Talk:Questions of Truth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article Creation[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Endorsements[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That's a rather tortured bit of apologetics.
What an editor finds while browsing through various books that contributes to that editor's beliefs about what many readers would assume is of no relevance to Wikipedia. Such a list of "endorsements" could be included if some reliable source (not the book's website) lists them as such; otherwise such a list is extreme POV puffery. Jibal (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comments[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RfC[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Genre Science or Theology ?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Please demonstrate that "scientists are not interested". Rees obviously finds the subject interesting. --Michael C. Price talk 07:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(since you seem to like answering questions with questions)Please demonstrate that "Rees" is interested in this book. He's only mentioned once in this article, and it seems like QoT is citing Rees, not vice versa. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He writes about similar subject matter, but reaches different conclusions. And then there's the forward by Hewish. --Michael C. Price talk 07:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Writing about similar subject matter means that Rees is interested in the general topic, not that he's interested in this book. The infobox is supposed to be describing the genre of this book. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Hewish? :-) --Michael C. Price talk 07:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by Hewish's Wikipedia article, he's not just a scientist, but also a scientist known for his comments on religion. So the question is, was he invited to write the foreword on the basis of his capacity to advance science, or his capacity to provide an authoritative "scientist" voice in support of religion? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both, obviously. Hence genre should be both. --Michael C. Price talk 08:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is both I'm not convinced that who writes the introduction sets the genre - as an obvious example, we wouldn't classify a Creationist screed as science even if they persuaded some chemist to endorse it. Surely what's relevant is what genre reliable sources ascribe to it, if they do? Olaf Davis (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and certainly the Library of Congress (mentioned above) is a more reliable source than any of our musings. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<The "genre" is Science and Religion, where it is usually in the list of S&R "bestsellers" on Amazon.com and .co.uk. It was launched at the AAAS with the President of the AAAS chairing; at the RS with the President of the British Academy (also an Hon FRS) chairing, with two FRSs (and me) on the Panel, and with c.20 FRSs including a Nobel Laureate in the audience. It has endorsements from William D. Phillips, Martin Nowak and Francis Collins. The Dewey system does not have a classification for this, but we can cope with the real world a bit, surely. NBeale (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the relevance of the guest list - but Dewey does have "a clasiification for this" in the form of the code 215, which means "science and religion", and which might be a better number to assign in the info box. I have done so. 201.65 would also be plausible. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. I'm not sure if 215 is the Dewey code that actually has been assigned to it, though. I haven't found a primary reference yet, but judging from the first couple results of a quick google search, here's what I found:
  • Google books lists genres as
Religion / Christian Theology / Apologetics
Religion / Christian Theology / General
Religion / Christian Theology / Systematic
Religion / Christianity / General
Religion / General
Religion / Religion & Science
Religion / Theology
Theology, Doctrinal
Theology, Doctrinal/ Popular works/ Miscellanea

Religion Books :: Christianity Books :: Theology Books :: General Books
Religion Books :: Christianity Books :: Theology Books :: Apologetics Books
Religion Books :: Religion & Science Books
Religion Books :: Christian Theology Books :: Apologetics Books
Religion Books :: Christian Theology Books :: General Books
rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New tag[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
As for the substantive issues: the bit of the Sample piece that is cited in this article most certainly is about the book; it's prefaced by "there was plenty in Polkinghorne's book I found offensive". You are right that there are parts of the post that are not about the book and are only about the interview (for example, Annoyingly, I didn't end up with the kind of insight I was hoping for. Apparently it takes a long time to explain why such beliefs are held, and it's all very complicated. I felt John re-asserted his beliefs more than explained why he held them.), and those parts I purposely did not mention in this article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem? The negative reviews are in the article. Matter settled.--Michael C. Price talk 07:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure those are all the negative reviews? What's there to say we're not just paying lip service to the negative side while still maintaining a heavily unbalanced article? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whose says those are all the positive reviews?--Michael C. Price talk 07:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling up off-topic and heated back-and-forth

