Talk:Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith

"sources affiliated with the subject"

I see that Firefly322 has seen fit to remove the {{primarysources}}, in spite of the fact that the ONLY sources in this article are to the journal itself and a book written by one of its editorial board members/former editor. This takes Firefly322's frequent quixotic gestures to a new height. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that yet another source was added by another editor (which is way beyond what almost any other journal entry gets in wikipedia...in general verifiability is more than enough for journal entries), this re-placement of tags [1] makes it look like wikipedia is anti-Christian, since a non-Christian journal would not be required to provide so many sources or get this much attention. Can you explain how it is not? --Firefly322 (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Firefly322: your claim that a "trivial" (as that term is defined in WP:NOTE) mention in an obscure local newspaper in some way eliminates the need for a {{primarysources}} & {{notability}} is as ludicrous as your hysterical accusations about "anti-Christian" bias. Kindly take your WP:AGF-violative conspiracy theories elsewhere. The reason your articles get picked upon is not a vast anti-Christian conspiracy, but because you couldn't write a competent article if your life depended upon it [is rather a testimony to the deficiencies in the articles you create]. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down, both of you. You're both aware of WP:TALK. The primary sources tag was fully justified. There is now one more source, but the article is still lacking. Thanks, Verbal chat 14:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't conflate the object of Hrafn's comments (me) with those comments apparent mood. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Also I'm not making a conspiracy theory. I am pointing out the obvious. Journal entries rarely have refs. That's standard practice on wikipedia. Just check: Category:Theology journals. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are large numbers of articles that violate every wikipedia policy you could think of -- that's no excuse not to start somewhere. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: bad practice elsewhere means it should be dealt with on all poor articles, not allowed to spread. Are you channelling me Hrafn?? Verbal chat 14:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, stubs are not bad practice. That's your perspectives and they are inconsistent with WP:STUB. Also this comment ([2]) suggests that you are taking this very personal as with other articles that you have redirected or complained about e.g. (redirected Roy Abraham Varghese, Daylight Origins Society AFD, Christian Virtuoso Stub Complaint, etc. etc.) they involve articles that are threating to a modern materialistic viewpoint. And I'm sorry if these sorts of articles are threatening to you both, but that's absolutely the wrong reason to "start somewhere". --Firefly322 (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, as a scientist and a Christian, I think this journal sounds interesting. I hope it's good and I may look it up. Firefly, (and Hrafn too) you must address edits and improving the article, not make comments about editors, motives and religious beliefs. If a stub doesn't have references that establish its notability then it is right for that stub to be so tagged. Stubs are not bad practice, but the wp:burden, when queried, is on those seeking to add articles and material. Verbal chat 15:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I would note that (i) nothing in WP:STUB states that it overrides WP:NOTE & (ii) that Firefly322's evidence is malformed and does not substantiate their claims (absurdly, the 'Abraham Varghese' dif isn't even for an edit of mine). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability

As notability cannot be inherited (ie, the notability of members of the editorial board does not establish notability), I see no WP:RS that establish the notability of this article per WP:NOTE. These should be added soon. Verbal chat 08:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If notability cannot be established, then the most obvious option would be to merge into American Scientific Affiliation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion does not seem reasonable, especially given that once the article was created it already had internal wikilinks such as from Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/P8. This sort of link generally establishes notability for a journal. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course discussing notability is reasonable, and wikipedia is not a valid source. Verbal chat 14:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:LINK. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a MoS guideline, not notability policy. Can you point, or anyone else, to the references which establish notability, per WP:NOTE? Verbal chat 14:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

See non sequitor. Wikilinks have no relevance whatsoever to wikipedia notability guidelines. And in any case, the Wikiproject page you linked to has hundreds of redlinked journals -- so inclusion there means nothing whatsoever. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. The reason why Orphan tags exist is exactly for this reason. Links help establish notability and integration into the wiki. {{orphan}} (Hence the tag). --Firefly322 (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please point to the section of WP:NOTE that states this is sufficient. Verbal chat 14:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please also point to anything in that template that suggests that it has some relevance to notability. WP:ORPHAN and WP:NOTE are two completely unrelated pieces of guidance. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wlinks have nothing to do with notability. An orphaned article may be taken as a hint for looking further into its topical notability, but whether or not the article is orphaned, mistakenly or otherwise, never has anything to do with the notability of its topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, with all respect I don't that's true. I think it's sophisticated view and over-simplifying it doesn't help. I think a response from WP:3O would grant that there is some overlap. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Put what I said this way then, the "sophisticated" outlook is that yes, orphaned articles throw off hints they may not be notable and a lack of wlinks may indeed mean that the notability of an article may bear looking into, but wlinks (or their lack) have aught, nothing at all, to do with notability, or showing notability, or lending notability. Please get 3rd opinions if you like, because they'll only tend to help you understand the policy. Anyway, what you need are more independent sources which show meaningful coverage of this topic. If it's notable, they're out there and if there are few to be had, that means the topic won't be taken as notable for now on en.Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This topic looks notable to me, Google books shows articles from this journal are cited by many publications. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree it may well be notable, but I'm not sure of what policy is being used to remove the tag without improving the references so it clearly meets WP:GNG. I may be missing the important part, or a different policy. I've asked CW to come and justify his edits, rather than drive by editing while a discussion is ongoing. This really shouldn't lead to bad feeling or an edit war; if the references or policy reasons exist then please add them or point them out. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I would question the notability of it. The criteria is "significant coverage", and I've yet to see more than a passing mention in any of the sources cited. I suspect it would be rarely discussed (as opposed to merely mentioned or cited) except in the context of the ASA (meaning that WP:MERGE#Rationale #2 'Overlap' & #4 'Context' may well apply). How many journals that are closely identified with their parent organisation merit an article separate from that organisation? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

