RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Creation Social Science and Humanities Quarterly

Creation Social Science and Humanities Quarterly | Result: Keep

Creation Social Science and Humanities Quarterly (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Just yet another stub written over a decade about about another dead, obscure site. We've seen this dozens of times. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 21:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
2. A relic from a bygone era, when this site was still just Human and Armondikov fucking around. The early editors had an unfortunate tendency to make “stubby-wubbies” for every minor creationist webshite nobody would care about a year afterwards. Banish it to the Backrooms --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 23:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Keep

1. If for nothing else, this is worth keeping for the absolutely hilarious topics and their treatment in many of the pieces put forth in this pseudojournal. Yes, it is obscure and dormant, but it's a prime example of the stupid stuff fundies waste their time on. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 00:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

   If we just want to laugh at them, I think that adding them to the webshite list would be better than a tiny main space article. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

2. One of these days, the only site that won't be dead and obscure will be TikTok. "Creationists do social science" looks at least a little bit novel to me. Chillpilled (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Carthage (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
4. If it's "just another", is there somewhere to put a list of these documenting them? That'd be useful as well as on-mission. Until then, keep this - David Gerard (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Goat

This one I'm torn on. The article is definitely quite stubby. However, this is sort of the type of fundamentalist crank that Rationalwiki can cover when no other Wiki would.

Briefly: this was a "magazine" run from 1978 to 1994 by a Paul D. Ackerman, whose profession (until 2018 at least) was the assistant psychology chair at Witchita State University. As per this link, [1] the "zine" essentially tried to pattern itself on the slightly larger Creation Research Society, except that the purpose of this zine was to provide creationist perspectives for "fields outside the natural science" (eg creation science, but applied to humanities and social sciences). From archives of a web copy of his book "It's a Young World After All", he's a young earth creationist; acknowledgements for this book do include other creationist folks with RW articles, Carl Wieland and Ken Ham.

So... on the one hand, this essentially is a creationist pseudojournal / "fanzine" of little importance in "the real world" with a small number of members at its peak (according to this 1993 article,[2] 600), plus (as the current article mentions) a seemingly very narrow contributor list. On the other hand... this topic hits *many* of the mission points and has connections with more notable creationist RW figures. Hmm...

Archives are available at the creationism.org link in the article, along with the Internet archive. So I guess this is the sort of article that could be spruced up by combing through the archives and appending the most WTF moments (if anyone gave a hoot, of course, which usually doesn't happen...). What to do with it now, I don't know... BobJohnson (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

1. What the fuck is this? Carthage (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)