Wow, Rjanag really does have a problem. He's now claiming that we can't quote a review where it quotes from the book. Bizarre!--Michael C. Price talk 07:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so now we've reached the point where editorial disagreements become "so-and-so has a problem"? Excellent. Thanks for bringing the level of discourse down into the gutter. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 08:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't understand who's "bizarre" and what the fricking difference is here, then I'd suggest you need to go back to grammar school for a few more years. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it bizarre to remove a sourced reviewer's comments on the grounds that the reviewer has quoted from the original book. There is no prohibition against this. --Michael C. Price talk 08:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a prohibition against it in your brain: A says that B says C /unequal/ A says C. I learned that in kindergarten... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um Michael Price, did you even look at the diff? I didn't remove any of the reviewer's comments. I only removed the quotation that is lifted directly from the book. The reviewer comment (it happens that "some interesting conclusions" is the only comment that review has to say) has been left entirely intact. And I even left a compromise suggestion at your talk page, which you seem to have ignored. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 08:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the reviewer's comments includes everything they say, including anything they quote.--Michael C. Price talk 08:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the purpose of this section...here is some more recent evidence about the POV of this article and the negative effects of the COI editing. If you carefully read the diff, you can see that Vesal found some criticism [albeit minor] in the review cited, and added it to the article. Previous versions of the article did not mention that criticism, and presented the review as if it were unambiguously glowing. This sort of whitewashing of reviews is a real POV problem, and when stacked on top of other concerns about cherry-picking sources it strongly suggests that tags should be restored. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any need for such a tag. Yes, the article was created by someone with a clear COI, and yes, a lot of work has been done on it by that person, but the reviews are now reasonably representative of what is out there (in fact, they may be all that is out there - I think quite a few of us have searched for reviews to include), and the account of the book is reasonably neutral and not excessively puffy. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unless normal editing is prevented by editors with COI, I don't see the point of a tag. As a general principle, I think these article defacement tags should only be used when the problems cannot be fixed. Such tags reminds me of people giving an ill-prepared lecture and begin by stealing five minutes of the audience's time with apologies for being ill-prepared. Vesal (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Episcopal Life review: remove it?[edit]

Judging by the above and User talk:Michael C Price#Questions of Truth, the way this review is being used in the article has suddenly attracted some controversy. For anyone just entering the discussion, the review is Episcopal Life 3-Mar-09 here. That page actually includes reviews of many books, and the review of QoT only constitutes a single small paragraph (the penultimate one). I think all this argument over such a minor review is pretty silly. First of all, the review is not exactly from a super-notable organization (at least, it doesn't have a WP article). More importantly, it's barely a review, and contains almost no substantive commentary: the first sentence and a half is just a description of what the book is and what it's about, and the second two sentences are a quotation from the book, not a comment by the reviewer. The only part of it that can be construed as a review is (and I quote in full) "They offer...some interesting conclusions" (followed by the quote: essentially, they're saying the interesting conclusion is the one contained in that quote). Is such a tiny review really important enough to be in an article, and is it really worth the trouble being exerted to argue over it? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 08:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that to include the extended (and indeed trite) quote from the book that is in turn quoted by the review is excessive. The article is already overblown, including pointless information such as that a distinguished person presided over its launch (mere appeal to authority), and an overlong catalogue of its contents – all, it seems to me, part of an attempt to overstate the book's significance. Keep the mention of the reviews brief, and restrict them to what the reviewers themselves had to say about the book. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Part of what the reviewer has to say about the book included a quote from the book. If you're objecting to the quote as "trite", that is to judge the source and is prohibited. --Michael C. Price talk 08:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We always judge sources, that is what the writing process entails. It's the reason we're called an encyclopedia and not an aggregator. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 08:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, be honest about your reasons and stop claiming that quoting a quote is prohibited. --Michael C. Price talk 09:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then you stop putting words in my mouth. I never said it's prohibited, I said it's stupid. Which it is. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't say it was "stupid", you just removed the quote, claiming that we couldn't quote the book indirectly. If I misunderstood your motives it was because you never gave any rational explanation for your actions. --Michael C. Price talk 17:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never said "couldn't", said "shouldn't". The reasons I have already explained time and again: it doesn't contribute anything of substance. At this point you are just being stubborn and deliberately dense; you are surely smarter than you're pretending to be right now. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, what you said was "no, the review is quoting the book" when you reverted the quote out. If you thought it was merely "stupid" (as you now claim) why didn't you say that? --Michael C. Price talk 19:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest that we leave people's motives, and how well or badly they explained them, aside and focus on whether or not to include the quote now? For instance, does anyone have comments on my opinion at the bottom of this section? Olaf Davis (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - "trite" looked like my own judgement, and a needless side-swipe. Yes, I do think the statement in question is trite and obvious - but in saying "trite" I intended, rather, to make a comment that including that extended quote does nothing to help the reader understand what exactly the review had to say about the book. We cannot quote the whole of a review. We must precis it. And the much-reduced version seems a very adequate precis. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the quote makes it perfectly clear what the reviewer has to say about the book.--Michael C. Price talk 09:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On that, I think we'll have to agree to diisagree! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Episcopal Life doesn't seem notable enough a publication to be worth including at all. We already have reviews from five respectable and well-known sources, which seems plenty: EL looks a bit out of place among them. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the evidence for Episcopal Life's non-notability? --Michael C. Price talk 19:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the technical sense, I can't with a quick search find any sources about it. In the non-technical sense (which is what I meant above, sorry), it get very few google hits and I'd never heard of it before. Basically we have five reviews from internationally famous, well-respected publications and one from a paper which - whether technically notable or not - is clearly very minor by comparison. I believe that five reviews are probably enough - and if they weren't, a mere couple of sentences from such a less well-known publication hardly seems to add very much. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you and I have physics backgrounds it's not surprising that we would rank Nature or Physics World above EL, but would a cleric share this view? --Michael C. Price talk 19:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A fair question. But a quick google search for physics world reveals mentions of it in several other reliable sources and that it's the newsletter of the IOP; a search for EL gives very little beyond articles contained in it.
Something I hadn't though of until now (but which is obvious in hindsight!) is that EL is the only review in a specifically religious publication; PW and the Guardian cover science and the others cover 'general'. So maybe my argument is less strong than I thought. What would really be nice is some clearly very 'important' religious or theological source... I don't know, does anyone else have an opinion? Olaf Davis (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I was about to say the exact same thing. Is there no review by something of a McGrath or a Plantinga? Otherwise, I'm also inclined to keep this review, but not the quotation from the book which is excessive. Vesal (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares where the review came from, the point is that it's not a substantive review. It contains a total of less than 1 original sentence of critical commentary on the book. Totally useless, added by a COI editor in order to puff up his own work. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares where the review came from, followed by a PA. Who said irony was dead? --Michael C. Price talk 21:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←)The review does say remarkably little about the book, but given that it's the only one in a theology publication (good point, that!) I think it should stay (without the quote from the book) until something more substantial is found from the sector. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I grouped smaller reviews together and added details from Grayling, the only professional philosopher of the bunch. (And to not include the phrase "superstitious lucubrations of illiterate goatherds" is, if not against policy, certainly a sin.) I think the weight given to each review is now in accordance with the quality, authority and detail of the source. Vesal (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Key themes and ideas" section[edit]