pp158-159 of The Evolution Controversy in America give the topic its most substantive coverage to date -- but very much present it as being intimately intertwined with that of the ASA. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What do the third party sources actually say about PSCF

• "George Bennett, associate professor of chemistry at Millikin University, had an article published in the March 2008 issue of "Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith," the journal of the American Scientific Affiliation. … 'Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith' is a peer-reviewed journal that is published four times a year." -- Herald & Review

• "In 1949 the ASA published the first issue of its new Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation." -- Redeeming culture

• "(see countless articles in the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation and Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith [the ASA's retitled journal])" -- parenthetical in a footnote in The universe next door

Does this constitute "significant coverage"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

reliable objective information about journals can be found in Ulrich's, where I find

1. it has a circulation of about 2400, not too bad for a specialized title on religious topics.

1. it is listed by them as a peer-reviewed journal

1. It had the earlier title: "Journal: Evangelical Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith"]
2. It is indexed in the Christian Periodical Index (1987-), Religion Index One: Periodicals, and Religious & Theological Abstracts -- the major religious indexes; but it is not indexed in any of the other humanities indexes, or in any social science or xcience index, nor in Scopus or Web of Science -- which pretty much defines its field.

and from WorldCat I see it is in 236 libraries, including most of the religiously oriented colleges, and some but not all of the major universities--

I am about to add all this to the article. I think it's an important enough journal to be covered here. In general I think that anything used frequently in Wikipedia as a source should have an article, because it helps clarify the reliability. I do not think the requirement of people writing about the journal--eg the GNG, is of any use whatsoever in discriminating notability here. DGG (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Which notability guideline is relevant? Verbal chat 19:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I second Verbal's question. This "reliable objective information" would appear to be WP:BIGNUMBERs that have no relevance to any applicable notability guideline. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I would note that the information that DGG presents is neither "significant coverage", nor a compelling "common sense" reason for an "occasional exception". It appears to be rather an argument for the general ignoring of the guideline for anything with a WP:BIGNUMBER argument. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Bibliographic trivia

I see that DGG has seen fit to load the article up with some of the above trivia. Is it really relevant or noteworthy that the journal is "is indexed in the Christian Periodical Index (1987-), Religion Index One: Periodicals, and Religious & Theological Abstracts" and "found in over 200 American colleege and university libraries"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• These facts seem highly relevant and noteworthy in the sense of the applicable guideline, WP:TOPIC. Your difficulty with the Ulrich's link is presumably due to lack of a subscription. As User:DGG is a professional librarian and member of project WP:JOURNAL, the quality of his contributions seems evident. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello CW, nice of you to comment. Could you give a policy based reason for why notability has been established? Which policy is the one being used? I'm not opposed to DGGs edits, but they still don't provide "significant coverage".Verbal chat 08:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability is not a policy. One reason for this is that discretion and common sense are required when considering the suitability of topics as they vary considerably in their nature. In such a case, the guideline suggests consulting an expert in the field - a member of a relevant project. We have done so and his verdict above is "I think it's an important enough journal to be covered here." Colonel Warden (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for WP:RS. That also came after your removal. What was the justification for your removal of the tag? Verbal chat 08:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Colonel Warden: WP:ONLYGUIDELINE is not a good reason to ignore guidelines. You and DGG have presented no compelling reason why "discretion and common sense" should override the guidelines in this case. All that has been presented is a bunch of only-tenuously-relevant WP:BIGNUMBERs (have we been presented any evidence that all journals of "circulation of about 2400" or greater, or all journals in "236 libraries" or more are prima facie notable? No we have not). I would further assert that that DGG's area of expertise is in coming up with (in my opinion often questionable) arguments for taking M:Inclusionism to an extreme, whilst ignoring relevant guidelines completely. DGG is perfectly entitled to lobby for such a viewpoint. We are however under no compulsion to accept him as an "expert" on this basis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Colonel Warden: can you point to any FA-article on a journal, or any article on a high-profile journal that contains such bibliographic trivia? I would suggest that the fact that they do not is good reason to regard it as 'filler' trivia, used to mask the fact that there isn't anything more "relevant and noteworthy" to say on the topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• There don't seem to be any featured articles about journals and the best are just grade B, such as International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. It seems therefore that these are not easy topics to write upon. By comparison with other such examples, we seem to be doing fine. Perfect is the enemy of good. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• What part of "or any article on a high-profile journal" did you fail to understand? Or are you claiming that there aren't any articles on high-profile journals? Stop dodging the question. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• I would further note that International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology does not include this type of bibliographic trivia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Urlich figures "highly relevant and noteworthy"?

