text:
Talk:Christian apologetics

Added 'aims to'
Added 'aims to provide a rational basis' in the opening, to satisfy Wikipedia's neutrality policy. To say that it 'provides a rational basis' is to endorse the project. Saying apologists 'aim' to give a rational basis doesn't take a stand one way or the other, but adds a buffer of neutrality for those not Christian: Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.255.71 (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

recent link edits/conflict
Sorry about that, it took me longer to finish going over the other sections. I think we came to very similar conclusions - take a look at the new edit and see if you like those. I'm open to criticism/suggestions. Phyesalis (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Biblical apologetics:

 * Tekton Apologetics Ministries, a Christian website collecting arguments primarily about biblical apologetics.
 * The Dating of the New Testament by Norman Geisler

Historical/legal/evidential apologetics:

 * Biblical Archeology An encyclopedic site on archeology for apologetics.
 * Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? by Michael Horner
 * The Book of Acts and Archaeology by Craig S. Hawkins
 * Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable by Gary Habermas
 * Evidence for the Resurrection by Josh McDowell
 * Jesus' Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism: An Apologetic (Part I) - PDF File by Gary Habermas
 * Jesus' Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism: An Apologetic (Part II) - PDF File by Gary Habermas

General:

 * CreationWiki
 * Answers In Genesis
 * TrueOrigins.org
 * Institute for Creation Research
 * Creation answers in concise articles.

Specific issues:

 * Evidences for God From Space
 * So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End! by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
 * The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique
 * Keith H. Wanser - Physics
 * If God created the universe, then who created God?
 * Creation and Quantum Mechanics by Donald B. DeYoung, Ph.D.

 * I think the links offer some noteworty resources and should be kept. 128.205.191.55 04:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Please see External links. It is not the purpose of an External links section to provide a comprehensive list of "noteworthy resources". I've replaced the links with a link to the relevant category of the Open Directory Project, as suggested at External links. EALacey 22:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I gave a moderate amount of links that was shorter than the original but longer than the individuals who listed almost no links. In short, I offered a compromise.  128.205.191.57 04:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 * "Old Earth creationists do not agree with the science of evolutionary biology." The sentence as it stands is a sweeping generalization, not all Old Earth creationists disagree, some disagree with the Darwinian concept of evolution, but maintain that aspects of evolution (microevolution) is verifiable true.
 * "The scientific community has identified a number of natural processes and related explanations for the Cambrian explosion and overwhelmingly accepts the scientific validity of evolution." The page is regarding Christian apologetics i.e Christian views and therefore the views of the scientific community seems irrelevant to the topic.
 * Compromise? Please advise of reasoning for revert. Gingabox 11:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you asking this in a 3 1/2 year old thread about WP:External links, when this topic has already been addressed in below? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Article issues
Much of this article is either unsourced, or original WP:Synthesis of Biblical passages. What remains is, almost-exclusively, cited to the primary sources of the apologists themselves. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Evolutionary biology is a science -- live with it
Evolutionary biology is universally recognised within both science and philosophy of science as a subfield of the science of biology. That certain apologists don't like this does not change the fact. Attempts to give equal validity to creationism by attempting to reduce evolutionary biology to a mere "Darwinian concept" is against Wikipedia policy. See also WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE & WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, evolutionary biology is a universally recognized, however the particulars of evolution and the interpretation of data is not universally agreed upon even among evolutionary biologists. However, the "Darwinian concept of evolution" is not currently agreed upon universally.  Please see Darwinism in which it is quoted "...Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories from those first proposed by Darwin, as well as by historians to differentiate it from other evolutionary theories from around the same period."  Would you compromise on "Darwinism" rather than "Darwinian concept of evolution"?  Gingabox (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 * As a physicist who graduated magna cum laude, I laugh at the entire field of biology as nothing more than pseudo-scientific babble intended for the mass consumption of inferior minds that do not have the reasoning skills to conduct true scientific research. Your entire field is based on the observations of a lunatic from the 19th century. How about getting off of your collective bums and do some real research! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.148.120 (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As a physicist, you are not qualified to judge biology's worth. Furthermore, given the fact that biology has produced predictable results, as well as actual physical products (such as vaccines, antibiotics, GMOs, the entirety of modern medicine), anyone with any sense of reason would be forced to brush you off as either a poorly-disguised troll or a sufferer of delusion.72.94.21.217 (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Creationist claims
Before loading up the 'Creationist apologetics' section with every creationist argument in objections to evolution (and particularly ones not contained in current sources), I would remind editors that the more of this material that is added, the greater the imperative will be to give WP:DUE weight to the majority scientific viewpoint, which is that these arguments are wholly without merit. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would particularly suggest that editors take note of: HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Evolution of whales, There are gaps between land mammals and whales
 * 2) Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution
 * 3) No macroevolution, There are barriers to large change, Small changes do not imply large changes

I would further point out that we have whole article (e.g. Objections to evolution, Flood geology, Creation geophysics & Creationist cosmologies) dealing specifically with creationist claims. Repeating them (and their scientific rebuttals) here would not appear to be productive. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 * I respectfully disagree, the page is about Christian apologetics, thus the Christian viewpoint. The point then is to explain the viewpoint of Christian apologists.  While I agree that the article does not need to be "loaded up with every argument" there should be a mention of the viewpoint when not included.  i.e. there is an inclusion of anti-evolution and theistic evolution, but no mention of a middle ground opinion, thus WP:DUE weight has not been applied throughout.  While you are certainly within your right to disagree and believe the argument to be "wholly without merit" it is irrelevant to the subject of the article itself as it is a belief of some Christian apologists.  Sorry if I placed my post under the wrong heading, but please respond to the following:

 * "Old Earth creationists do not agree with the science of evolutionary biology." The sentence as it stands is a sweeping generalization. Not all Old Earth creationists disagree, some disagree with the Darwinian concept of evolution, but maintain that aspects of evolution (microevolution) is verifiable true.

 * "The scientific community has identified a number of natural processes and related explanations for the Cambrian explosion and overwhelmingly accepts the scientific validity of evolution." Again, the page is regarding Christian apologetics i.e Christian views and therefore the views of the scientific community seems irrelevant to the topic.

 * I understand you have a viewpoint, but why no compromise? Please advise of reasoning for revert.  Gingabox (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) There is not a single (definite-article/"the") Christian viewpoint.
 * 2) If Creationists' (generally inexpert) views of science are relevant, then so too are scientists' (generally expert) views of Creationist apologetics.
 * 3) Creationist claims about science are rejected by the overwhelming majority of the relevant academic community (i.e. the scientific community). Per WP:DUE: pages about minority viewpoints "should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."
 * 4) There really is no "middle ground" between accepting evolution and rejecting it.
 * 5) In any case, your emphasis on the views of a single, relatively minor creationist, Fazale Rana, would appear to be WP:UNDUE even looking exclusively at the Creationist (or even exclusively OEC) viewpoint. There are dozens of creationists more prominent.
 * 6) All creationists are anti-evolution. The term 'creationism' is itself a renaming of 'anti-evolution' (occurring in the early to mid 20th century) -- read the book The Creationists for details.
 * 7) Microevolution is still "the Darwinian concept of evolution", just acting within a species. See Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution, No macroevolution, There are barriers to large change, Small changes do not imply large changes (cited above).
 * 8) That "The scientific community has identified a number of natural processes and related explanations for the Cambrian explosion and overwhelmingly accepts the scientific validity of evolution" is "relevant" as it demonstrates that the relevant experts consider the preceding views to be utterly without merit.
 * 9) You have failed to address my point that Wikipedia already has whole articles that deal with such claims in detail -- so there's neither need nor reason to attempt to reproduce this here.
 * 10) Finally, there already was a "compromise" -- the article didn't mention creationists' meritless claims here (and contented itself to simply mentioning creationists' disagreement with the age of the Earth and/or evolutionary biology), and so the article didn't need to state that the scientific community considers these claims to be meritless (let alone give detailed explanations why), let alone label these claims as "pseudoscience" (which, per WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, would have been permissible).

