Talk:Modern Science in the Bible/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 July 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Title?

Since this book is also available in English, wouldn't it make more sense to move it to the English name, rather than the original Dutch? Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, though that would more or less force me to quote from the English version (which I don't have in my possession and I'm nog going to order it either, given its high price and my limited funds). Hobrink, at any rate, is best known as a Dutch creationist, and IMO we should portray him as such. If you think it makes more sense, though, you might just as well move it to the English version (that might actually avoid the confustion of people thinking that there is a Dutch RW page). JorisEnter (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I moved the page. Since the page itself is in English, an English title makes more sense IMHO (ie. "Turks Fruit" is also "Turkish Delight" on Wikipedia). I don't see why you have to quote from the English version per se... Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Regarding that quote thingy: it's just that the page title gives me the impression that we're talking about the English version (even though I know we're not) so I feel like quotes should be from that as well. But it's not a real problem (Hobrink is pretty much unknown outside NL, I think). JorisEnter (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Bronze?

Does anyone think this article deserves a bronze rating? It's not anywhere near finished yet (chapters 4, 6, 7, 8 need to be written and chapter 5 is not even halfway there), but it provides good information IMO. I won't add it myself because it is more or less my 'pet article', and it seems kind of odd to rate what's mostly my own work. JorisEnter (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a lot of people care about bronze ratings, and I believe the general strategy is "add it, see if someone complains". If you're looking for general opinions, IMHO it could do with less of a throat-clearing before the actual debunking of the book starts. The "'Doctorandus'" section could probably be trimmed to a single sentence(?), the "Hobrink's sources" could probably also be a bit shorter, or should at least be moved after the description of the book itself... Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I had been thinking of creating a separate page on Hobrink, but I'm kind of busy now (1st year physics student = homework & tests overload) so I don't have too much time left for such things. Most of it could be made by simply moving over the contents of this page, though, so maybe I'll have a look at it. JorisEnter (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Put in the bronze template, we'll see what happens. JorisEnter (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)