If the Ulrich's Periodicals Directory figures were genuinely "highly relevant and noteworthy", I would expect hundreds (thousands?) of articles on journals to have a wikilink to its article, while citing them. Is this the case? No it is not. Looking up the few links from journals (or anything else on mainspace) to this article I found that in this instance (the only one I've come across to date of Urlich figures being given in an article on a journal), it was DGG themselves who inserted it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• As it requires a subscription, usage will naturally be limited. We should be glad that we have been afforded such a high quality and expensive source in this case. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• So it is bibliographic trivia that is inaccessible (and thus unverifiable) without subscription -- that makes me feel so much better. I would put to you that its "high quality" and relevance is visible to nobody but DGG and yourself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• That is a specific reason given by our guideline for consulting an expert - that they have better access to high quality sources which are not readily available to the public. Please note that challenging the work of experts while lacking comparable expertise may be considered disruptive. I'm not sure I like this doctrine myself but so it goes. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

CW, I considering your drive-by untagging and failure to justify it as disruptive, and your attempt to stop this discussion is disruptive. I think DGG is a great editor, but I'm not willing to take his word (or yours) on notability. I don't think he has claimed notability is established or claimed a special expert status on himself. We need sources, per WP:NOTE or a good policy/gl reason why this article is notable in wikipedia terms. Verbal chat 10:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Colonel Warden:

1. WP:NOTE DOES NOT suggest that the opinion of an "expert" overrides the guidelines. The only place that it mentions experts is in the 'Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines' where it suggests "Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources." DGG's "I think it's an important enough journal to be covered here" only has value to the extent that it is backed by cogent arguments -- and the WP:BIGNUMBER arguments backing it are not cogent. I would request that you cease and desist making demands on the basis of misread guidelines.
2. Your argumentum ad nauseam that this trivia is "high quality" is becoming silly -- particularly when you have failed to address my rebuttal of this information's relevance to notability (made at 09:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC) above).
3. Your claim of WP:DISRUPT is (i) based upon a misreading of WP:NOTE (see #1 above), and (ii) ridiculously WP:POT given your repeated disruptive removals of the {{notability}} template whilst notability is still under dispute.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Notes on notability

• The guideline does not privilege the opinions of "experts" in determining notability.
• The 'guideline' header suggests that "it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." (my emphasis) This is not license for allowing widespread exceptions, or exceptions without a strong "common sense" justification.
• "It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute." Rather, "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below ["significant coverage"]. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Criminal acts, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content."

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Reversion

• Why are you making pointed edits and then reverting my reply? Are you in a bad mood? It hardly seems objective. [3] --Firefly322 (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Your comments were reverted because (i) they violated WP:NPA & (ii) because they served no purpose towards improving the article (per WP:TALK). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comments have been pointed and personal. You have no authority and no real grounds to revert a response. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks can be removed by any editor. You can always try putting what you had to say into more neutral wording. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Before making this proposal I would first like to correct a misconception that may be there among other editors, that I do not believe that the JASA/PSCF is an important and influential journal. It has come up in the context of reading up on, and writing about, too many articles for me to think that. However, (i) WP:NOTE states that importance and notability aren't (precisely) the same thing, and (ii) more importantly, this research has given the very strong impression that this importance is very tightly intertwined with that of the ASA.

JASA/PSCF is primarily important as the forum within which members of the ASA communicate and attempt to influence one another's views. The most prominent example of this is J. Laurence Kulp's 1950 paper 'Deluge Geology', which played a prominent part in the eventual rejection by the majority of the ASA of flood geology and Young Earth creationism (and set them on the road to eventual widespread acceptance of theistic evolution, which in turn led most of the YECs to decamp to set up their own organisations).