I would also point out that this section is badly in need of WP:SECONDARY sources, being cited (almost?) exclusively to primary sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 * 1) I never claimed there was a "the" as in unified one but a "the" as a group comprised under the subheading Christian apologists (plural)
 * 2) If scientists (expert) opinions are relevant to the specific topic of Christian apologetics and subtopic Creationist apologetics, then it stands to reason that to satisfy WP:DUE that one would need to put the Christian viewpoint on all science articles. Overkill, right?  The proper place for the counter-view is as you noted at Objections to evolution.
 * 3) This would be true if the topic were evolution or Objections to evolution, but see above, it is overkill do I need to put a note saying the sky is blue? I hope not.  How about a link to Objections to evolution at the top of the section and by that kill the entire discussion of evolution within the section? Is that a fair compromise?
 * 4) There is no middle ground between rejecting it and accepting it? Another sweeping generalization.  Whether you accept it as valid or not, there are those who do hold a middle ground, embedding your opinion about it simply violates the neutrality of the article as relating to the beliefs that are being expressed by the apologists.
 * 5) Fazale Rana is a biochemist (a scientists) and is therefore, under your own definition and expert, is he not? However, my "insistence" was relegated to a single line using him as an example of a much greater subheading. The fact is there are a great number of Christians and Christian apologists (Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig and others) who agree with him, but who do not write nearly as often on the topic as it relates to biology which makes him a valid source, whether we agree with his position or not.
 * 6) All creationists are anti-evolution again, see above. the term "evolution" is a general term under which there are multiple views (even within biology) of the actual mechanics (swapping, drift ect).  These types of sweeping generalizations are not only inaccurate but generally inflammatory to those who hold the position that God created creatures with the capacity to adapt and evolve which is not the same as theistic evolution.  You can not seriously say that because some people deny the premise of life from non-life that they are then opposed to evolution as a whole. It is a bold faced false statement, regardless of what one particular author might think about it. That is like saying that all scientists are atheists, which is demonstratively false.
 * 7) Conceded. Since I don't feel like getting into a battle of semantics.
 * 8) The notion that the world doesn't rest on the back of turtles is also wholly without merit, so have you put a science fact on the Hinduism article also? Again, maybe a link to the Objections to evolution is in order.
 * 9) I have addressed it now... see above
 * 10) I am fine with it contenting itself with mentioning it, as long as it mentions it in the correct way. To say that Creationists disagree with the science of evolution is to say that they disagree with the wholesale notion which I reiterate, is not accurate.  You have resigned the "contenting" to generalizations and stereotypes.  Gingabox (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 * 2: No, your claim is not a logical consequence of my argument. Creationism is a "tiny minority" viewpoint (per WP:DUE) in the scientific community, so need not be mentioned in scientific articles. And other than creationists, I don't think Christians have any major disagreements with science.
 * 3: Read WP:DUE again -- I specifically cited the relevant passage, that explicitly states: that such articles "should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."
 * 4: Please cite a reliable third party source for your claim that there is a "middle ground". My experience is that those claiming such a middle ground only accept a heavily neutered form of evolution (that fall far short of any articulation of the theory of evolution -- Darwin's original theory, the Modern evolutionary synthesis or any more modern expansion) that is impotent to challenge their religious preconceptions.
 * 5: Fazale Rana is not a biologist, let alone one working in a field relevant to evolutionary biology. Therefore he is not "and expert [sic]" any more than an electrician is an expert on plumbing. Further, as far as I can tell, he has not worked even in the area of biochemistry for some time. Strobel and Craig are fellow creationists, so it's unsurprising that they agree with Rana.
 * 6: In this context, "evolution" means the scientific theory of evolution, e.g. as articulated in the Modern evolutionary synthesis. All creationists reject this. If they didn't, they'd be theistic evolutionists. There is quite a bit of disagreement around the edges of this field, but the core theory is overwhelmingly accepted within the scientific community. As far as I know, nobody claims that genetic drift, or natural selection, etc, etc don't occur -- they just argue about their relative importance, particularly in specific areas.
 * 8: "the Hinduism article" makes no mention of turtles -- so there's nothing for science to rebut.
 * 10: Please list a creationist who fully agrees with the scientific theory of evolution (the scientific theory that is the basis for the scientific subfield of evolutionary biology).
 * HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, let me rephrase it for clarity; they do not disagree with the 'science' of evolution, they disagree with the 'interpretation' that follows necessarily from the naturalistic presupposition.  Why does this have to be a big debate, rather than simply finding a compromise to find a word to fit in before or after "science"?
 * 4: A third party... sure I'll go track one down. The fact that the flood story is in the Bible and the divergence of species and sub-species necessitates that someone who believes the biblical story (i.e. a Christian) hold to some form of evolutionary middle ground, yet you want to force the issue. One does not have to agree with the theory of evolution (i.e. a particular model) to agree with the concept of evolution (i.e. biological change over time).
 * 5: My fear is that you don't understand the position fully and are more interested in having your opinion shown rather than providing fair and balanced information. I didn't say Rana was a biologist, I said a biochemist... but that is neither here nor there, he is a scientist and more importantly a Christian apologist and Creationist, as are Stroble and Craig, which is the point of the subtopic and you have now confirmed this.
 * 6: read below... the context does not imply that necessarily, it should be clarified.
 * 10: Why would I do that? By "theory" you are asking me to point out  creationists who fully agree with a particular model, which is what I just explained was not the case.  The term evolution here does not necessitate that we are talking about one particular model because there are many models to choose from, even within secular science itself, so it is a loaded request.  If you want me to find one who believes that God created "kinds" of life and then those "kinds" evolved, then I am willing to do so, because I am willing to bet that a majority of Christians hold to that premise.  Again, I think you are propagating a stereotype of the view by being too general with your statements.

 * Also, since you made a point to note my failure to address the Objections to evolution, I would appreciate if you would address it. A link to it in the header of the section? Yay or nay?  I am making every effort to compromise.
 * Gingabox (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The (Darwinian) theory of evolution is the only "'science' of evolution" on the table with the scientific community. The last alternative, Lamarckism, died out decades ago.
 * 2) "divergence of species and sub-species necessitates that someone who believes the biblical story" is exactly the sort of "neutered" faux-evolution I was talking about above. It has no scientific acceptance.
 * 3) A biochemist has no expertise relevant to evolutionary biology -- and one who comes from a chemistry background (as Rana appears to have) may well not even had even exposure to that field.
 * 4) You need to accept it because this "one particular model" is the only model that has scientific support and is the basis of all evolutionary biology and much of biology in general. If you are talking about any other "model", you are quite simply not talking about "evolution" as the scientific field of biology means that term.
 * 5) You'd lose your bet that "a majority of Christians hold to that premise". Catholicism, which happens to be the largest Christian denomination, accepts the theory of evolution (see Catholic Church and evolution), and does not take the book of Genesis literally. The same is true for a number of other denominations (see Level of support for evolution).
 * 6) Re Objections to evolution -- will do. Will also add Flood geology.

 * thanks, now how about a compromise on the language surrounding "disagree with the science of evolution."  How about "disagree with the commonly accepted evolutionary model"?  That seems to capture what you are getting at but is more clear as to what is being disagreed with.

Again... and I quote "[Darwinism]] is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories from those first proposed by Darwin, as well as by historians to differentiate it from other evolutionary theories from around the same period. For example, Darwinism may be used to refer to Darwin's proposed mechanism of natural selection, in comparison to more recent mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow." If you are stating that there is only one model, then what is this "modern evolutionary theories" (plural)? While the term evolution is used scientifically to mean one thing, colloquially it can mean different things. I simply think it would be well to make it clear. I am not going to continue to debate on the rest, simply put I disagree, but it isn't important if there is a compromise on the point above and am a little tired of belaboring what should be an otherwise simple process. Also, if you want to make the point of what the Catholic Church believes, I suggest you read the Pope Benedict XVI and today section in which those views are "some theory of evolution" which is to say, not necessarily your preferred theory of evolution... the views within the Catholic Church are not entirely one sided as is true of every group. Gingabox (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The "modern evolutionary theories" are the sequential expansions and refinements ('descendants' if you will) of Darwin's original theory (which, for example, did not include mutation, as genetics hadn't been discovered yet) -- it does not mean they are competing theories contemporary with each other (as each of them evolved into the next).
 * 2) No -- "disagree with the commonly accepted evolutionary model" is (i) flat-out wrong -- it is not merely "commonly accepted" it is the "only accepted". (ii) It is not a mere "model" it is a scientific theory. This puts it on the same level as the Theory of relativity -- at the apex of science. I think "disagree with the scientific theory of evolution" is the correct wording & linking. This is what they are rejecting (and have been rejecting since the birth of the 'Anti-Evolution'/'Creationism' movement in the early 20th century).

 * 1) Exactly my point, there is Darwinian, neo-Darwinian etc... while you are aware of this, does not mean that every reader of Wikipedia is aware of this.  You must be clear, not just correct.
 * 2) I can demonstrate that there are a number of models by simply pointing out two of them: The Recent African Origins (RAO) and Standard Neutral Model of Evolution (SNM), those are both models of evolution, yet one is more commonly accepted than the other.  These are simply two among many others.  The Modern Evolutionary synthesis is not a theory it is a synthesis that simply defines general concepts, ideas and it does not mean that it is the only one and only model. In fact, in the summary section #6  states, "...the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution is proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different levels may exist."  Which means that there is not one view on this aspect as of yet and there are competing, concurrent models.  The article for the Modern evolutionary synthesis also states that it "provides a widely accepted account of evolution." It does not state that is "provides the only accepted account of evolution."   Facts are facts: A theory can be thought of as a model... see Theory as a model which states "A scientific theory can be thought of as a model of reality, and its statements as axioms of some axiomatic system."  It is clear as day.  This same quote appears at scientific theory under Theory as a model.  So what you are proposing is not consistent nor does it seem to be the opinion of those editing the science theory page.  What was rejected in history is not consistently rejected now so should not be in Creationist apologetics because it is not the one sided coin you would like it to be.Gingabox (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

