.Vital articlesWikipedia:WikiProject Vital articlesTemplate:Vital articlevital articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religious texts C‑class (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Religion C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This Ginza is grossly incomplete so does not qualify to correct any Mandaean-language edition of the Ginza, nor any of the translations of the Ginza into German or English. The statement to the contrary in the main article is written by ignorant partisans of that Ginza. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.116.175 (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Mr. Gelbert, eventhough your name is not visible, but there are also other signs and methods to find out who is writing such unobjective evaluations. You remember very well the campaign which you started in the yahoo-groups against the equivalent translation by Prof. Alsaadi and attacking him personally, but nevertheless I was objective and impartial in my evaluation of some pieces of your translation. I still hope that you´ll get the message: these sites are not for advertising and attacking people! Please do not provoke with unprofessional comments! Since we know that your work(it would be fair to mention in the main article that Mark Lofts and Sue Aran were also involved in the translation and not only you) is not a really direct translation from Mandaic, I am able to discuss with you which mistakes does your translation have, whether linguistic or contextual. Be able to put evidences and we can find out the truth if you want, but in a civil way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drabsha1 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first link to the concordance no longer links there. It's now an advertisement page. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]