I am therefore proposing that this article be merged into American Scientific Affiliation, on the following criteria (per WP:MERGE#Rationale):

• #2 Overlap -- the two sources that I have come across that actually discuss (rather than merely mention) JASA/PSCF, The Creationists & The Evolution Controversy in America, do so in a way that heavily implies that the actions of the journal are also actions of the parent organisation.
• #4 Context -- the journal's importance is in the context of its importance in allowing members of the ASA to communicate with and influence each other.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Don't Merge: At least four different editors (e.g., User:Crusio, User:Northfox, User:DGG, User:Colonel Warden, and User:Firefly322) have made significant contributions and commentary that has resulted in the removal of the tags. These efforts by these editors strongly suggests that the article deserves to exist as is, unmerged, and without any more tags. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: your argument is basically one of WP:OWNERSHIP, and does not address the issues that I raised in proposing this merger. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(Interposing) Comment Merging the two articles would be WP:synthesis. For example, potential sources about the journal focus on the journal itself and its editors (i.e., Marion D. Barnes, D. N. Eggenberger, David O. Moberg, Russell L. Mixter, Wilbur L. Bullock, Richard H. Bube, J.W. Haas Jr., Roman Miller, and Arie Leegwater) and editorial leadership (e.g., "PSCF: a Retro- and Prospective". Randy Isaac. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. Vol.60 No.3. Sept. 2008.), while potential sources about the organization focus on the organization, its presidents (its first was F. Alton Everest) and their organizational leadership (e.g., Hearn, Walter R., F. Alton Everest (1909–2005): Founder and First President of ASA PSCF 57.4:265-266 (12/2005)). The logical division presented by potential sources as well as seperate editorial and presidential leadership should be respected. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Rebuttal: Firefly322 is wrong both on policy and on the facts. Given that this journal is published by and has been titled (and later subtitled) as the journal of the ASA, there is no possible synthesis in describing it an article on the ASA. Further the example given, "PSCF: a Retro- and Prospective", repeatedly intertwines the ASA itself with its description of the journal's history: "The ASA has been blessed with a sequence of very talented scholars who have served as editors. … All of these views, and many more, continue to be held within the ASA community, offering a unique environment for the exchange of ideas. … Turning from the past to the future, what are the key topics that we might expect the ASA to address, with seminal articles in this journal? … The complex relationship of the influence of genetics, epigenetics, and spiritual factors in our behavior will come under great scrutiny. This work should be a strong focus for the ASA. … ASA members are galvanized by the ability to make contributions in areas such as alternative energy sources, creation care, and appropriate technologies for a sustainable future. … ASA can contribute effectively as a focus of communication of opportunities and experiences." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • (interposting) Comment Two more potential sources demonstrating a logical division:

1."The Harmonious Dissonance of Evangelical Scientists: Rhetoric and Reality in the Early Decades of The American Scientific Affiliation"PSCF. Vol.60. No.4. December 1991. pp. 259-274.

2."The Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation At 50". John W. Haas, Jr. with David O. Moberg, Richard Bube, and Wilbur Bullock. PSCF. Vol.50. No.4. Dec. 1998. pp. 241-249.