How about they "reject naturalistic views of the origins of life"? Or something akin to that, because that is really what is at issue, not evolution in and of itself. The point of contention is typically life from non-life via natural mechanistic process which is not relegated to evolutionary biology. Gingabox (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) No Gingabox, you miss the point. They are different names for different stages of development of the same theory. There was Darwinian, there is neo-Darwinian (at least until somebody comes up with a new label -- 'post-neo-Darwinian' or whatever). What you are doing is akin to saying that 'it was a sapling 150 years ago, now there's a tree -- so they must be different plants'.
 * 2) None of your "models" compete with the Theory of Evolution, which is in fact foundational to all these models. Therefore attempting to relegate the ToE to the same status as them is misleading.
 * 3) The MES was a stage in the development of the ToE -- it was an elaboration of that theory. See History of evolutionary thought for a historical context.
 * 4) To the best of my knowledge, your point #6 was never denied by the ToE -- the MES merely solidified what had previously been a far weaker inference. So again, this is elaboration, not competition.
 * 5) Nor does the MES article state 'there were other accepted accounts'.
 * 6) See Evolution as fact and theory.
 * 7) The quoted statements do not contradict the fact that scientific theories are a very specific type of model -- very powerful and very well-substantiated ones. Calling it merely a "model" is significantly understating the the scientific importance of what they are disagreeing with. And none of the quotes contradict calling the ToE a "scientific theory".
 * 8) Religiously motivated rejection of the ToE has been historically, and remains, the defining quality of Creationism. If this is not what they have in common, then what is?
 * 9) "reject naturalistic views of the origins of life" (i) conflates methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism (evolution is only naturalistic in the former sense), (ii) is a non sequitor -- all science is (methodologically) naturalistic, & (iii) misleads by omission (by omitting any indication of the depth of support it has in the scientific community).
 * 10) "life from non-life via natural mechanistic process" is actually Abiogenesis, which is not actually part of the ToE at all. And they reject both abiogenesis & the ToE. The latter can be seen in Creationists frequent obsession over such (generally misused) terms as Darwinism, evolutionism, etc, etc. Also creationism predates abiogenesis research, so opposition to it cannot be considered to be creationism's defining feature.
 * 11) You have not provided any adequate reason for rejecting "disagree with the scientific theory of evolution". You have neither provided any evidence that any creationist (let alone a sufficiently large minority to be considered in any way representative) fully accepts the ToE, nor have you provided any evidence that stating that it is a "scientific theory" is misleading, nor that any other disagreement is more fundamental to creationism.

Arbitrary break

 * The section is intended to explain Creationist apologetics, right or wrong? Even if the scientific community doesn't agree?  When did science become the final authority on what is Creationist and what is not?  If you can put forth a suggestion that is not pointedly demeaning and stereotyping then we can move forward.  Let me put it to you plainly, one does not have to fully accept the ToE to accept a model of evolution (scientific or otherwise).  What you propose to say (reject the scientific theory of evolution) for those who are non-scientists sounds a lot like saying that Creationists are ignorant and irrational.  Sorry, its how it sounds.  You can't say ALL creationists reject the ToE, just like you can't say all Japanese people like sushi (there are many racist remarks that sound quite similar in structure). You might get away with "majority", you can say "some" but you can not rightly say "all".  Do you see?  Its inflammatory and demeaning to those who do accept evolution as a general premise, but disagree with aspects of its mechanics.  One is not required to accept both to be said to accept "evolution" or the "the theory of evolution" as those are general statements.  Your generalizations are far too broad and frankly I am tired, so I have removed the questionable content all together and suggest it stay that way until there is some compromise, a suggested fix or input from other editors.   Furthermore, you keep saying Creationists when the reference of the rejection of evolution was to Old Earth Creationists as a specific sub-set. Gingabox (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, please read the Creationism article which clearly states "In contrast to the strict creationists, evolutionary creationists maintain that, although evolution accounts for the nature of the biosphere, evolution itself is cosmologically attributable to a Creator deity." and reference the notion with - "See, e.g., Corey MA (1993). "Making sense of the 'coincidences'". In MA Corey, God and the new cosmology: The anthropic design argument (pp. 157-174). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield." Is that sufficient to end the argument that all creationists do this or that? Gingabox (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) In "explain[ing] Creationist apologetics", (a WP:FRINGE, WP:Pseudoscience topic) it "should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." (WP:DUE)
 * 2) What is or isn't "creationism" should be decided by the opinions of academic experts who study its history and development, the most prominent of whom is Ronald L. Numbers. His The Creationists makes very clear that creationism is opposition to evolution, and specifically the ToE.
 * 3) How is it "pointedly demeaning and stereotyping" to state that they "disagree with the scientific theory of evolution" when (i) they do disagree with it & (ii) it is a "scientific theory"?
 * 4) "Creationists are ignorant and irrational" would in fact be a fairly accurate (if fairly blunt) articulation of the scientific community's view of creationism. Some may try to sugar coat it, and Wikipedia itself shouldn't use such blunt language (except perhaps as a direct quote).
 * 5) We could if (i) we have experts saying that "Japanese people like sushi", and (ii) nobody could come up with a RS stating that any of them (let alone a significant minority) didn't. We certainly wouldn't avoid saying it because a few Japanese people don't like tuna casserole.
 * 6) It is inflammatory and demeaning ACCURATE to state that those who only accept a neutered, impotent, scientifically-idiotic (and make no mistake about it, the claim that the current enormous species and genetic diversity could come about, from the small number of organisms that would fit on a single, bronze age vessel, in a few thousand years, would get you laughed at in any scientific setting) faux-evolution, but do not accept the "scientific theory of evolution", as not accepting that theory.
 * 7) This is NOT mere "aspects of its mechanics" it is THE CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC THEORY AT THE CORE OF THE FIELD OF BIOLOGY!
 * 8) "Evolutionary creationism" is (i) a rarely used term (most [all?] proponents of the position use the term 'Evolutionary creation') (ii) somewhat of a misnomer, as its view on science is identical to theistic evolution -- and in fact evolutionary creationism redirects to that article.

 * 1) "should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." do you notice the word strictly? The Old Earth Creationists subsection puts forth the majority view, but that does not mean that it can not include references to a minority viewpoint where relevant.  There are different views with in the subset whether you agree with their premise or not. A reference to a minority view is not always an WP:UNDUE.
 * 2) No sir, The Creationists makes very clear that historically creationism was in "opposition to evolution, and specifically the ToE."  But now see how you are changing the definitions of the words in the middle of the conversation?  First, you say "In this context, "evolution" means the scientific theory of evolution" and now here you have used it as if to say it is in a different relationship, i.e. evolution is more general than the theory of evolution.  This is exactly the problem with the verbiage you are choosing and why I am asking you to clarify it in the article.
 * 3) (i) as stated about 15 times, not all creationists do disagree with it (ii) that has no bearing on the validity of my premise.
 * 4) "Creationists are ignorant and irrational" would in fact be a fairly accurate (if fairly blunt) articulation of the scientific community's view of creationism."  This is exactly my point, you want to paint that picture here, rather than maintaining a neutral position in the text, which is inappropriate.  But, I feel you are missing the point entirely!!  Please read my comment regarding this again... your wording was not neutral.
 * 5) I am shocked...your idea of "neutral" is completely different isn't it?  Point of fact is you do not have experts who say "all creationists are anti-evolution" and there are experts who give credulity to evolutionary creationism as evidenced by other articles right here on Wikipedia.
 * 6) You are making a mis-characterization of the position by combining Young Earth Creationists along with Old Earth Creationists to make some kind of irrational hybrid statement which is false from the very premise.  However, the point here is not whether you agree with their position or not, but what their defense of their position is which is the topic of the heading Creationist apologetics.
 * 7) (i) you obviously do not understand the argument which time and again is made apparent.  (ii) you're confusing the topic of the article for something it is not, i.e. it is not a science article, it is an apologetics article.  The opposing viewpoint can be expressed, but does not have to misrepresent the apologetic argument no matter what your bias is (iii) no need to yell about it.  (iiii) I never said mere or merely which changes the meaning entirely... this is an example of the initial problem.
 * 8) (i) "Evolutionary Creationism" vs "Evolutionary Creation"?  Seriously?  Are we now knit picking the relationship between these two terms in an effort to ignore the actual argument? Please address the issue itself. (ii) they are not identical they are similar as you would note if you read the first sentence of the article you referenced.  Also, if you were to read the Evolutionary Creation subheading you would see this as its first sentence and see that theologically they are different.  "Evolutionary creation (also referred to by some observers as evolutionary creationism)..."

While debating is all well and good, I would appreciate if we could stop debating and start finding a way to work on the text of the article, which was the initial point. As of yet, you have not made any suggestion other than "...reject the scientific theory of evolution..." Which again is not true for all creationists as I have made abundantly clear. Your arguments have thus far been to show that you are not willing to express the idea in a neutral tone. Should we turn it over to WP:DRR or compromise?