I'd like to make two suggestions:

  1. Trim it. This is excessive detail about a not-really-very-significant book.
  2. (less controversial, I hope!) I think the inclusion of numerous references, all of which simply say "op cit", is pointless. It dresses up the article in fine academic clothing, but it's a sham. An article with 21 references looks terribly impressive, but over half of them are citations of the book itself. Surely it would be clearer for the reader simply to include the page numbers in brackets at the appropriate point in the text. Or not to bother with this level of detail at all.

SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole I disagree with 1) - although it's not perhaps vital to have this much detail, I don't see that it decreases the article's quality in any way.
I agree with 2) - since each statement is tied to a particular chapter they'll hardly be difficult to find, especially since the chapters don't appear to be very long. Page numbers seem unnecessary. I'm not sure if your use of 'sham' is meant to imply a conscious effort on the writer's part or not: either way I think we can judge this part of the article without judging the motives behind it. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another less serious point is that technically speaking "op. cit." refers to the review in physics world, which I doubt is 150 pages long :) Vesal (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention "op cit" is being used incorrectly here. (In the current version, it's actually being used in the way ibid. is normally used; "op. cit." is supposed to be attached to an author name.) And that usage is discouraged on Wikipedia. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might disagree with (1) as well! But would anyone object if I went ahead and tidied things up along the lines of (2)? I'd go for no page references at all. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me, Snalwibma. Just don't get into an edit war with yourself over 1), that's all we need! Olaf Davis (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you once again to all those editors who are taking the trouble to work contructively on this article. To re-assure you that this is not a complete waste of your time, just at the moment it is #5 in Amazon.co.uk's Science and Religion "bestsellers" list, ahead of Breaking the Spell and is in its 3rd print run. NBeale (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Must be time it was AfD'ed as "non-notable" then. 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Several points for coining the word "deopcitification", too. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, I am rather pleased with that coinage. I must try and drop it into conversation at the first opportunity. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 13:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review published by the Guardian?[edit]

Are people happy with the description of Ian Semple's blog post as a "review published by the Guardian"? It was really a blog post about his interview with Polkinghorne which was stimulated by the book. He certainly discusses the book along with the interview, though it's not clear from his comments whether the point cited was about the book or John's comments on it. As co-author I suppose I should be pleased that it makes the book seem to have had more reviews in notable publications, but it would be more accurate to say "in his blog on the Guardian website". I leave it to 3rd parties to judge. NBeale (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually about to change this to "a review published on the Guardian website" yesterday - before you wrote this - and then I thought maybe it wasn't so important. It doesn't say "in The Guardian", but "by The Guardian", and once you follow the link it's clear enough. I'm neutral. If it's better changed, let's change it. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book launch[edit]