• Sources demonstrate no "division": the first source makes liberal mention of the journal in its discussion of the "early decades" of the ASA. The second source states that one of the two explicit purposes of the ASA was to "to promote the dissemination of the results of such studies", which it did via the JASA. It laso makes frequent mention of the ASA (including its leadership) in discussing the journal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge Using the above reasoning, one would probably be hard put to show independent notability for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences... To paraphrase: one of the purposes of the NAS was to "to promote the dissemination of the results of such studies", which it did via the PNAS... As far as I can see, the journal is not a newsletter type of publication (which in general should not have a separate article and should be merged with the society) but a genuine scientific publication. If this is all what the ASA is about, perhaps the info in that article should be merged here, but I think that things are best left as they stand. The current stub here contains neutral, sourced information. The journal may be of low notability, but the fact that major indexes in its field list it and the large number of libraries that carry it prove sufficient notability for an independent article, as far as I am concerned. --Crusio (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: this "reasoning" was not given as the sole (or even main) reason for merger -- merely as a rebuttal to Firefly322's claim that there is some "division" that prevents merger. See my comment dated 06:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC) below for further on this point. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Addendum: an argument might be made for merging Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences into National Academy of Sciences using this argument -- but I think it would be a far weaker argument in that case as (i) PNAS as a far higher profile independent of the NAS than PSCF does & (ii) it is aimed at an audience that goes well beyond the NAS's membership (I suspect a comparative contrast of overlap of membership vs readership for ASA/PCSF vs NAS/PNAS would turn up some stark differences). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The article on the journal qua journal is of a nice size while the article upon the American Scientific Affiliation seems rather bulky. We have a nice standard format for coverage of academic journals and the kind assistance of members of the relevant project and we should not lightly give up the benefits of this standardised approach. Coverage of the journal here is no obstacle to making the points which editors may wish to make elsewhere. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• ROFLMAO Your "nice size" is a rather small stub. Your "nice standard format" of including irrelevant bibliographic trivia has been demonstrated to be completely idiosyncratic. And you have completely failed to address the points that I raised (per WP:MERGE#Rationale) above. Your 'opposition' is thus completely spurious. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Bulky? It's mostly tags and a list, which could be better organised to reduce "bulk". It's little more than a stub. See below. Verbal chat 08:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support merge unless notability is established per the WP:GNG, separate to the ASA, the article should be merged or deleted. I prefer merge, as then we preserve the information. At the moment this article would make a nice section in the other article, and a redirect from here to that section would be fully appropriate and solve the current problems. Otherwise, unless vastly improved, it will probably be deleted. The ASA article is also rather short, not "bulky", as most of the content is a list that could be split into columns, and then a large number of improvement tags which are hopefully temporary. Verbal chat 08:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I would note that Colonel Warden is attempting to WP:DISRUPT this debate by removing the {{notability}} and {{mergefrom}} templates. I do not think that this is acceptable behaviour when the notability of this topic is in legitimate dispute, and when a well-formed argument for merger (which CL has completely failed to address) has been made. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment We have already had enough discussion and learned input to establish that there is no consensus for Hrafn's propositions and tags. It is therefore time to move on and redundant tags will be tidied up in the course of continuing article improvement. This is normal editing practise as tags are there to be removed. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • 2 opposes (which make incorrect claims) and 2 supports in a discussion that hasn't been open very long have established consensus?? This is clearly disruptive CW, and further disruption will be reported. "Learned" input? I am also an expert, but I don't try and force my expert opinion on wikipedia as that isn't how the site works, as you well know. Would you prefer this to be added as an RfC? Verbal chat 10:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Colonel Warden: the "learned input" that you and DGG have put forward on notability has amounted to a misrepresentation and subversion of WP:NOTE (as has been documented in detail above). The "learned input" you and Firefly322 have put forward on the merge proposal lacks any factual or policy (or guideline) basis, and completely fails to address the reasoning underlying the merger proposal. Your claim that we should "move on" from this proposal only seven hours after it was first made is quite frankly insulting. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think DGG should be allowed to speak for himself, and that CW is misrepresenting him - so let's not get sidetracked. Verbal chat 11:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I am responding here following a request on my talk page, although I have almost completely retired from this kind of heated WP debates. Apart from hoaxes or abject nonsense, I have stopped prodding/speedy/AfD. I edited this article, this should not be interpreted as supporting its notability (nor the opposite). I just tried to improve upon what was existent. Now that I am here an yway, here's my take. Info on how many libraries carry a journal is not generally included in articles on journals. However, that info is often used in AfD discussions about the notability of books or journals. Indexing information is almost always included in journal articles, but does not much to establish notability. Establishing notability for a journal is not easy, especially not in a field that is not well covered by the Journal Citation Reports (journals with an impact factor are always considered notable, lack of an IF in a covered field is taken as evidence of non-notability).

In the present case, there is not much to support notability, except for the remarkably high number of libraries that apparently carry the journal (given that it seems to be available free on the Internet, it would be worthwhile to find out how many of these are actually -paying- print subscriptions). Unless it turns out that most of these libraries only list it as an online resource, I would remain prudent and err on the side of notability independent of the society (the journal very clearly is NOT a newsletter or something like that). --Crusio (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I have considerably expanded American Scientific Affiliation#Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation. In the process I think I have clearly demonstrated that the two topics meet the 'Overlap' and 'Context' rationales for merger alluded to above. Highlights include:

1. That the JASA was established to meet one of the two goals of the ASA in its original constitution.
2. That it was "intended primarily for the benefit of the A.S.A. members, and interested friends"
3. "the editorial objectives of the journal, published in December 1950, were a clear indication of the ASA's non-doctrinal focus."