Here is yet another suggestion for your consideration: Within Creationism, there are at least two camps. Examples of these are Strict Creationism and Evolutionary Creationism. While SC rejects the scientific theory of evolution, ECs view evolution as a tool which God used to create and shape life. EC differs from Theistic Evolution in that they view God as being more intimately involved than do most TEs. Then cite the source: [2 on the Theistic evolution page] Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p62-63 and add a scientific counter-view if you feel it necessary. Is that fair? Gingabox (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You have not provided a single shred of evidence why my favoured "disagree with the scientific theory of evolution" is an inaccurate or misleading representation of creationist views. Nor have you provided any evidence contesting my rebuttal of your proposals. If you want the debates to stop, then either put up evidence (not mere argument by assertion) or stop debating. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Creationism is a "tiny minority" view in the relevant academic community (i.e. the scientific community) Further, there is no reason to believe that it is even a majority view in the Christian community (see level of support for evolution, already mentioned above). And not remarking on the scientific community's views of these pseudoscientific views is indeed representing them "strictly from the perspective of the minority view".
 * 2) The Creationists covers up to the very recent past, with most of the recent past positions and personalities still those who dominate the issue today. You have offered no credible evidence that this has changed (let alone changed radically) in the four years since this book was published. And no, I have not changed the definition. ToE throughout.
 * 3) (i)Argumentum ad nauseum does not make an argument any more compelling when you have not presented a shred of evidence for the claim that you have repeated over and over and over and over again. (ii) It is the wording that you're disagreeing with -- SO OF COURSE IT HAS "BEARING"!
 * 4) You brought up the wording, so don't complain that I ran with it. The scientific community aren't "neutral" about creationism -- they unequivocally condemn it as utterly worthless. I was not suggesting that this language find its way into the article -- just noting that it accurately reflects the scientific community's views.
 * 5) We are not talking matters of opinion, but of fact (so neutrality isn't an issue). Creationists disagree with the ToE. I've got several books by experts attesting to this fact right beside my keyboard. You have not presented a single piece of substantiation of your views.
 * No, I was citing a YEC 'neutered evolution' you yourself mentioned as an example. Whilst OEC versions of neutered evolution (Michael Behe's immediately comes to mind) may not be so blatantly idiotic, they have no more acceptance within the scientific community.
 * 1) (i) Oh, I perfectly understand your argument -- it is yet another attempt to trivialise the most important (and well-substantiated) scientific theory in the entire field of biology as just another "model", "aspects", etc, etc. (ii) It is an article making pseudoscientific claims about science. Therefore the scientific viewpoint is relevant. (See WP:FRINGE.) (iii) See (i).
 * 2) It is not "nit picking". They do not call themselves "evolutionary creationists" and do not support creationism. The only source that I know of that does call them "evolutionary creationists" goes to great pains to point out that they are not (label notwithstanding) creationists.

I have time and again provided evidence, your refusal of said evidence does not negate that it has been provided. Here is yet another: Both Ronald Fisher (1890–1962) and Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900–1975), were Christians and architects of the modern evolutionary synthesis. Dobzhansky, writes in Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution: "I am a creationist and an evolutionist." So, if you are saying that two of the architects of the MES who consider that one can be a creationist and evolutionist as invalid evidence, then I simply have nothing left to say here as you are blatantly disregarding any such proof. Gingabox (talk) 10:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Submitted to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal for informal mediation. Please work with me on a way to word the statement that is not offensive to those who consider themselves creationists that do not disagree with "the scientific theory of evolution." I have no problem with stating that Christian apologists view the science in one way, while scientists view it the other, but I would appreciate if you do not want it completely one sided (i.e. "...disagree with the scientific theory of evolution. Science has found ways to explain...") Gingabox (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No. You had not given even a single example of a creationist who accepts the "scientific theory of evolution". And even your new-found examples are, either highly equivocal (in the case of Dobzhansky) or unsubstantiated (in the case of Fisher). Both Ronald Fisher and Theodosius Dobzhansky were theistic evolutionists, not creationists. Dobzhansky's "I am a creationist and an evolutionist" is a rhetorical flourish (an apparent self-contradiction for effect). He continues "Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way." The essay it is taken from repeatedly rebuts the positions of what Dobzhansky terms "anti-evolutionists" ("creationists" in the more conventional terminology). He is a "creationist" only to the extent that he accepts creation (as all TEs do), not in that he accepts creationism (a term that I will note that you haven't provided an alternative definition to 'religiously motivated anti-evolutionism'). (See for example this comment: "Creationism is not simply belief in existence of a creator, thus when Theodosius Dobzhansky described himself as a creationist, he used the term in a ihghly unusual manner") In fact Dobzhansky gets prominent mention in The Creationists as the principal sparring partner of prominent early 20th century creationist Frank Lewis Marsh. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Name "Christian apologetics"
First of all I have to mention that I am agnostic and aren't a big friend of Catholicism and Evangelists. Still the phrase "Christian apologetics" sounds very judgmental to me. Shouldn't a Wikipedia-article use the name they give themselves as name of the article? Jschoder (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

 * It is the name they give to themselves. They call themselves 'Christians' (no big surprise) and call what they do 'apologetics' -- thus 'Christian apologetics' (to distinguish it from apologetics, more generally). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The comment above reinforces the objection raised by the choice of language used: 'they' and 'themselves'. I note that it doesn't say "It is the name we've chosen for ourselves". The premise of the article suggests that Christianity is something to be apologized for. Perhaps the meaning of the word apologetics has changed over the centuries, but in modern parlance it certainly casts a negative light on the topic right from the title on down, and indeed reflects the anti-Christian bias of the author. G.K. Chesterton talks about what Christianity is, and what it isn't; there wasn't a scrap of apology in him. Others may call him an apologist, but they would be wrong. He simply called himself "Christian". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.109.6 (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

 * The terms "apologetics" and "apologist" are standard in the Christian community. -- 202.124.74.110 (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that the confusion here is over the fact that the word 'apologetics' sounds similar to and is based on the same roots as the word 'apology'. 'Apology' connotes regret or remorse. The etymology of the words suggests that the original meaning of the roots did not have this connotation. -- 20:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjwgarner (talk • contribs)

As others have said, you are ignorant of Greek/Latin and are defining terms that are thousands of years old by their current usage. 'apology' is originally from Greek and doesn't mean to express sorrow but is rather a defense against critics. http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#ἀπολογία Science, religion, politicians, etc. all engage in "apologetics" although they don't usually use the term. The use in Christianity is traditional, ignoring the semantic shift with the word "apology" in 21st century widespread-ignorance-of-Greek-and-Latin roots English. If you had studied Latin and Greek, you wouldn't have been ignorant of this. I blame the modern education system, not you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.94.122 (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Theistic evolution
It should be remembered that unlike (Christian) creationism (which is pervasively Christian apologetics), not all (Christian) Theistic Evolution/Evolutionary Creation writing is defending Christianity against other worldviews -- a lot of it is defending science against creationism. Most probably most TE writers do both, but care needs to be taken to place emphasis on the former in the context of this article (unlike Theistic Evolution, which should cover both aspects). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Christian polemic
I frequently have recourse to modern scholarship that deals with the Church Fathers as sources for the religious practices of antiquity. These theological efforts to debunk traditional belief systems are more often referred to specifically as "Christian polemic" rather than the broader "Christian apologetics." The term "Christian polemic" is also used for apologetics driven by criticism of Judaism and Islam. Therefore, I've added a sentence explaining the term "Christian polemic" as it relates to the more general term "Christian apologetics," polemic being the mode of apologetics that uses the rhetoric of attack, as indicated by the Latin titles of various patristic treatises using the words contra and adversus. I see a tag requesting a citation, for some reason, for the statement that Tertullian, Jerome, et al. (Augustine is bizarrely omitted) were Christian apologists; some of the Fathers have works specifically titled Apologia, and I'm not sure why this bare statement is subject to challenge. According to WP:V, citations are required for content likely to be challenged. I wonder whether some editors are focused on modern controversies such as evolution to the diminishment of documenting the history of the genre of Christian literature known as "apologetics." I don't think this article is the place for hashing out evolution vs. creationism, or any of the arguments themselves, but rather for describing the genre or mode of discourse. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Someone has deleted this sentence. Please discuss. As noted, I find the term "Christian polemic" often used by scholars to denote a particular mode of apologetics. The Church Fathers themselves frame this type of writing as a systematic debunking, undermining, or attack on the religious traditions of what they called "pagans," an inaccurate umbrella term for various belief systems in antiquity. There's nothing particularly controversial about it; early Christians felt that it was their sacred duty to inform others of what they regarded as the truth of Christianity contra what they saw as the debased beliefs of, say, the Romans. There's also such as thing as anti-Christian polemic. This search indicates that "Christian polemic" as well as "anti-Christian polemic" occur within scholarly discourse on apologetics. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

 * The sources given used the term "Christian polemic" but did not support the SYNTHy definition "Christian polemic is a rhetorical mode of apologetics primarily concerned with criticizing or attacking other belief systems." -- 202.124.74.110 (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

