Talk:The Creationists

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: reviews & criticism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. HrafnTalkStalk 02:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

message: 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)? HrafnTalkStalk 05:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Replaced. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox picture 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Creationists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't understand what User:OtisDixon means by the statement "Creationists mentioned in the book are notable", added today. 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title: "Creationists mentioned in the book are notable"