This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Biblical Creation Society article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | Other talk page banners |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
An editor has added a {{
specify}}
tag after the reference to 8 open questions to the BCS raised by the RSCF. The link already provided to Berry's book on Google Books opens right at the page with these questions. It seems unnecessary in the context of this short article to list the questions. I will summarise the scope of them in a phrase and remove the tag. -
Fayenatic
(talk)
08:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
specify}}
tag.
Hrafn
Talk
Stalk
08:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)The questions were published and the footnote always contained a direct link to them; I have now stated this explicitly. I have also created a redirect to the Research Scientists' Christian Fellowship's current name, Christians in Science. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This article spends most of its time discussing the activities of indovidual members of the BCS without tying these activities back to the BCS.
If the answer isn't a verifiable "yes" to the above, then the material on them is not relevant to the article. I would also suggest that the BBC Breakfast debate was too minor event to be worth mentioning in any case. Do we have a secondary source establishing its noteworthiness? Hrafn Talk Stalk 09:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
This allegation has been substantially withdrawn, see next section. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Why on Earth is this in the article? It is:
If this sort of thing is all that there is to say about BCS, then it needs to be asked whether the organisation is notable. Hrafn Talk Stalk 15:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk 07:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
As an effort has been made to extend the reference to IDEA, I'd like to point out the following:
Its opinions of other creationist organisations are thus unreliable and irrelevant. Hrafn Talk Stalk 07:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I see that Fayenatic london has made the absurd claim that "It's relevant to mention that IDEA's ranking is not only of pro-creationism websites". Given that this bunch have neither prominence, even among creationists, nor any pretensions of respectability or scholarliness, why is who else they rank at all relevant?
Their inclusion merely tells the well-read Creationism observer that the BCS has virtually no profile at all, if this is the best/only material that you can come up with. Hrafn Talk Stalk 15:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I would further note that that IDEA gave 13 out of 32 "Pro-Creationism Websites" their highest rating. Not exactly a select bunch. Hrafn Talk Stalk 15:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
"Anti-creationist" probably is a reasonable (if not a perfect) fit for Dawkins. I can however find no evidence in John Maynard Smith's article of him engaging in significant anti-creationist activities (beyond simply engaging in evolutionary biology). I have no information at all on Francis Beckett.
I would suggest that "anti-creationist" be reserved for those who have a track record of writing books (and similar activities) that debunk creationism -- Barbara Forrest, Robert T. Pennock and Kenneth R. Miller immediately come to mind. Hrafn Talk Stalk 17:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Biblical Creation Society. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Biblical Creation Society article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | Other talk page banners |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
An editor has added a {{
specify}}
tag after the reference to 8 open questions to the BCS raised by the RSCF. The link already provided to Berry's book on Google Books opens right at the page with these questions. It seems unnecessary in the context of this short article to list the questions. I will summarise the scope of them in a phrase and remove the tag. -
Fayenatic
(talk)
08:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
specify}}
tag.
Hrafn
Talk
Stalk
08:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)The questions were published and the footnote always contained a direct link to them; I have now stated this explicitly. I have also created a redirect to the Research Scientists' Christian Fellowship's current name, Christians in Science. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This article spends most of its time discussing the activities of indovidual members of the BCS without tying these activities back to the BCS.
If the answer isn't a verifiable "yes" to the above, then the material on them is not relevant to the article. I would also suggest that the BBC Breakfast debate was too minor event to be worth mentioning in any case. Do we have a secondary source establishing its noteworthiness? Hrafn Talk Stalk 09:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
This allegation has been substantially withdrawn, see next section. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Why on Earth is this in the article? It is:
If this sort of thing is all that there is to say about BCS, then it needs to be asked whether the organisation is notable. Hrafn Talk Stalk 15:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk 07:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
As an effort has been made to extend the reference to IDEA, I'd like to point out the following:
Its opinions of other creationist organisations are thus unreliable and irrelevant. Hrafn Talk Stalk 07:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I see that Fayenatic london has made the absurd claim that "It's relevant to mention that IDEA's ranking is not only of pro-creationism websites". Given that this bunch have neither prominence, even among creationists, nor any pretensions of respectability or scholarliness, why is who else they rank at all relevant?
Their inclusion merely tells the well-read Creationism observer that the BCS has virtually no profile at all, if this is the best/only material that you can come up with. Hrafn Talk Stalk 15:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I would further note that that IDEA gave 13 out of 32 "Pro-Creationism Websites" their highest rating. Not exactly a select bunch. Hrafn Talk Stalk 15:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
"Anti-creationist" probably is a reasonable (if not a perfect) fit for Dawkins. I can however find no evidence in John Maynard Smith's article of him engaging in significant anti-creationist activities (beyond simply engaging in evolutionary biology). I have no information at all on Francis Beckett.
I would suggest that "anti-creationist" be reserved for those who have a track record of writing books (and similar activities) that debunk creationism -- Barbara Forrest, Robert T. Pennock and Kenneth R. Miller immediately come to mind. Hrafn Talk Stalk 17:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Biblical Creation Society. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)