 * The term "polemic" certainly gets used, but it's essentially a value judgement. If A calls B's writing polemic(al), it expresses A's belief that B is primarily attacking someone/something and/or being aggressive. By the nature of things, there is no scholarly consensus that any specific writing is polemic(al), nor is there a clear genre or mode that could be called Christian polemic. You might be able to find sources that would back up a statement like "some writers believe that certain examples of Christian apologetics constitute polemic." -- 202.124.74.7 (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no "might" about it. Please do a search limited to exact phrase "Christian polemic" and "university" as the publisher and see for yourself. I needed the sentence because I often need to link to a description of "Christian polemic." You may be thinking only in contemporary terms: I'm thinking historically. The article as it stands is quite thin on the historical genre of apologetics among the Church Fathers. Instead, it focuses on contemporary controversies, which is not really what apologetics has been historically as a genre of Christian writing. There are major literary works by Augustine, Tertullian, Lactantius, Arnobius and others that are indeed polemical, and that the authors themselves intended to be attacks on what they called paganism. Remember that the full title of De civitate Dei is even City of God Against the Pagans. These intellectual, well-written works are often given titles such as Apologeticum or Adversus Gentes expressly (adversus means "against"). It is not a "value" judgment; a value judgment would be whether these works are good or bad, dumb or smart, effective or ineffective, or worth reading. it's a statement of the purpose of the works. The writers themselves stated their purpose as attacking false religions. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've put this back, with additional sources that could go on endlessly. "Synth" occurs when sources are put together to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. There's a difference between "synth" and summarizing: the sources all discuss Christian polemic as a mode of criticism or attack. Of course all apologetics isn't polemic, and that is not what the statement says; but the claim that there is no such thing as Christian polemic requires a source that argues that it's incorrect or misleading to label this rhetorical mode "polemic," since scholars obviously use the phrase to mean that. The alternative wording offered here is essentially a claim that some scholars say there is no polemical mode within the tradition of Christian apologetics. If such scholars exist, please cite them. Otherwise, this edit is a non-neutral POV that Christian apologetics is never polemical, without attribution to a source. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course Christian polemic exists, and your sources support that; but none of your sources seem to support the claim that it is primarily concerned with criticizing or attacking other belief systems -- that would be a hypothesis about the motivations of authors which none of your sources support (City of God is a good example -- it contains, in my personal opinion, polemical chapters, but it is not generally considered as primarily concerned with criticism or attack). I have reworded to be (I hope) a little clearer. -- 202.124.73.83 (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources given certainly didn't support the previous definition, and even the current definition is a little dubious. Inferring a definition from multiple uses of a word is WP:SYNTH. You would be better off relying on a definition of "polemic." -- 202.124.74.73 (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed the disputed text as polemics isn't a branch of apologetics and contrary to the definition of apologetics in the article (out of scope). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSci (talk • contribs) 04:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Moreland and MacArthur
[Moved from User talk:Hrafn ] I noticed you had removed the update that I made concerning the debate between old earth and young earth creationists. The reason why I added this paragraph was to explain that though there is a debate with the creationist community over how they believe God made creation, they do not debate on whether or not God created everything. I provided links and footnotes as verification, while showing a similarity in the Christian apologetic community with that of the naturalist community that differing opinions do not necessarily mean differing stances. My fear is that currently, while reading the Creationist Apologetics subcategory, the implication stands that there are two camps that completely disagree on this issue and thus the entirety of the Christian Creationist Apologetic, even if there is truth in one of those camps, is not to be taken seriously because it is seems to imply that both camps are in a strong disagreement with little common ground. My paragraph was intended to show that in most, if not all of the other issues the two camps are united but that this is just one point of disagreement, and that as with any science this can be healthy to discuss.

Is it then wrong to demonstrate the unity of the camps on most issues and the common thread between the two so as not to make it sound like they are from two completely different views? I am not trying to further an agenda, but rather explain this issue accurately so that the issue can be seriously discussed. If it is okay to add this information, how can I word it in such a way that it does not sound like I am not doing original research? Also, what other sources or information would I need to add to make this more credible? I have quotes from apologists such as Hank Hanegraaff concerning the debate between the two camps and that Christians should not divide over the issue but rather discuss it to come closer to truth. If that would help, I would gladly add it.

I am new to editing Wikipedia and feel I have a lot to contribute to this website. That said, I also have a lot to learn. Seeing as that you have edited several works in the past on this site, I want your input and want to work with you and with others on this site to help make it all that it can and should be. Thanks again for your time and patience, and I look forward to working with you and the rest of the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FRHolmes86 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

 * (i) Discussions of articles belong on article talk. (ii) If you want to avoid WP:Synthesis, you need to avoid any claims, implications or conclusions that aren't explicitly in the stated sources. If you want to compare Moreland and MacArthur, you need a source that makes this comparison. If you want to state "Both would be considered 'theologically sound' teachers of the Christian faith" you need a (third party) source that states that about them. And you are wrong that "there is no tangible way at the moment to verify either of their theories" -- the age of the Earth is well-established science. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk''(P) 18:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Scientific Apologetics or Evolutionary Apologetics?
Just glanced over the Scientific Apologetics section and it seems misnamed. It's not talking about science but evolution. I'm not aware of any scientists YEC, OEC, whatever, claiming there to be a conflict, it's about how, or whether, to reconcile the Bible and evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.1.208 (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (i) Evolution is science. (ii) It goes well beyond evolution into uniformitarian geology, the Age of the Earth and Cosmology -- a fairly large chunk of science. (iii) YEC isn't science, it's pseudoscience (as is much of OEC). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pardon but, how is this related to the above? You addressed not a single one of his concerns. 23.16.125.160 (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Sproul quote
Could somebody please explain to me how the Sproul quote relates to the rest of the 'Biblical motivation section -- he appears to neither be discussing a biblical basis for the motivation to engage in apologetics (rather he is talking about a motivation to defend the scripture) and is not discussing any of the quoted biblical viewpoint given in the rest of the section. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Christian apologetics is generally defined as "the rational defence of the Christian faith." In fact, that's the subtitle of Sproul's 1984 book Classical Apologetics. The Sproul quote, which embeds a quote from 1 Peter 3:15, argues a Biblical motivation for this. However, the whole section needs a rewrite to have apologists quoting Scripture, not just Scripture on its own. -- 202.124.74.157 (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

 * The proportion that is a direct quote is actually quite small, and at the end of both the passages. It might therefore be less confusing to characterise this rather differently -- it is actually more of a paraphrase than a quote. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

 * He makes a statement which includes a quote. I think that's fairly clear. -- 202.124.73.115 (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

 * When the quote is only a small portion of the statement, to describe the statement as a quote is misleading. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I think "says...quoting" fits the situation quite well. Since both quotes are given, there is no ambiguity. -- 202.124.72.164 (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Reading List
I'm going to be doing a source clean up here in a few days to get rid of the style template that someone just tagged this with. Do we really need a long list if we have a link to a wikipedia article that contains the same list? Does anyone have a problem with me weeding that list down a bit, maybe to just general / intro apologetics resources?

What say you?ReformedArsenal (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sceince: this Universe is 13.75 billion-years-old & Earth is 4.55 billion-years-old
I tweaked the following to be much more mathematically accurate: Young Earth Creationists believe that Earth is '''~6,000 years-old... Science: this Universe is 13.75 billion-years-old & Earth is 4.55 billion-years-old.''' - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

See Also section
Because of the nature of this article immediately pertaining to theological debate, it would seem that links to other articles such as Criticisms of Christianity, Origin theories of Christianity, Atheistic apologetics, and similar would be in order. Were I more familiar with wikimarkup I would do so myself, because of the trivial difficulty of the addition; as is, I am left to call on a more experienced editor to add this section. 66.233.132.60 (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

deleting references.
¬¬¬¬whoever is deleting my reference to rational wiki please stop or I will report you to the wiki admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:561E:FA00:952:A639:3F33:C0F7 (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Propose to remove sentence about Christian polemics
Polemics is not a part of Christian theology, though some have used it as a pejorative reference to apologetics. This also appears to have been added despite opposition and a lack of consensus. Propose to remove the following:

"Christian polemics is a branch of apologetics advocating for the correctness of the Christian belief system, while discrediting every other contradictory belief system.[5][6]"

01:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSci (talk • contribs)
 * This dispute is evidently ongoing, although the exact phrase in contention seems to be shifting every time it is removed and put back in. I find the emphasis a little odd, given that the topic of "Christian polemics" is not so distinctive as to warrant its own article or even subheading under the main polemics article as of this writing. The current phrasing suggests that '… polemics is a part of philosophical theology,' but this is a very sloppy usage of the cited reference, which, after quoting a theologian who argues that, immediately follows up with, "this division … is unsatisfactory." It furthermore argues: "It is … a question whether polemics belongs to the special departments of dogmatics, ethics, or practical theology, or whether it constitutes an independent branch of study. … polemics is applied dogmatics … [and] … applied symbolics." Furthermore, the claim is nowhere reproduced on the linked page. Instead, I suspect the intention (after several back and forth edits removing good faith edits) is to suggest an equivalence between the two disciplines, which would not be deemed fair or satisfactory to all interested parties. If included, I would suggest a sentence that clarifies that the subjects are distinct. Radiotradition (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

 * @Radiotradition, your assessment above is an accurate one. I think you fairly make the case that there is no evidence for the existance of a noteworthy practice called 'Christian polemics". The mention of "Christian polemics" as though it were something of note is not established. This is contrary to the WP policy of the policy given in WP:UNDUE - undue weight.
 *   K Sci    (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Terrible sourcing:
Article relies on very bad sources mostly. Neutral third party sources should be sought and to rely as little as possible on Christian Apologists themselves. The third party sources then dictate which apologetic arguments and writers are notable and relevant, rather than just finding random apologetists themselves as sources. And more reliance on high quality academic books. Also dictionary sources are to be avoided if possible.

