Talk:List of participants in the dialogue of religion and science

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles

Religion

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles

Comment

It is completely unclear what this article is about. It does not look like something that can stand alone. I suggest it is merged into either Science & Religion: A Symposium or religion and science community. --Bduke (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems quite clear to me but I have rewritten the lead to make it clearer. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why the juxtaposition of the decade and the topic the list members are "participants" in is noteworthy? I suspect one could formulate a list of participants in discussion of any topic for any decade (in which the topic was known -- you would not have any discussion of Relativistic physics in the 1420s). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y We have moved on to generalise the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next question, is mere participation in Science & Religion: A Symposium sufficient basis for inclusion? The article on Emil Brunner for example gives no indication that this theologian had any interest in religion's relationship with science. The former article gives no information on the topic for Brunner's (or any other) talk for this series. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are now ranging far beyond the symposium. Brunner was an exponent of natural theology. Our articles on them both need work it seems so one must look elsewhere for a good understanding. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, his article makes no mention of this. And as the majority of the list members are sourced to that book, we are not "ranging far beyond the symposium". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Firefly322's ill-mannered edit summary

Per this:

There is no AfD in sight so WP:BEFORE is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
Redlinks are generally not considered proper as a (bare) list member, per {{cleanup-laundry}} "contain items that are not notable".
If you and your partner is such quixotic ventures, Colonel Warden, cannot keep this vestigial and uninformative article at least accurately vestigial and uninformative, you should expect the inaccurate information to be removed. The typo had been left uncorrected for several months.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galileo Galilei

Given that Galileo Galilei lived before science as we know it existed (he is considered to be one of its fathers) & wasn't so much in "dialogue" with religion as having his ideas banned by it, his (bald and uncited) inclusion in this list is, at best, dubious. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not happy with the list!

I don't like the whole idea of a list of this sort without any sort of annotation alongside each entry. If we are going to retain this list it needs more than a name and a century. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However as the connection of a number of the members of this list to its putative topic is tenuous at best, elaboration of that connection may be problematical. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would this topic be better treated via a category, rather than a list? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having them in a category is even more problematical. See User_talk:Alan_Liefting#Category-Religion_and_Science. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Heavily Revise

This list is misleading and substantially inaccurate. I have a PhD in "science and religion," and would suggest that with the exception of one or two names on this list, few of them are important to this field, and that 50+ other scholars could easily be listed who are far more important. In addition, the 19th century is almost completely unfilled, and Lord Kelvin is far from the most important... How does he get included while ignoring J. W. Draper, A. D. White and T. H. Huxley, to name just a few?

In its current form, this list is worse than useless and I recommend deleting it until someone with both knowledge of the subject and time on their hands comes along who is willing to take on the project of doing this right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.164.88 (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]