The JASA would not have been brought into existence, and would not continue to exist, without the ASA, and the JASA is the main record of the ASA's intellectual history. The two quite frankly can't be separated without doing significant damage to the explication of either. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm convinced that the merge should go ahead, and in future if this journal meets notability guidelines and it gets to big for the parent, then it could be split off. Verbal chat 11:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• This is not a matter of personal conviction. There is no consensus for the merger. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know if you haven't noticed it yet, or simply are ignoring the fact, Colonel Warden -- but the merger has to all intents and purposes already taken place, with American Scientific Affiliation containing the bulk of the information on this topic, and this short and not-particularly-informative stub effectively acting as nothing more than a 'soft redirect' to the real coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I propose to merge the excellent text about this journal that Hrafn has added to the article on the society here in the article on the journal itself, where it belongs. --Crusio (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• A "reverse merger" is a 'split'. I would oppose a split as (i) the ASA article is still (easily) a manageable size & (ii) the information presented in American Scientific Affiliation#Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation is integral to understanding the ASA. As I stated above: "the JASA is the main record of the ASA's intellectual history." It records all the major disputes and controversies in the ASA's history (e.g. young Earth vs old Earth, theistic evolution versus first progressive creationism, then intelligent design). See also above quote from ASA article, where a source equates the JASA editorial policy to the ASA's focus. The two are inseperable.Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving info here from the parent article is stupid, as it will be deleted as this journal isn't notable. That's why the merge should happen. Or has someone found evidence of notability? Verbal chat 14:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• As I feel that the journal is notable, I don't see this as a split of the society article. As we obviously have no consensus here, I think you should take it to AfD to get clarity. --Crusio (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Point of order: an AfD is inappropriate, as nobody is currently proposing the deletion of this article (merely suggesting that it may be deleted if it isn't merged). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I must have misread the comment of Verbal just above mine, I thought he said that this article "will be deleted". Oh, right, that is what he said... :-) And as far as I know, this cannot be speedied, prod clearly would be impractical, so AfD is the only way open to delete. --Crusio (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes you did misread it. Verbal clearly conditioned the "will be deleted" on failing-to-merge-there/"moving info here". A conditional = "may" (see subjunctive mood for details). Also he was clearly talking in the future tense (hence "nobody is currently proposing the deletion"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I see you like splitting hairs. To me, Verbal's statement clearly indicated that deletion of the article was on the table. Perhaps not for you, but I'm no lawyer and really am not in the mood for you subtleties. End of discussion for me (see my earlier comments on contentiousness above). If you go to AfD, I will contribute there. If you don't, I am clearly on record as opposing a merger with American Scientific Affiliation. I will not contribute to this discussion any further. --Crusio (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Baloney: there is no way that Verbal's comment could be reasonably interpreted as 'I think the best thing to do at this stage is to delete the article', which is what was needed to put an AfD on the table. Having misrepresented Verbal's statement, it is utterly WP:POT of you to complain about "splitting hairs" & "lawyer[ing]" when your misrepresentation was pointed out to you. The immediate prospect of an AfD currently exists only in your own fevered imagination, so I have little interest in what your input would be to that imaginary discussion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• A question for Crusio: what "significant coverage" can you point to, that is not in the context where the ASA is the main subject, that would indicate that this journal has notability separate from the ASA? ("I feel that the journal is notable" is merely an assertion, it needs evidence to substantiate it.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I should have expressed myself clearer: As I have stated earlier in this dicsussion above, I feel that this journal is notable based on DGGs arguments above about library coverage. Library coverage is a criterion often applied in AfD discussions on books and their authors and I don't see why it should not apply here as well. --Crusio (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ahhh, so your basing your claim of notability on DGG's WP:BIGNUMBER argument that has no basis in any notability guideline nor in any limited (i.e. "the occasional exception") or "common sense" exception to that guideline. You obviously failed to read #Notes on notability above. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the key factor in my argument is that it is included in the major indexes in the subject. As for widespread holdings in libraries, that's one of the main how librarians judge the importance of periodicals: it's not definitive, but it gives an idea of whether other libraries are taking the publication seriously, and thus gets a sort of consensus. There should be an entry in Wikipedia for each journal likely to be cited here--in this case its especiallynecessary, for a fair article shows the nature of the journal, in this case, that despite its title, it's religion, not science. And the nature of the world is such that it is normally almost impossible to find article written about journals -- so the importance has to be shown by indirect criteria. DGG (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

1. WP:NOTE explicitly disavows a view that "importance"="notability".
2. You made no "argument" (why it was "common sense") for this journal to be notable in spite of the guideline. All you did was list a bunch of bibliographical details, and then, as an irrelevant conclusion, state that it is notable.
3. "There should be an entry in Wikipedia for each journal likely to be cited here"/All journals "included in the major indexes in the subject" is not an "occasional exception" -- it is a wholesale exception, and as such needs to be included in the guideline, not treated as an exception. Nor have you given any argument why this exception would be "common sense".
4. "And the nature of the world is such that it is normally almost impossible to find article written about journals". Two points on this:
   1. Lack of information "about journals" is an excellent reason not to have articles about journals. This lack means that there is little to write on about the journals other than bibliographical information suitable for a directory entry -- but Wikipedia is not a directory. It would therefore not appear to be "common sense" to allow an exception that would turn Wikipedia into a directory.
   2. But in any case, there is quite a bit written about this journal, but in the context of its very close relationship to the ASA. It would thus appear to be "common sense" to cover this journal in American Scientific Affiliation.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Propose removal of merger tags