Article generally needs to have much of it re-written. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Christian apologetics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20110724054728/http://www.sciencespeaks.net/Prophetic_Accuracy.html to http://www.sciencespeaks.net/Prophetic_Accuracy.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051112035608/http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 to http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051121160325/http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/design.asp to http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/design.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051225232043/http://origins.org/articles/plantinga_intellectualsophistication.html to http://www.origins.org/articles/plantinga_intellectualsophistication.html
 * Added tag to http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=%2Farticles%2Ftheistic_apologetics%2Fmorris-wager.htmlApologetics.com%3A
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120724071849/http://www.christian-knowledge.com/forums/genesis-chapter1/day-genesis-t8.html to http://www.christian-knowledge.com/forums/genesis-chapter1/day-genesis-t8.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Lede sentence?
I think the current lede sentence sourced to Catholic encyclopedia is quite misleading: a branch of Christian theology that defends Christianity against objections, if the article is to cover polemics. I think this describes the modern Christian apologetic faith literature, which contains discussion like But what of the Church herself, she who has preserved the truths revealed and enacted by Christ However, based on scholarly sources, the apologetic writers engaged in a considerable amount of polemic (especially against Jews and Muslims).

And would we deal with anti-Christian polemic like this briefly in this article for balance? (The details would have to go in a separate article.)

Why do Catholics call the priests father
Why do priests father William Dalton jr (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

"Varieties" section is not logically organized
Here's the first paragraph of the "Varieties" section as it stands:

"There are a variety of Christian apologetic styles and schools of thought. The major types of Christian apologetics include historical and legal evidentialist apologetics, presuppositional apologetics, philosophical apologetics, prophetic apologetics, doctrinal apologetics, biblical apologetics, moral apologetics, and scientific apologetics."

As far as I can tell, this classification was pulled out of thin air. There is no reputable, authoritative source cited that uses this classification. It just sounds like someone listed as many different types of Christian apologetics as they could think of off the top of their head.

Moreover, it is what logicians call a cross-classification: Some of the categories listed belong underneath one another rather than as separate categories. For example, moral apologetics is obviously a sub-category of philosophical apologetics rather than a coordinate genus, as illustrated by the fact that the moral argument is repeated in the section on philosophical apologetics. In addition, many practitioners of philosophical apologetics include historical and scientific arguments as an integral part of their case, and historical and scientific arguments for Christianity are virtually always made in conjunction with philosophical reasoning.

This entire section should be reorganized. The first step would be to find a source like the book "Five Views of Apologetics" and use that as an authoritative basis for classification, with (probably) a miscellaneous section at the end for arguments that don't fit neatly into any of the indicated categories. Torin11 (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Is "Christian apologetic" a pejorative term?
First off, is it "Christian apologetic" or "Christian apologist"?

Generally it refers to "someone who defends the Christianity". So would that mean only people who engage in debate? Asherkobin (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

 * An "apologetic" is the writing or idea being espoused. An "apologist" is the person who does the writing. Vyselink (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Christian apologetics


text:
User:Terminousbandage

I am a life long Londoner, and am committed to seeing the London page be the best it could be.

I got involved because I'm concerned that Bill Brady is being included on the London page as notable, which I think is a mistake

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Terminousbandage


text:
Heart Lake

Heart Lake may refer to the following places:

In Canada:
 * Heart Lake (Ontario), located in the northern end of Brampton, Ontario
 * Heart Lake Secondary School, in Brampton, Ontario
 * Heart Lake Terminal, a Brampton Transit bus terminal
 * Heart Lake First Nation, a First Nations band in northern Alberta
 * Heart Lake 167 and Heart Lake 167A, two Indian reserves of Heart Lake First Nation

In the United States:
 * Heart Lake (Arapaho National Forest), in Arapaho National Forest, Colorado
 * Heart Lake (Idaho), in the Sawtooth Wilderness
 * Heart Lake (Soldier Mountains), in Camas County, Idaho
 * Heart Lake (White Cloud Mountains), in Custer County, Idaho
 * Heart Lake (Michigan)
 * Heart Lake (Minnesota)
 * Heart Lake (Beaverhead County, Montana), in Beaverhead County, Montana
 * Heart Lake (Carbon County, Montana), in Carbon County, Montana
 * Heart Lake (Lewis and Clark County, Montana), in Lewis and Clark County, Montana
 * Heart Lake (Missoula County, Montana), in Missoula County, Montana
 * Heart Lake (Stillwater County, Montana), in Stillwater County, Montana
 * Heart Lake (New York), located in the Adirondack Park near the Adirondak Loj
 * Heart Lake (Wyoming), located in Yellowstone National Park

title: Heart Lake


text: User:PanchoS/Infobox Mannheim

title: User:PanchoS/Infobox Mannheim


text:
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Miscellany for deletion/Miscellany for deletion/Miscellany for deletion/Miscellany for deletion/Miscellany for deletion/Miscellany for deletion/Miscellany for deletion/Miscellany for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

In a dystopian parallel wikiverse, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Miscellany for deletion/Miscellany for deletion/Miscellany for deletion/Miscellany for deletion/Miscellany for deletion/Miscellany for deletion/Miscellany for deletion/Miscellany for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency was the final page added to Wikipedia.

The sad history
In the waning days of the American Culture War, WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency was formed. Wikipedia rapidly became a battleground of the war, as WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship became a rallying point for the opposition. The epic struggle between Decentites and WACkos led to one of the most titanic MfD discussions ever.

In the midst of the battle, tragedy struck and the timeline became bifurcated. One scarred veteran discovered that the Wikipedia rules allowed for a MfD of a MfD. In our Wikiverse, the attempt to initiate recursion failed. But in another world, the battles intensified sevenfold, as each attempt at deletion was strongly countered by either faction. The conflict spilled over into user and talk pages as Ragnarok erupted across Wikipedia. It was the first time the Kingdom of Wikipedia was temporarily turned into a nondeterministic quantum computer of consisting solely of MfD voting activity.

As MfD piled upon MfD, Wikipedia collapsed upon itself in a argumentative singularity. MfD for MfD for MfD for MfD for MfD for MfD for MfD for MfD for MfD for WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency was the last page edited before the Wikipedia namespace collapsed beyond the Chandrasekhar-Britannica encyclopedic event horizon. Thereafter, Wikipedia could no longer be accessed from its parent wikiverse. Although most people simply believe that the WP servers crashed, some have hypothesized that a new Big Bang of content was created in an inaccessible bubble beyond our logical continuum. We can only hope that the foolish behavior of Wikipedians in that dismal wikiverse has contributed to a new creation in the panwikiverse. In the meantime, the sad story of (MfD)^9 WP WfD serves as a cautionary tale for those who disrupt the Wikipeace.


text:
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of article series

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 06:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

List of article series
What's the point of this page? List all the articles that have subarticles? This page could include all countries (History, economy, culture...), languages (Grammar, alphabet, pronunciation...), wars (causes, casualties...) ... CG 17:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Seems harmless? Sdedeo 18:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. But reserve for series that paint a bigger picture. or something. like,   . and add some description, so it transcends mere categorization. Zanaq 19:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a list of articles which are themselves part of distinct series, so I would be happy to have grammar, alphabet, culture, dune series, etc. there, after all they are part of a distinct series, unless the editors of this page specifically view it as "Grand Series Only" page, and give a good reason for not doing so, I suggest 'get them in there'. Alf 20:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - article was created by User:Jengod who seems a dedicated Wikipedian. I imagine there's some rationale behind it.  It seems related to Article_series, though I'm rather at a loss to what they're achieving that they can't by using categories. --bodnotbod 21:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Amren (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, harmless, in Wikipedia space; if someone finds it useful, why not? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I seem to remeber it was integrated with the article series page. The list could give additional info on which articles are included in a series and why. Categories can't. - Mgm|(talk) 10:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
J class

J class or Class J may refer to:

Railways

 * NZR J class (1874), steam locomotives operating in New Zealand from 1874 until 1935
 * NZR J class (1939), steam locomotives operating in New Zealand from 1939
 * WAGR J class, steam locomotives operating in Western Australia from the 1890s
 * WAGR J class (diesel), diesel locomotives operating in Western Australia from the 1960s
 * Victorian Railways J class (1859), main line steam locomotives operating in Victoria, Australia from 1859 to 1912
 * Victorian Railways J class (1954), branch line steam locomotives operating in Victoria, Australia from 1954 to 1972
 * Norfolk and Western Railway class J (1879), steam locomotives operating in the United States from 1879 until 1900
 * Norfolk and Western Railway class J (1903), steam locomotives operating in the United States from 1903 until 1935
 * Norfolk and Western Railway class J (1941), steam locomotives operating in the United States from 1950 until 1959
 * J-class Melbourne tram
 * J-class Sydney tram

Watercraft

 * J-class yacht, a racing yacht design constructed for the America's Cup competition between 1931 and 1937
 * J-class destroyer, a class of British-built destroyers active from 1937 until 1949
 * J-class submarine, a class of British-built submarines operated by the Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy between 1916 and 1930
 * Jymy-class motor torpedo boat, an Italian World War II boat

Other uses

 * J-class blimp, 1920s airships
 * J-segment, a European vehicle size class
 * Class. J., the ISO 4 abbreviation for The Classical Journal.
 * A code used by many airlines for business class

title: J class


text:
Ted Tinling

Cuthbert Collingwood "Ted" Tinling (23 June 1910 – 23 May 1990), sometimes known as Teddy Tinling, was an English fashion designer, spy and author. He was a firm fixture on the professional tennis tour for over 60 years and is considered the foremost designer of tennis dresses of the 20th century.

