Talk:The Case for Faith

Why ought we to have only a paraphrase of his questions? When we say he is responding to eight questions, tis better to actually tell them what questions he's responding to rather than paraphrasing them. Disagree? If so, why? -SocratesJedi | Talk 04:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moved

Moved page to reflect correctness in title. No need to capitalize for. -SocratesJedi | Talk 04:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not paraphrasing, he does pose these objection in question form in the "On the Road to Answers" section of the book, but the shorter phrases mark the beginning of each chapter and line the table of contents. I'm suprised you came up with these questions in the first place, I had to hunt through the book to find out where you got them.

Mm.. Point well taken. Apologies on a hasty revert. I'm fine with using the TOC phrasing or leaving it as it is now. Sorry to have not been paying sufficient attention to alternate ways of saying things. -SocratesJedi | Talk 05:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jesus/Christ synonym

I am wondering if it is intelligent to use Christ as a synonym for Jesus. Christ is a title and assumes one has accepted Jesus as the Messiah. Is this hidden POV?

I agree. I also think it makes the Templeton story misleading. I changed Christ to "the man" in the Plot Details.

Plot Details/Intended Audience

I'm fine with Intended Audience for now, but this page needs a summary of the book. I'm working on it.

Agreed. -SocratesJedi | Talk 07:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fallacies

I would like to link in some of the logical fallacies contained in The Case for Faith. The book didn't actually contain all that many, but it did contain some and I think linking them is a valid thing to do in a wikipedia article. Before I do so, though, I'd like to hear any objections if people have them. I don't want this article to degenerate into a flame war. --Yamla 17:04, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Having read the book I am aware that he does occassionally commit these and would think that it would be intelligent to show some of them here for informational purposes. However, I also strongly believe that we need to show support for someone independent of Wikipedia making these claims (which is easy, because there are a number of sources which do so). If we don't attribute to external than it's a case of original research, which is vorboten by the GodKing. Also, some people may object that Strobel actually commits fallacies and we ought to mention them as well. I'd be happy to help too when I have the time. In any case, I'll be paying attention to this article too. -SocratesJedi | Talk 08:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Faith12.jpg

Image:Faith12.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly appears to have an explanation now :) (Note: not written by me)

DarthSidious 14:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]

External Links

Wikipedia has LOTS OF ARTICLES where counter responses are included. However a single editor thinks that this should be the exception - a response to the critique certainly fulfills WP:EL and should be included.

Otherwise, you need to delete all of the other cases in which this appears as well - the articles for Kent Hovind and "No answers in Genesis" are two I can think of offhand. (I'm not saying I endorse either of those, but consistancy is required, even for Wikipedia!)

RBreen, judging from your contributions, you seem to be somewhat anti-Bible, and would certainly prefer the skeptics to have the final say. However the critique pages frequently miss the point, or produce "red herrings," and it's a good idea to present a response that corrects these errors. Your reasoning is that "counter-counter case is going too far," and that is the ONLY reason you have. However, there are - what? - 3 external links presented? It's hardly going too far.

I'll revert your edit tomorrow if you don't provide a response to this :p

DarthSidious 13:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]

What the article needs

This is a bit presumptuous of me, making suggestions for improving the article when I don't plan to do any work on it myself, but anyway, for what it's worth:

The lead loks ok, but the next section is a summary of the introduction - what happened to thge rest of the book? Someone might like to scrap the summary of the intro and make a sumary of the bok instead. (It could usefully focus on the author's answers to the 8 questions outlined in the lead).
The notability of the author/book need to be established. I'm not sure how this could be done, but perhaps he/his book sells millions of copies? (It seems the bok aims at a popular audience, so citing copies sold should be a valid way of establishing notability).
It would be useful to have some reviews - not great slabs of quote, just a summary of some notable ones. (Not of the dust-jacket - dust-jackets never say "this bok might be handy for lighting a fire on your next camping trip", even if it's the truth).

Cheers PiCo 03:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]