I fixed up this article and the American Scientific Affiliation article. Both had styles that were clearly giving unnatural, undue weight at certain points one article or the other in order to somehow "persuade" others that the merger would be a good idea. The discussion (which has been open for several weeks) has reached no consensus on merger. This issue should be considered resolved and the merger tags removed. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As notability of this article hasn't been established, I would only support the removal if this page is replaced with a redirect. Verbal chat 12:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Firefly322: your WP:POINT buggering up of "this article and the American Scientific Affiliation article" has been reverted. The material, including material on the ASA constitution and on the ASA's non-doctrinal focus, is clearly relevant to an article on the ASA -- so your attempt to remove it from that article is quixotic at best. You have made no argument in favour of keeping the articles separate that has any basis whatsoever in reality. The sources clearly demonstrate that the two topics are intertwined. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I would further point out that your arguments against merger have been nonsensical -- non-existent WP:Synthesis and an imaginary "logical division". The closest thing to a meaningful against-argument was DGG's bibliographic information -- but that fails to either address a relevant notability guideline or articulate an "occasional exception", or make a "common sense" argument why this information makes a topic notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Propose removal of Notability tag

The discussion also resulted in no consensus for notability tag. Since the discussion was open for two weeks , it should be considered resolved and closed. And tags removed. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Which notability guideline does it meet? Verbal chat 12:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We were on opposite sides of the earlier discussion, so neither of us should be repeating it now. This isn't the place for a repeat of it. Doing so, just mocks this or any sort of Wikipedia proposal process.

This proposal is based on the fact that no consensus was reached, which should be taken as no consensus for the tag. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If "no consensus was reached" then the notability of the article is still under dispute, so the tag should remain. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I propose that if this article isn't updated to assert notability then it should be redirected until such time that notability can be established. Nothing will be lost, and the article can be restored if this happens. In the meantime there is a good section in the notable parent article. Verbal chat 15:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a reasonable short article about a legitimate subject. It is certainly more notable than Ewok, Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo, Hexen, List of weapons in Star Trek, and many more. Please remove the notability tag. Grantmidnight (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not by our guidlines, by what criteria is notability established? Those examples you quote have all been written about extensively in WP:RS, and meet WP:GNG. This journal hasn't. Ewoks are part of American culture now. This journal isn't. The tag at the very least should remain unless notability is established. However, a redirect is a better alternative for now. Verbal chat 16:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is always a bad argument. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes the argument of really bad stuff existing, by itself, is not sufficient. That page also says "comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." It seems to this editor that the WK criteria for notability is met. By what criteria do you judge it not?Grantmidnight (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and you've chosen very poor comparators for your 'comparison' -- topics that (i) have nothing whatsoever in common with the topic under discussion, and (ii) which may be considered more exemplars of bad practice than good. It seems to this editor that you're simply looking for an excuse to ignore "the WK criteria for notability" whose contents & applicability you have in fact avoided addressing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

History section

• I think that the below "history" section belongs in this article, not in the ASA one and should be added here and removed there (note: I have copied Firefly's text and removed the ASA-specific text). As for the list of editors that has been placed in the ASA article, that clearly doesn't belong there. In fact, unless those editors are very notable, lists of previous editors are generally not included in journal articles. I have refrained from making any changes to either this or the ASA article given the level of animosity surrounding all this. Similarly, I only post this on this talk page as a suggestion and (after my above experiences with Hrafn) will not engage in any discussion about this matter. Do with it what you like.

• • Proposed history section:

Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith began publication in 1949 as the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation (JASA). In its first year the journal was subtitled The American Scientific Affiliation Bulletin. In its first issue it announced its purpose as being:

It is intended primarily for the benefit of the A.S.A. members, and interested friends, and it is hoped that it will be instrumental in helping the organization achieve its primary purpose of witnessing to the truth of the Scriptures and elucidating the relationship of both the ideology and fruits of science thereto. Furthermore we confidently expect that in the publication of papers presented at the convention and others received from the membership at large, a real service will be rendered each of us in creating an enlarged appreciation and understanding of the Christian position in other fields of science than that of our own specialization. Also thru the A.S.A. Bulletin, we plan to give every interested member the benefit of a constructive criticism and Christian evaluation of papers presented and of reviews of books of great interest or strategic importance.

— Marion D. Barnes, Forward, JASA 1 (January 1949): 1

From its beginning the journal included divergent views, and the editorial objectives of the journal, published in December 1950, were a clear indication of the journal's non-doctrinal focus.