Early life
Tinling was born in Eastbourne, on the south coast of England, the son of James Alexander Tinling, a chartered accountant. In 1923, suffering from bronchial asthma, his parents sent him to the French Riviera on doctor's orders. It was there he began playing tennis, particularly at the Nice Tennis Club where Suzanne Lenglen practised.

Despite Tinling's youth, Lenglen's father asked him if he would umpire one of her upcoming matches. He became her personal umpire for two years in between a short career as a player himself. This friendship with Lenglen led him to his first Wimbledon Championships in 1927, where he became player liaison until 1949. During the Second World War, he was a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Intelligence Corps in Algiers and Germany.

Career as designer
Tinling designed a wedding dress for the British two-time Wimbledon singles champion, Dorothy Round on the occasion of her marriage in 1937. He also designed dresses for almost all of the great female players throughout the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. His dresses were worn by the Wimbledon ladies' champion throughout the 1960s and 1970s. The last Wimbledon champion to wear a Tinling creation was Martina Navratilova in 1979 when she wore his designs to triumph in both the singles and doubles events. In 1983, Billie Jean King wore a Tinling dress in a final for the last time, when she reached the Wimbledon Mixed Doubles final. The last Tinling dress worn at Wimbledon was by Rosemary Casals in 1984, when she lost in the first round. Although he only ever designed dresses for Chris Evert's Federation & Wightman Cup appearances, he designed her wedding dress when she married John Lloyd in 1979.

A close friend of Billie Jean King – designing her dress for the famous "Battle of the Sexes" tennis match in 1973 – he became player liaison on the Virginia Slims Women's Tennis Association tour that King helped to create. He continued to design daring and unusual dresses for stars such as Martina Navratilova, Chris Evert, Evonne Goolagong and Virginia Wade throughout this time but his role in the infrastructure of tennis became more important and he became an official media spokesperson for the game.

1949 Wimbledon controversy
It was a design in 1949 that led to him being asked to take leave from his position at Wimbledon. That year he designed not only the dress for Gussie Moran, but also a pair of white underwear that were adorned with lace, creating a sensation, with photographers fighting for positions where they could get low-angle shots of Moran. This led to Wimbledon chairman Sir Louis Greig to become furious with Tinling for "having drawn attention to the sexual area". He was banned from the tournament for 33 years, only being invited back on the grounds of the All England Lawn Tennis Club in 1982, when he retook his position as player liaison.

The incident created a media frenzy, drawing public attention to both Tinling and Moran. While the Wimbledon officials accused Moran of "putting sin and vulgarity into tennis", the media dubbed her "Gorgeous Gussie". According to Tinling himself, "the situation snowballed out of all proportion. Gussie was inundated with requests for personal appearances – hospitals, garden fetes and beauty contests. The Marx Brothers, in London at the time, invited her to join their act. A racehorse, an aircraft and a restaurant's special sauce were named after her. She was voted the best dressed sports woman by the US Fashion Academy. The whole thing was staggering."

Later life
In 1975, Tinling moved to Philadelphia. He remained a consultant to the women's tour even after he gave up design in his old age. He was inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame in 1986.

He wrote several books on tennis in the 1980s, but respiratory problems continued to affect him and he died in 1990. After his death it was revealed he had been a British Intelligence spy during the Second World War.

Personal life
Tinling was openly gay. His brother, RAF officer James Collingwood Tinling, was a member of the team that built the first jet engine.

Portrayals
Tinling has been portrayed in two movies concerning the Battle of the Sexes tennis match played in 1973 between Bobby Riggs & Billie Jean King. In the 2001 TV Movie When Billie Beat Bobby, he was portrayed by American actor Gerry Becker and in the 2017 cinema release Battle of the Sexes, Tinling was played by British star Alan Cumming. Cumming played the role with a full head of hair, whereas Becker had played the part bald; accurately reflecting Tinling's appearance.

Works

 * Tinling, Ted (1983), Tinling: Sixty Years in Tennis. ISBN 978-0283989636
 * Tinling, Ted (1983), Tinling: Sixty Years in Tennis. ISBN 978-0283989636

title: Ted Tinling


text:
Chief data officer

A Chief Data Officer (CDO) is a corporate officer responsible for enterprise-wide governance and utilization of information as an asset, via data processing, analysis, data mining, information trading and other means. CDOs usually report to the chief executive officer (CEO), although depending on the area of expertise this can vary. The CDO is a member of the executive management team and manager of enterprise-wide data processing and data mining.

Recently, countries like Canada, Estonia, France, Spain and the United States have established this position of Chief Data Officer. There are ongoing efforts advocating for this role to be more prevalent within government structures to oversee the data strategy and ecosystem of the respective nations.

Role definition
The chief data officer title shares its abbreviation with the chief digital officer, but the two are not the same job. The chief data officer has a significant measure of business responsibility for determining what kinds of information the enterprise will choose to capture, retain and exploit and for what purposes. However, the similar-sounding chief digital officer or chief digital information officer often does not bear that business responsibility, but rather is responsible for the information systems through which data is stored and processed. A chief data officer's purpose is to connect the technological results to the needed business results. Various other roles entail having an understanding of the business value. It means using data to derive business outcome. It can be achieved by knowing the team members and activities performed, the stakeholder values and understanding customer needs. Some responsibilities include the governance, advising & monitoring enterprise data. In terms of operations it means enabling data usability along with efficiency and availability. They have to innovate which means driving the business towards digital transformation innovation, cost reduction, and revenue generation. Their role is also to provide supporting analytics with reports on products, customers, operations, and markets. They need to protect the data and eliminate data territorialism while also promoting data ethics.

History and evolution
The role of manager for data processing was not elevated to that of senior management prior to the 1980s. As organizations have recognized the importance of information technology as well as business intelligence, data integration, master data management and data processing to the fundamental functioning of everyday business, this role has become more visible and crucial. This role includes defining strategic priorities for the company in the area of data systems and opportunities, identifying new business opportunities pertaining to data, optimizing revenue generation through data, and generally representing data as a strategic business asset at the executive table.

With the rise in service-oriented architectures (SOA), large-scale system integration, and heterogeneous data storage/exchange mechanisms (databases, XML, EDI, etc.), it is necessary to have a high-level individual, who possesses a combination of business knowledge, technical skills, and people skills, guide data strategy. Besides the revenue opportunities, acquisition strategy, and customer data policies, the chief data officer is charged with explaining the strategic value of data and its important role as a business asset and revenue driver to executives, employees, and customers. This contrasts with the older view of data systems as mere back-end IT systems.

More recently, with the adoption of data science the chief data officer is sometimes looked upon as the key strategy person either reporting to the chief strategy officer or serving the role of CSO in lieu of one. This person has the responsibility of measurement along various business lines and consequently defining the strategy for the next growth opportunities, product offerings, markets to pursue, competitors to look at etc. This is seen in organizations like Chartis, AllState and Fidelity. The role of CDOs is broadly accepted in 2019, 67.9% of major companies reported to have appointed a CDO, up from 12.0% in 2012.

Early CDO appointments

 * Cathryne Clay Doss of Capital One was appointed chief data officer in 2002.
 * Sanket doshi, CDO of Oracle
 * Usama Fayyad, chief data officer and senior vice president of Yahoo! in 2005.

Notable example CDOs

 * Philip Bourne is associate director for data science at the National Institutes of Health
 * Usama Fayyad was the first CDO for Yahoo! in 2004-2009 and also the CDO of Barclays in London from 2013 to 2016. He showed how the role can generate value by creating a $500 million new revenue source based on behavioral Targeting of Ads for Yahoo! in 2008.
 * Ashok Srivastava is the chief data officer of Intuit leading artificial intelligence and machine learning at the company.