I think in the interests of NPOV and accuracy, we should remove from the lead that the book was launched at the Royal Society, or else include some of Grayling's criticism of that aspect:

What is not complicated, though, is the scandal that the Royal Society is allowing its premises to be used for the launch of this book. The accompanying publicity material has in the small print the statement, "This book is being launched at (not by) the Royal Society..." Indeed again. No doubt the Royal Society required this disclaimer to be entered somewhere, having reluctantly and uncomfortably felt that it had to give one of its Fellows (Polkinghorne was made one before becoming a vicar) use of its facilities because he asked. Of course the point is that Beale-Polkinghorne and their tuppence-halfpenny religious publishers wish to get as much of the respectability of the Royal Society rubbed off on them as they can ... Polkinghorne dishonours the Royal Society by exploiting his Fellowship to publicise this weak, casuistical and tendentious pamphlet on its precincts, and the Royal Society does itself no favours by allowing Polkinghorne to do it. [4]

SlimVirgin TALK contribs 07:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My vote: include Grayling's criticism. --Michael C. Price talk 08:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grayling's comment is already included in the reviews section ("He concludes by expressing his outrage at the Royal Society's decision to allow its premises to be used for the launch of the book"). I don't think there is any need to quote more from Grayling, or to move it to the lead. I would leave in the paragraph saying it was launched at the AAAS and the RS. Maybe add a footnote referring to Grayling? Unnecessary, I'd say – but I wouldn't object strongly. On a slightly different matter, what I would cut from the launch paragraph are the words "chaired by Onora O'Neill", on the grounds that this is a meaningless detail. I have said this before, and I know certain people disagree with me, but this looks to me like an empty appeal to authority, an attempt to bolster the book's importance by association. I think the article would be stronger – and the book, in fact, would look better – if it did not resort to naming famous people who are tenuously connected to it. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do think we need to make clear in the lead that the Royal Society did not endorse this in any way, and that the book was launched there simply because Polkinghorne hired a room, or words to that effect. The easiest way to achieve that is to quote Grayling. As it stands, that was added to the lead to associate the book with the Royal Society, an NPOV violation, and we're letting it stand. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 12:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know that the RS launch was simply a result of JP hiring a room? Might it not actually represent approval (implicit or explicit) by some members of the RS? I don't know, and I think we should be silent on the matter unless we have definitive sources on the matter. --Michael C. Price talk 18:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with SlimVirgin here, and per Snalwibma, I think blabbering about how it was "launched at the AAAS and the RS and supported by several FSes" or whatever (seems to be a common refrain from NBeale) is just as much of an appeal to authority as the non-sequiturs about O'Neill and others. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, Grayling says, "The accompanying publicity material has in the small print the statement, "This book is being launched at (not by) the Royal Society..." Indeed again. No doubt the Royal Society required this disclaimer to be entered somewhere, having reluctantly and uncomfortably felt that it had to give one of its Fellows (Polkinghorne was made one before becoming a vicar) use of its facilities because he asked." That's what the source says. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well then just quote Grayling, and leave out speculation, as I said. --Michael C. Price talk 06:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grayling was talking drivel at that point in his review (he also claimed the book was "apparently self-published", and of course the "disclaimer" was put in by us and our highly experienced publicist and did not require any prompting from the RS). Obviously a launch chaired by O'Neill and with 2 FRSs on the platform and many more in the audience (all of which is completely verifiable, not least becasue the whole thing is on YouTube) is a lot more that "someone hired a room". By all means record his criticism and the facts, but to hide the facts and only have the criticism is blatantly non-NPOV. NBeale (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grayling review[edit]

I think that this is now rather overdone in the article. It's two long paragraphs, much more than for the other reviews, and largely reworks text from his original article into non-quotes, i.e. several sentences are essentially paraphrased versions of his words. Grayling's review is one of the more detailed assessments of the book, but the current article does seem to be assigning it too much weight.

In contrast, the Baggini review is somewhat undercut by his follow-up remarks. These are currently linked to, but since they give (IMHO) quite a different "spin" to the review, it might be worth qualifying the current quotation.

Finally, are there really no scholarly religious reviews? That seems a little unlikely. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 14:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed the first issue. Haven't looked at Baggini's review; I'm not so fond of his writing. I'm also surprised at the lack of religious reviews, but then, if everyone endorses the book before publication, there will be nobody left to review it. Vesal (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DRV for Nicholas Beale[edit]

I've opened a DRV arguing that Beale's page should redirect here; feel free to comment. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Questions of Truth. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Questions_of_Truth&oldid=1204976765"