Talk:The Creationists

reviews & criticism

I really couldn't find any lengthy reviews that were critical, and even reviews from the Christian press were largely positive. I'm told, however, that some Christians dislike this book, so I tried to find a cite; the best I could find was a cite to customer reviews at amazon.com. If someone can produce a better cite to a published review, great. Otherwise, I think that in the general praise is well-referenced, and the suggestion of criticism is real, albeit perhaps not as well-referenced. --Lquilter (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

HRAFN deleted them, and it's fine with me -- I was just trying to stave off the inevitable complaining. --Lquilter (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis

Having just read through the book, I think that there is a great opportunity here for some major additions to the article. Does a synopsis of the book require links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnyhaha (talk • contribs) 16:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything should be referenced, if that's what you mean. An overview of what is in the book would be great. --Lquilter (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is taken as read that the citation for a synopsis of the book is the book itself. Specific citations would only be necessary for quotes, extraordinary claims, etc. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I wasn't sure what was meant by links, so I just meant, no other links, like links to parts of the book or online versions, are needed. Thanks for clarifying. --Lquilter (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Lquilter and Hrafn. I'll probably start working on it in a week or so as I have some real life projects I need to work on first. Minnyhaha (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Great! I'll help w/ copyediting etc. I've got some busy-ness ahead of me, too. --Lquilter (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

de:The Creationists Perhaps this can help you. Greetings. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox picture

The infobox gives the subtitle of the latest "expanded" edition ("From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design") but the picture of the original edition (clearly showing its subtitle of "The Evolution of Scientific Creationism"). Wouldn't it be better to be consistent and use a picture of the latest edition (e.g. from Google Books)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Replaced. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Creationists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080829185250/http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article4383951.ece to http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article4383951.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"Creationists mentioned in the book are notable"

I don't understand what User:OtisDixon means by the statement "Creationists mentioned in the book are notable", added today.[1] Notable according to who? According to Ronald Numbers? That would go without saying — presumably he wouldn't mention them if they weren't notable in his estimation. Surely you're not referring to Wikipedia's internal standards for WP:notability, Otis? That would be inappropriate on a public page. But "notability" in a void, according to noone in particular, doesn't exist. I also don't understand why you list the creationists mentioned in Numbers' first chapter. Do you intend to go on and do the same for all the chapters? (But why do it at all?) Please clarify. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC).

Since Numbers' book on Creationists is the recognized authority on the topic, those creationists he mentions are notable in nearly every situation besides also on Wikipedia. This list is just a beginning, I just got started. It seems to me to be worthwhile to have the creationists from Numbers available so researchers can find easily them. --OtisDixon (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Bishonen that the wording you used was confusing and inappropriate, OtisDixon. I have changed it, hopefully to something better. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, please stop, OtisDixon. Really, lists of mentioned creationists (arranged by chapters, yet) are not a reasonable part of an article on Numbers' book. Are you trying to save researchers the trouble of reading the book itself? That's not what an encyclopedia article is for. And the unmoored, free-floating, unsourced claim that they're "notable" is quite unreasonable. (Thank you for removing it, FreeKnowledgeCreator.) I'll tell you what you might do, if you're determined to assist the researchers, Otis: create a List of creationists, and start it off with the ones in Numbers. I can't guarantee it'll be kept as a worthwhile list article, and it would surely be a magnet for edit warring about who is and isn't truly a creationist, but it would make more sense than this. Bishonen | talk 21:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC).

list of creationists

The Creationists is about creationists, who they are, what they did, what they believed and why. So it is entirely consistent with the book to list who these creationists are (many of whom already have Wiki pages) and in what chapters they are mentioned for quick reference. That is useful and intellectually responsible research information. That is why I added it and feel it is entirely appropriate. --OtisDixon (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The article does not need to mention every creationist named in the book - only the more prominent ones. WP:UNDUE is the relevant policy that covers this. The information about what chapter someone is mentioned in is definitely not needed or appropriate for an encyclopedic summary. If readers actually care about such details, then they can read the book. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

All of the creationists mentioned in the book are the most important and prominent of creationists among thousands of creationists, else they would not have been mentioned. It is really a rather short list. As it is, the existing article hardly says anything of significance about the topic of the book. A list of those about whom the book is written is a good start. Organizing them according to chapter is expediency and simplicity itself. I really don't understand this aversion and abhorrence to simple information. It seems as if you are afraid of something. --OtisDixon (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh? Why do you say that? It sounds more likely that a book about creationism would mention some more famous creationists and other less well-known creationists as well. That is what one might expect from a scholarly work, after all. There are undoubtedly many things that could be done to improve the article, but simply adding a list of names of creationists is not one of them, and organizing those names by chapter is not "expediency and simplicity itself", it is a good example of something a proper encyclopedia entry does not do. You can refrain from making personal insults, as I do not respond to them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Numbers doesn't waste his time talking about insignificant creationists. If you had read the book you would know that all of those mention played a significant part in the growth and expansion of creationism. And Numbers' book is the most comprehensive and most negative book so far about them. This article is only a fraction of what it should be. --OtisDixon (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

"Numbers doesn't waste his time talking about insignificant creationists" I read the book a few years ago, and if I remember correctly, this is actually true.

It does not follow that the article should contain such a reference list. Some of those people are already mentioned in the article, and that is the way it should be. Nothing wrong with adding others though. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE, we don't list or describe everything in the book. If individual creationists are actually significant, then they can be mentioned in the text in the course of describing the book; if names have to be placed in a list, rather than included normally in the main text, then all that indicates is that the names are not, in fact, significant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)