Talk:Creation Science Movement

Creationism: Young Earth creationism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Young Earth creationism task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Genesis Expo pic[edit]

This pic really needs to be (i) edited down to only the ground floor (showing the 'Genesis Expo' signage & to be longer-than-it-is-high to better fit with such a short section) & (ii) displayed at a resolution that the signage is visible. I don't have a Wikicommons a/c to do so presently, but will get around to it if nobody else does (and nobody objects). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Given that Liveintheforests first added the material here then G7 Speedied David Rosevear, this merge proposal is rendered moot. -- Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that David Rosevear is the current chairman of this organisation, but has garnered virtually no third-party coverage (being the occasional obligatory 'creationist quote' in BBC articles is about all) to establish notability, I'm proposing that his article be merged here (as a brief mention). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both the Rosevear and the Bowden articles i have merged it all on the Creation Science Movement article, i will tone some of it down at some point maybe, im currently looking for other sources at the moment, il leave it as it is for now. It actually looks ok.Liveintheforests (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, resulting in an excess of WP:SPS-based cruft, in violation of WP:UNDUE ans WP:SELFPUB. I have trimmed stringently. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No what you have done is just delete everything, this is in violation of WP:NPOV, i also didnt know the Bsce, Talk.orgins, Newscientist magazine, Thirdway magazine, British Medical Journal or BBC articles are WP:SELFPUB?? you then mention WP:UNDUE ?? You deleted over 20 lines of text from reliable third party sources to a single line. Liveintheforests (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If any other users happen to come across this discussion please note there is a discussion going on here to see if the Malcolm Bowden and David Rosevear (both speakers for the CSM) articles are going to be deleted or not:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Bowden Liveintheforests (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BCSE: still there
Talk.orgins: only cited for the blindingly obvious point that they gave Bowden's book a negative review (were you expecting a positive one).
Newscientist magazine: wasn't there in the first place
ThirdWay: only cited for the trivial fact that Henry M. Morris wrote a foreword to Bowden's book (one YEC writes a forward for another YEC's book -- hardly surprising)
BMJ: letter to the editor/reader contribution -- not a WP:RS
BBC: boilerplate "brainwashed by the media" quote

The vast majority of the material excised was from unreliable/WP:SPS sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have completey deleted any sign of Malcolm Bowden on the Creation Science Movement article, without explaining why you have done this. Further research has shown Malcolm Bowden has been referenced in three evolutionist books (which can be found on Google Books) - Clearly these are not WP:SELFPUB.

Yes, because his article has been nominated for deletion at an AfD, not for merger -- there is therefore no consensus to merge this material here. Unless you state (i) what these books are (ii) what they say about Bowden & (iii) how this material is particularly relevant to CSM, I see no point in discussing them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were also three BBC references which mention both Bowden and Rosevear - Mentioning their beliefs, position etc. That is more than enough alone (even without the other references), to be merged on the CSM article. Liveintheforests (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, whenever the BBC does an article on creationism, they feel obliged to seek a quote from a creationist, who tends to be Rosevear. The quote tends to be something vacuous that can be summarised as 'evolution BAD', and so hardly worthy of note. That the leader of the organisation-formerly-known-as-the-Evolution-Protest-Movement, when asked, protests evolution, is trivial. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal 2[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge here (unopposed after 3 months). -- Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis Expo has redirected here for the last 3 years. Given that (i) there is insufficient material to warrant an independent article & (ii) that coverage in the context of its parent organisation makes more sense, I am proposing that it be re-merged (as a bare redirect, unless any substantive third-party material is found). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.