Talk:Issues in Science and Religion

The book doesn't ever use the word tie so probably not able to work in that word in the article, but that's a fair representation of how Barbour sees the issues, i think. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why list the index?[edit]

It's fair enough to link to the topics discussed in the book, but to be informative the article needs to say more about what reliable secondary sources, such as the reviews of the book, say about what the book says about these topics. At present it just looks like a list of links, and since they're all cited to the index there's no need to put an inline citation after every link – one link at the end of the relevant paragraph will do nicely. In principle, we shouldn't be trying to replicate the book's index, but should show more about what distinquishes this book from other books on the topic. . dave souza, talk 14:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning on expanding the article? That would be great if you were. At any rate, your comment seems wishy-washy. Do you really believe it's fair enough to link to topics discussed in the book? If so, why re-categorize your belief as a list of the index and then question it? This comment isn't at all clear to me. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misunderstood me. This should be an article about the book, not an article about its index or a list of links to topics the book touches on. That's my advice, and I'm rather busy with expanding or reexamining other articles just now. If you could try finding a secondary source commenting on the book and summarising what that source says, then give me a heads-up and I'll look it over and give suggestions or comments. . . dave souza, talk 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thesis?[edit]

Why would someone interested in the relationship between Science and Religion or the related history be interested in this book? It is nice to know that Mascall finds it "lucid and interesting", but not hardly useful or encyclopedic. What are the central themes to this work, and how have they been received by the broader community? I also removed the plethora of citations to the book's index, as they provide no information beyond the fact that the several topics are treated by Barbour. If Barbour's ideas about any of these topics are developed in the article, they should be cited to the appropriate section of the book. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews are what they are. For the inclusion of them to be called "not hardly useful or encyclopedic" seems rather odd, to me. I've included blockquotes from the reviews so that other editors can read them for themselves. As for the thesis, I think the TLS review takes a fairly good stab at this, "The title of this book is a fair indication of its contents..." --Firefly322 (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that while a Booklist style review may help establish notability, such commentary does not provide the same level of encyclopedic content as a critical analysis. For instance, both reviews mention Barbour's stance viz. God and nature. Using these as reliable secondary sources, it should be perfectly possible to expound upon the point in the article.

Using the current article, would it be possible for a scholar to reconstruct the main points of Barbour's argument? The fact that at present it would not be possible to do so is ok for a developing article, but that is the sort of content we should focus on adding. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Firefly322 by Firefly322. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews you added to Talk:Issues in Science and Religion#Reviews are probably copyrighted text, and full or substantial reproductions are not covered by fair use. Please either indicate that their publication there is compatible with the GFDL or remove the text per WP:COPYVIO. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer. They aren't in main space. They are there for purely educational purposes. I put them there so that you or some other editors could read them and improve the main space article. I think that from this comment and your other comments your goal in Issues in Science and Religion is to make things difficult for me or any other editor seriously working on this article. I would appreciate it if you did not work on or tag any more articles that I work on. There are plenty of other editors to do that. Thanks. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion does not belong in ArticleTalk space. Please continue discussion at User talk:Firefly322#Reviews of ''Issues in Science and Religion''. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Layout[edit]

WP:LAYOUT does not have an 'Academic Resources' section. If you think that such resources are required then please add them to either 'Further reading' or 'External links' as appropriate (though please note that the latter must comply with WP:EL). On a sidenote, adding bucketloads of links to the 'See also' section is excessive and will be reverted. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This latter excess covered by the WP:LINKFARM policy. It is generally preferred to add cited text based on reliable sources rather than just sending the reader elsewhere. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]