Industry and geographic trends in CDOs
Following the 2008 credit crisis, many major banks and insurance companies created the CDO role to ensure data quality and transparency for regulatory and risk management as well as analytic reporting. CDOs were originally appointed to focus more executive attention outside the traditional compass of the chief information officer (CIO). During the COVID-19 pandemic the chief data officers demonstrated that navigating the changing situation is important. Businesses need to adapt and innovate in order to continue maintaining profits and survive. Laying out a roadmap is necessity during any disruptions in the business world as the environment changes. The trend is to optimise the use of applied analytics to maximise the business opportunities and innovate. In 2020, the chief data officers worked closely with other executives and focus more on automation. The goal is to reduce the analytic cycle time while also reducing the number of data errors. The liability reduces and gives space to more opportunities and creates a competitive edge. The CDOs find it critical to keep up to date with governance regulations as there are different types of data with various locations. The data-centric laws keep on updating and CDOs should be updated with the laws in the market in which the organization operates and gathers data.

title: Chief data officer


text:
South Central College

South Central College (SCC) is a public community college in Faribault and North Mankato, Minnesota, United States. Formerly South Central Technical College, the college revised its mission from a technical college to that of a broader, comprehensive community college in 2005, receiving approval from the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) Board of Trustees on March 16, 2005. Over 50 programs are offered as certificates, diplomas, Associate of Applied Science (AAS), or Associate of Science (AS) degrees.

title: South Central College


text: File:Lamen angelic english.jpg

title: File:Lamen angelic english.jpg


text:
Kwik Kian Gie

Kwik Kian Gie (born 11 January 1935) is an Indonesian economist and politician who served as the Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs from 1999 to 2000, the Minister of National Development Planning from 2001 to 2004, as well as briefly serving as the Deputy Speakers of the People's Consultative Assembly in 1999. He is a prominent Indonesian economist who often wrote columns in the newspaper KOMPAS criticizing the policies of the Suharto administration in the late 1980s and 1990s.

Early life
Following working in a teaching post in the Economics Department in the University of Indonesia, he undertook further studies in the Nederlandse Economische hogeschool (currently Erasmus University Rotterdam) in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Life in the Netherlands has indeed brought big changes to Kwik's personal life. He went to the Netherlands alone, but when he returned to Indonesia Kwik brought three people with him. They are Dirkje Johanna de Widt (his wife from Rotterdam), and his two children Kwik Ing Hie and Kwik Mu Lan. Of his three children, only the youngest, Kwik Ing Lan, was born in Indonesia.

Career
After a few years working in the Netherlands following his graduation he returned to Indonesia and held several executive positions and became an entrepreneur. He maintained a strong interest in politics and education, and said to the press that, "I now have enough money to pay for anything I can wish for," and with that started his involvement with the PDI-P opposition political party of Megawati Sukarnoputri.

He also founded Institut Bisnis & Informatika Indonesia (IBII) which is now known as Kwik Kian Gie School of Business, a business/management school in Indonesia, with his colleagues.

Candidacy
During the rise of Megawati Sukarnoputri he was mentioned as a possible candidate for the important post of Coordinating Minister of Economics and Finance. He was appointed to the position by Abdurrahman Wahid in the Wahid Cabinet in October 1999. However, various political hurdles prevented him from making much progress during his term in office. He was later moved to the position of Minister of National Development and Planning. His period as minister was seen by some as a disappointment.

title: Kwik Kian Gie


text:
Category:Courthouses

A courthouse is a building that is home to a court. The term is common in the United States and Canada. In other English-speaking countries, buildings that house courtrooms are simply known as courts.

title: Category:Courthouses


text:
Talk:Tug of war

10 centimetres?
"Two teams of eight, whose total mass must not exceed a maximum weight determined for the class, align themselves at the end of a rope (approximately 10 centimetres in circumference)."

Uh... really? --Ihope127 17:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's totally reasonable. 10 cm / pi ~= 3.2 cm diameter. Magnus Holmgren 08:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sexuality
Any chance we could give this its own page. It doesn't really belong in this article, and frankly I wish I hadn't happened upon it. --djrobgordon 05:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah but how often are rules of any kind followed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't it in the olympics anymore?
Tug of war is exciting... 24.23.32.249 (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Correction: you think it's exciting. Next time please remember, the talk page isn't a forum. 99.235.80.202 (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's a good question. Why was it dropped? Huw Powell (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Previous Olympic Games included sports which are no longer present on the current program, like polo and tug of war. These sports, known as discontinued sports, were later removed either because of lack of interest or absence of an appropriate governing body." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_sports#Changes kabbelen (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Should the article "answer" the question as well? Huw Powell (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have added it right now if it wasn't for the lack of clarity in the reference given in the article linked to by kabbelen. The website states, "They [the sports that were discontinued, including tug of war] were discontinued either because of lack of interest on the part of the other nations or because the sport didn't have a genuine international governing body conforming to Olympic standards." Whichever one it is for tug of war, though, I do not know. I may look for more references that specify this when I've got time. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 00:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Accidents
Does a 500-year-old sport need a section with 3 accidents in the last 20 years? Furthermore, in the Arm Severing section, the applied and breaking strength of the rope used are given in kg. kgs are units of mass, not of force. The source has it written as force in kg, which makes me doubt the credibility of the article. Mikegarri (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed the section. AIRcorn (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Teams
What is the inclusion criteria for the list of teams? At the moment it looks completely indiscriminate and arbitrary. Either the list should be removed or specific inclusion criteria (world championship winners?) developed and applied. I'll apply the first of these solutions (i.e. removing the list) if there is no objections or further discussion in the meanwhile. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Given no comments in 14 days, I've removed the list of teams. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish
According to the article:

 * The rope used for a tug of war in Uiryeong Keunjul taenggigi (January 15 in Chinese calendar) is 251 metres long, 4.5 metres in circumference and weighs 54.5 metric tons.

Excuse me, but who has a grip that can grasp a girth of 4.5 m, even if the tuggers have to hug the rope?! Furthermore, the rope's mass would work out to just over 217 kg/m. It sounds more like weightlifting than tug of war. This statement is patent nonsense, and I mean to delete it from the article for that reason. Please do not reinstate it unless you can come up with a reference.

Also according to the article:

 * The rope used for a tug of war in Naha Oōtsunahiki (October 10) is 200 metres long and weighs more than 40 metric tons.

In this case, the rope's mass would work out to a relatively light 200 kg/m. Still, this, too, is patent nonsense, and I mean to delete it from the article for that reason. Please do not reinstate it unless you can come up with a reference. Kelisi (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Presently in the article there are 2 illustrations - one a drawing "Gozutenno tsunahiki.jpg", one a photo "Naha Tug of War.jpg" - that show very thick ropes being used in what seems to be a Tug of War. In the case of the photo, the problem of gripping the thick rope seems to have been solved by having thinner ropes wrapped around the main rope. FrankSier (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Blisters
I notice that the rope was rubbing my hands, which can give you blisters on your palms and the your fingers. "Tug o' War" in Mario Party only gives you palm blisters from rotating the analog stick. Luigithemetal64 (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

World Series wives
During baseball's World Series, there is sometimes a tug-o-war between the wives and significant others of the players of the championship teams. Does anyone have information about this event? Is it a regular annual event? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.17.141 (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Tug of war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130208012801/http://www.theglobeandmail.com:80/news/world/teens-recovering-after-losing-fingers-during-tug-of-war-match/article8252426/ to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/teens-recovering-after-losing-fingers-during-tug-of-war-match/article8252426/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"ropey ropey pull pull"
This name was added by an IP editor without a citation. It sounds pretty childish to me and I doubt anyone seriously uses it to refer to the sport. I've removed it. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Tug of war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090215091428/http://tugofwarindia.gov.in:80/History/en-GB/code/Subcontinent/default.aspx to http://tugofwarindia.gov.in/History/en-GB/code/Subcontinent/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

TWIF & 'Regional variations'
Presently some the article seems to be written from the point of view that TWIF, 'The Tug of War International Federation', represents a normal/standard version and that everything else is just a 'variation'. This seems to be not NPOV to me, unless it is backed up by a reference. From the illustrations and text presently in the article it seems that large numbers of people, over long historical times, are/have been involved in the 'variations'.

Is there any information about the numbers of people involved in the various forms?

Specifically, I suggest that the section 'Formal rules' is renamed as 'TWIF formal rules', or as 'TWIF rules', as the present references in that section lead to the TWIF website.

The section 'Tactics' also seems to refer to the TWIF version, but that is not referenced.

FrankSier (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

'Tactics' section
"...Slowly but surely, the other team is forced into surrender by a runaway pull." - Surely this tactic could be used by either team, meaning that either team can force a win(?). This sounds like a bit of commentary on a particular match, rather than a general piece of info. I suggest this is re-worded.

"Another factor that affects the game that is little known..." - Is this particularly less-known than other aspects of the game?

FrankSier (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Tug of War
Tug of War does not exactly describe a game with a rope. In the 19th century, Tug of War without a rope (catch and pull) was already described in several books and magazines. At the same time, the rope variant was commonly known under the name French and English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.96.202.171 (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC) ]

Detailed rules?
I don't see any detailed rules around subjects such as what footwear players are allowed to use, what surface the sport is played on, whether players are allowed to loop/knot the rope, etc. I presume that there must be such rules in high-level competition. Grover cleveland (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tug of war