Talk:Questions of Truth

Article Creation

I have tried hard to write this from NPOV bearing in mind WP:COI. I do hope people will feel I have succeeded, but of course others may well be able to improve it significantly. NBeale (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it would be OK to include this image [1] in the main article? NBeale (talk)

Yes. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It is reasonably neutral, the only thing that gives away a serious bias is the stabs of revenge at A. C. Grayling. His outrage was childish in my opinion and I he is probably wrong to not recognize double-aspect theory as distinct from dualism; but I will remove all footnote attacks on his review, because it is not up to you to decide what he called "cherry-picking"; in fact, there I think you are trivializing his argument. Vesal (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Endorsements

I have deleted the list of people who have "endorsed" the book. I thought it looked too much like special pleading born of a lack of confidence in the book's ability to stand on its own feet, and it was certainly a clear case of a nebulous appeal to authority. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - I think it adds useful information about the book - it's not my place to put them back but I would support anyone else who did so. The idea of WP is surely to use 3rd party sources, and it's reasonable that people, when they are considering whether to listen to a former physicist and social philosopher talk about current science and theology, should know whether currently practising first-rate scientists (one physicist and two biologists) are prepared to endorse what is said. NBeale (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Browsing through a few other books on science and faith, I've found a good number with harsh criticisms regarding the science they propose. I believe this shows that many readers would assume (by the books subject matter) that it might also propose false scientific claims, which makes these endorsements rather useful. In agreement with NBeale, I've undone Snalwibma's edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.78.10 (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the endorsements are a mere attempt to gain credibility by association. Or at least that's what they look like - and their inclusion makes the book appear weaker, not stronger. If this article needs to plead a special case for the book by dragging in as many scientific celebrities as possible, I conclude, it can't be much good. Let it stand on its own two feet. Besides, what does "endorse" mean? On the book's website, the people mentioned are quoted as making a whole range of different comments about the book - and it's a bit rich to sweep them all together under the rubric of "endorsements". SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comments

Material describing the book itself, specifically its content, is rather lacking, and would need to be expanded significantly to get the article up any higher. John Carter (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a fair point. Anyone mind if I have a go at this? I'm sure it will be edited if I have strayed from NPOV. NBeale (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Should endorsements appear in this book's article? And should the author's biography be restored? 09:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

NBeale has expressed a desire for comment on this article, but is worried that it might look bad to request it since he is one of the authors of the book which is the article's subject. I told him that I didn't think he should worry, but that I would post this RfC for him as a neutral party. Below is the summary of the issue he gave to me. I haven't looked into it in enough depth to have an opinion either way.

1. Should the information on the endorsements by William D. Phillips, Francis Collins and Martin Nowak go back in the article? I think they help the reader get a sense of the book, but I don't feel able to restore them because of WP:COI
2. Should User:NBeale/nclb be restored as Nicholas Beale? This was done by an occasional editor in the light of having writen Questions of Truth but a hostile editor moved it back to userspace (without an AfD debate).

Olaf Davis (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Less notable people have articles on Wikipedia than the author of this book, but the proposed biography reads like a resume. It should be cut down to the essentials of what makes the author encyclopaedia-worthy, i.e., his involvement in the debate on religion and science and a slightly more modest formulation about his investment work. For example, the article states that his work is "said to have helped develop the best framework in the world for engagement between companies and investors" based on a blurb about his books?? I understand Christian teachings about modesty and humility are meant to be taken merely metaphorically (you have to ask what kind of writing it is and what God is trying to tell us through it), but toning down these self-promotional elements would probably make it a more serious biography. About the first issue, I don't really see why the stamps of approval from the Templeton crowd should not be included, as it does indeed give a sense of the book. Vesal (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I quite agree that the Nicholas Beale article should be reduced in size. As I recall during the AfD debate in 2007 there was pressure to add loads of supporting detail. The publication of "Questions of Truth" puts this all in a rather different context. NBeale (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• RfC Comment: Endorsements- if these are in the form of extended remarks or responses by a notable person to the contents of the book, they might have a place. If they are just the usual jacket blurbs ('A great read!' 'Really makes you think' 'One of the best books on alpaca raising of the last ten years'), then I don't think they really contribute much to the reader's understanding of the book or its place- endorsements may be given for a variety of reasons. My concern with the author bio is I see a shortage of 3rd party information that covers the biographical details of the subject and establishes notability independent of the book. It might be acceptable to roll a condensed version of the bio into the article. --Clay Collier (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

