Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Biblical Creation Society

8 Open questions

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)[reply]

That an obscure group (it has no wikipedia article) asked eight unspecified questions of the BCS is too vague and insignificant to be worth mentioning in the article. WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Unless some significance can be established for these questions, the mere trivial fact of their existence should be omitted. I am therefore re-adding the {{specify}} tag. HrafnTalkStalk 08:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Irrelevant WP:COATRACKing

This article spends most of its time discussing the activities of indovidual members of the BCS without tying these activities back to the BCS.

  • Was Edgar Andrews acting in an official capacity as BCS president when he participated in the Huxley Memorial Debate, or just as an individual?
  • Likewise was David Tyler acting in an official capacity as BCS secretary when he participated in the BBC Breakfast debate?
  • Are the 'Recolonisers an official subgroup of 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? HrafnTalkStalk 09:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RichardDawkins.net refers to Andrews as President of the BCS. The BBC website refers to "Tyler of the BCS". These references make it clear that they were invited in their capacity as spokespersons for the BCS.
I have not read up on Recolonisers but the quick public response from the BCS makes it clear that they took the AiG article as an attack on the society. I would be prepared to add more context to the article, but this risks being WP:OR.
As for your subject line allegation, WP:COATRACK says:
A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats". ...
Coatrack articles can be created purposefully to promote a particular bias, and they can accidentally evolve through excessive focus on one aspect of the subject. In either case the article should be corrected.
Coatrack articles violate the core Wikipedia policies of neutral point of view: in particular the requirement that articles be balanced.
  • What is the tangentially related bias subject for which you consider this article is in reality a cover?
  • Are you alleging that this article was created purposefully to promote a particular bias?
  • Coatrack articles violate NPOV. How does this one violate WP:NPOV?
For the record, I have no connection with the society, have not met any of their personnel, have not read any of their publications (although I looked at their website while drafting this article), and would not necessarily subscribe to the majority of their views if I had. I created it to describe neutrally a notable organisation that has a significant role within creationism but limited influence among Christians as a whole.
I note that you choose not to disclose any potential bias on your own user page.
As for me, I regularly document points of view that are the opposite of my own. I'm here to make a better encyclopedia. Can we get on with working constructively together to that end? - Fayenatic (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This allegation has been substantially withdrawn, see next section. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Society's journal and publications are cited by other creationist groups"

Why on Earth is this in the article? It is:

  1. trivially obvious -- creationists cite each other all the time (I'd be very much surprised if any creationist organisation had not cited every other organisation within its 'flavour' of creationism, YEC/OEC/etc, at some stage or other)
  2. blatant WP:SYNTH -- as neither of the sources state this, it is merely a conclusion drawn from them.
  3. appallingly badly cited -- the first source merely links to BCS a couple of times out of a page full of dozens of links, and the second only has it as one of two sources in one of 25 footnotes -- very thin pickings.

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. HrafnTalkStalk 15:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clause withdrawn for the time being.
I have to say that editing with you is good training, but hard work. I normally enjoy editing Wikipedia, but this is a real slog. I found an essay that you might like to consider - WP:TAGBOMB.
What about your allegation of coatracking? Are you going to substantiate that? - Fayenatic (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:TAGBOMB is only an essay. In any case I generally attempt to explain (either in the edit summary, or on talk) what the problem is that the tag is for.
  2. The reason you're finding it "hard work" is that you're playing fast and loose with sourcing.
  3. I was using WP:COATRACK in a slightly wider (but not infrequently-used) sense that has more to do with WP:NOTE than WP:NPOV. In this sense it applies to articles where editors can't find sufficient information and/or sufficient third party reliable sources that is directly relevant to the topic, so throw in information/sources heavily tangential to it, in an attempt to fill out the article. It's still a 'coatrack', but for a rather different purpose. This article had a feel of that to start with (still does slightly, but less so).

HrafnTalkStalk 07:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original point of including the statement was to demonstrate the Society's influence within Creationism, as part of a section that also described the limits of its influence.
I'm sorry you found it badly cited. You tagged as unacceptable the original long list of BCS citations within the AiG website, on the grounds that they were generated as search results. I then picked a couple of results from the list (without taking as much care over the selection as you might have done); I was uneasy over that edit, since it might be considered "coatracking" as it generated multiple footnotes about creation-evolution sub-debates that were not directly relevant to the article. However, the result was other tags and your comments above.
I am also sorry that you consider my sourcing "fast and loose". My intention is "summarizing source material without changing its meaning" which is encouraged as "good editing" at WP:SYNTH. You have considered it necessary to replace some of my writing with direct quotations from the referenced source material instead; fair enough.
Please also consider your own conduct. This similarly-experienced editor's experience of working with you leads to the conclusion that you, Sir, are a pedant and a bully. You freely use Man of straw arguments (e.g. "If this is the only..." twice on this page) and pepper your edit summaries and talk with adjectives such as pejorative, absurd, obscure. Let's drop the insults and concentrate on the material. - Fayenatic (talk)

Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center is not a WP:RS

As an effort has been made to extend the reference to IDEA, I'd like to point out the following:

  • It is explicitly partisan.
  • It is only a student organisation.
  • It has very minimal prominence.

Its opinions of other creationist organisations are thus unreliable and irrelevant. HrafnTalkStalk 07:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. HrafnTalkStalk 15:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If this is the best/only", then I would agree, and would not have created the article; but it's not. Within the UK, the Society has a prominence acknowledged even by its opponents, as stated and referenced in this article from the start.
I wouldn't rate getting on Breakfast TV to be much of an improvement. I would further note that they aren't even mentioned once in Ronald L. Numbers' The Creationists -- the most authoritative and detailed history of the movement. HrafnTalkStalk 18:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's strange - this copy of The Creationists at Amazon UK allows me to see the index, which includes an entry for Biblical Creation Society on pages 325 to 329. If you have access to the book itself, please do summarise what it says in this article. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, you are correct. It is is a separate chapter (which is what fooled me) to the one chronicling the Creation Science Movement the other (but far older) British creationist group. I will update the article on the basis of Numbers' commentary. HrafnTalkStalk 04:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a general editor, not a POV-pusher or specialist. "Fayenatic" reflects my joining Wikipedia to copy-edit articles on Chinese pop. I'm happy to acknowledge your superior background knowledge for the internal links you added here. Explicitly stating the IDEA's student status and ID-promotion has also improved this article. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would further note that that IDEA gave 13 out of 32 "Pro-Creationism Websites" their highest rating. Not exactly a select bunch. HrafnTalkStalk 15:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You omitted to note that they gave their highest rating to a similar proportion (4/13) of "Pro-Evolution / Anti-Creationism Websites". I stated in the footnote, from the first, that the BCS's top rating was "One of 27 four-star ratings". I'm not aiming to hide or exaggerate anything. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice it. You didn't however give the total number of websites rated for comparison. A four star rating is significantly more notable if only 10% get one than if 40% do. HrafnTalkStalk 18:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Evolutionist" vs "Science supporter" vs "Anti-creationist"

"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. HrafnTalkStalk 17:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biblical_Creation_Society