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
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science,
pseudoscience,
pseudohistory and
skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Theology 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.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Islam-related articles 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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Zoroastrianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Zoroastrianism 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.ZoroastrianismWikipedia:WikiProject ZoroastrianismTemplate:WikiProject ZoroastrianismZoroastrianism articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Creationism 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.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
Not encyclopedic
It's not in the style of an encyclopedia to describe a topic under the heading of its followers. This page should be abolished and/or integrated and/or redirect to
Creationism --
Creaktop
Please explain, I do not understand why "abolished" and why it is not "encyclopedic style" (I ain't no expert on enyclopedias, mind you) --
Piotr Wozniak
Well, it's very simple. If you want to have an article about a school of thought (here
Creationism) it would be stupid to have either two similar definitions and explanations or identical ones under the name of the school of thought and under the followers of this school of thought. In other words you would have two pages for
marxism, and
marxists;
atheism, and
atheists; etc. This is dumb because in both you would have a definition and explanation of the school of thought, but it would be duplicate effort with no enhancement of the encyclopedia as a whole. And it would also fragment the encyclopedia somewhat. --
Creaktop
Clear. However, you need to take into account the fact that Wikipedia <> Encyclopedia. In my case, I assumed a very simple contribution strategy: write short rough outlines if I see anything missing. Meticulous effort is a bad investment as others ruin the structure of thought. According to this strategy, I create "creationist" as soon as I do not see it in WP. Perhaps others will merge/redirect/correct, etc. I simply do not belive in time-efficient extensive writing for WP (except when I paste my own texts written for other purposes). Last but not least, duplication does not seem a great detraction from value (esp. in the context of Wikipedia's mix of values, styles, quality and opinion). --
Piotr Wozniak
It certainly does not detract from the value of the encyclopedia. Your strategy is entirely correct, but the thing is that there was nothing really missing for
Creationist. I assume that people can conclude that a Creationist believes in
Creationism. And there already was an article for Creationism (was there?). Some of the info that you put on
Creationist is definately missing on
Creationism, but wouldnt you agree that it is better if you simply added that info to
Creationism, rather than creating a new definition. BTW: i dont understand what you mean with: "Wikipedia <> Encyclopedia" --
Creaktop
I agree with
Creaktop; this content should be folded into
Creationism. Also, as most fundamentalist Christians are evangelical Protestants (and a significant number of them believe the Catholic Church to be evil), the stance of the Vatican would hold no weight for them. --
Stephen Gilbert
I agree with merging entries. My point was that my style is "too fast" to check out for other entries (call it lazy, I call it MyWikipedia-efficient). I just hope someone will pick useful pieces and put a redirect (which I do not know how to do, yet)
Change to "Vatican position" may be justified. My knowledge is limited here (consider: In
Poland-MyHome, Vatican's position stands as final judgement); hence: no contest --
Piotr Wozniak
The Vatican position is certainly relevant from an historical point of view (and I realize how very 'presentist' are many of Wikipedia's entries, but I'm an historian, so there you go). The Roman Catholic Church had a long debate about Darwinism and evolution (please note that I separate the 2). The most recent pronouncement is probably significant, American Baptists aside.
I don't deny the relevance of the Vatican position in general, but only in the context in which it was placed:
In 1999, despite the official stand of the Vatican, fundamentalist Christians on the Kansas board of education removed evolution from the state science curriculum.
The Vatican's stance has nothing to do with the stance of fundamentalist Protestant Christians. --
Stephen Gilbert