They are essentially blurbs. Maybe adding them in the lead is a bit weak, but compare how it is done in The God Delusion#Critical reception. By integrating it into the narrative, it doesn't seem as promotional. One could try something similar here. Vesal (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The last above are good points. Integrating shorter statements like these into the text in relevant locations would help reduce what might be seen as an "assault of praise" for the book, which if they were kept together would be less effective because of the repetitiveness. John Carter (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment

1. I choose to abstain from this question. My only suggestion is to get a general consensus before adding them back in.
2. I've had a look at Nicholas Beale. From what I can see, he's borderline notable. If he can prove his notability with reliable sources, then the article can be added back. You shouldn't fear AFD, rather you should simply view it a way of assuring the article conforms to wikipedia standards. If the article does go into afd, you should tag it with {{rescue}}. If it fails afd, you can take it to WP:DRV, but it shouldn't come to that.

The thing to remember is if you can prove notability with reliable sources, then the answer is ussually yes. As for having WP:COI, you should have a look at Wikipedia:Autobiography. "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community." Have editors look it over for WP:NPOV and WP:RS before putting it in main namespace.Smallman12q (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Genre Science or Theology ?

What is the basis for the Genre in the infobox ?. The LC Catalogue on the book says Theology, Doctrinal - Popular Works - Miscellanea. This is important as division of the Library of Congress assigns the Dewey classification therefore where this goes into a Library would be based on the LC classification because they set the DDC too. Therefore is in a Genre of "Theology" not "Science". Ttiotsw (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly theology. Judging by the reviews I've seen, the book is about using science to defend religion, not using religion to defend science. Theologians are interested in it, scientists are not (unless you count scientist-turned-theologian Polkinghorne). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

New tag

I have added a {{coi}} tag to the article because its creator and primary contributor is one of the authors of this book. Furthermore, he has deliberately cherry-picked positive reviews to include in the article; the current revision only includes two negative reviews, both of which were added by other editors [2][3]. Nicholas Beale clearly knew about knew about both of these reviews, given that he referred to the Financial Times one so frequently in his own attempts to create an article about himself, and that the Guardian article has its own dedicated pages on both the Questions of Truth website and Beale's blog; therefore, the only conclusion is that he deliberately chose not to include them. In light of problems such as this, I believe the article needs to remain tagged until it is reviewed and cleaned by an uninvolved editor. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry colleagues this guy has a problem. You will know I have not edited this article since July 09 and plenty of other editors have worked on it since. Obviously I knew about the Semple interview with Polkinghorne and the associated blog post he made, but since it was a blog post about an interview I thought it might be inappropriate (esp for the co-author) to claim it as a review of the book. It's misleading to say it is "published by the Guardian" becasue it is certainly not "published in the Guardian". And Semple's comment about "a bit patronising" seems to be about remarks made by Polkinghorne in the interview. Ah well, I wonder what PA Rjanag will try next? NBeale (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You really need to read the WP:NPA guideline that you do so love to link to. Where in my comment above was there a single personal attack? Pointing to problems in your editing is not a personal attack. And this is not the first time you have played a "personal attack" card for wholly immature reasons. Nor am I the only editor to point out your propensity for deflecting criticism by crying "personal attack". If you really want to continue being a member of this project (which, given your recent disruption, is becoming more and more unlikely), you need to grow a spine. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)