This is merely an inaccurate (Webb states that it is an 'indication of the ASA's non-doctrinal focus') WP:CFORK of the material that I introduced into American Scientific Affiliation. It therefore serves no valid purpose. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• And it's published in the inaugural editorial of the journal (not to forget "From its beginning the journal included divergent views"), so this obviously applies to the journal, too. The valid purpose is improving an article that a majority of editors on this page think should not be a redirect to the ASA article, despite all the bullying. --Crusio (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Wrong: the editorial makes no mention of doctrine, or lack thereof; taking it from "From its beginning…" is WP:SYNTH. I see no clear "majority" for not merging this article, let alone a "valid" one (the arguments raised for keeping it have been quite remarkable for their invalidity, due to their lack of policy/guideline (and often factual) basis). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• You wrote "From its beginning" (as far as I can see from the ASA article), I just recycled your text (as I stated above). As fore the merge, whatever count you want to make, there is obviously no consensus about merging . Anyway, I promised myself not to interact with you any more (afraid I broke that promise twice now) after my previous experience with you. Will keep my promises better in the future. --Crusio (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I also finished the sentence "…a clear indication of the ASA's non-doctrinal focus" not "…a clear indication of the journal's non-doctrinal focus" -- because the former is what the source said. Either ASA=JASA (in which case the merge is obvious) or your substitution of "the journal" for "ASA" is WP:SYNTH. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

References

Edit warring

• I have posted a request here for an uninvolved admin to have a look at what is going on at this page. --Crusio (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see the above thread; this article is now protected. Further edit-warring when protection expires will lead to sanctions against the offending account(s). The same goes for American Scientific Affiliation, although as there have been no reversions today I've left that article unprotected for now. EyeSerene^talk 14:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Status - - Dispute

Two days ago, there was some lively discussion about this short article. There was not anything close to concensus for a course of action. Now the article is gone with part of it included as a redirect. I am trying hard to assume the good faith of editors but this could be an example of tendentious editing. We need dispute resolution here. Grantmidnight (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:DR for options. If you, or anyone, provides solid WP:RS which establish WP:NOTABILITY seperate from the ASA, then the redirect can simply be undone. Until then the redirect is the best way of WP:PRESERVEing this information. The article is still there in the history, and most of the content is in the parent article; if you feel anything is missing from the ASA article please raise that there. Thanks, Verbal chat 17:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think that could be a good idea. On the other hand... Let me resume my position: One of the problems with showing notability for scientific journals is that there is no special guideline and it is exceedingly rare that an article is written about a journal, so all notability derives from indirect measures. I'm not an absolute inclusionist about these things (I prodded African Journal of Oral Health which subsequently got deleted), but I feel that the number of libraries argument of DGG is a good indicator that there is notability to be found here. This argument has often been accepted in AfDs on journals, books, or authors, but it looks like some people here strongly disagree with that. The text added by Hrafn to the ASA article also shows some notability for the journal, given the role it played in the creation-evolution controversy. I am not convinced by the argument that this is a society journal only and hence should be merged to the society. The same goes for the Journal of the American Medical Association or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (which are obviously much more notable, it's just the principle I'd like to illustrate here). I can live with the current redirect, but I do feel that it would be better to merge the text on the journal and the creation-evolution controversy that currently is in the ASA article here as it would make a nice (and reasonably well-sourced) article. However, I do recognize that not everybody may be convinced by the argument that the journal is notable, which is why I say that I can live with the redirect until evidence for notability that is acceptable to all crops up. --Crusio (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Likewise I have no problem with that, once the notability of the journal is established by WP:RS. By merging at the moment we have one good article about both topics, that are closely related. If we de-merge again we have two stubs that rely heavily on each other. It will be trivial to demerge in future if more sources and information are found. Thanks, Verbal chat 17:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• There has in fact been unilateral action on both sides. First Firefly322's unilateral split, then Verbal's unilateral merge. We can view either as editing without a consensus, or as a WP:BOLD attempt to cut the Gordian Knot. On the issue of notability, I would strenuously object to a blanket exception for journals, based upon an ill-defined concept of 'journal notability' that has no basis in existing guidelines. That would require a new guideline to be agreed upon and its parameters codified. I further would suggest that a concept of 'journal notability' that strays too far away from "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" would allow solely-bibliographic articles that would appear to run afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. And I would conclude by pointing out that PSCF is not just another journal (no matter how scholarly) on the ivory-tower topic of the relationship between religion and science, it is a forum in which Christian scientists wrestle with the rival forces (at times complimentary, orthogonal or conflicting) of their vocation and their faith. In this PSCF has far more in common with its parent organisation than it does with a random R&S journal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a standard practice here, and it is that journals of this sort are notable. Hrafn's argument's are essentially unique to him. But from the previous statement I see it may not yet be clear that I and the others who have commented do not propose an exception of WP:N for journals. There are non-notable journals, and I've removed some myself. We are saying that the GNG is inapplicable to journals, because they are not the sort of subject that usually gets written about. There is still the need to demonstrate notable from sources independent of the journal, and WebCat and Ulrich's do that. If those sources indicate significance,we accept that. The criterion of being included in standard indexes, though we determine it usually from Ulrich's, is a third independent source. By inclusion in the index, there is a demonstration that the professionals in the subject consider it notable.

As it happens, I do consider myself a professional expert on academic journals, having been the chair of Princeton's electronics journals committee for many years, and a founding member of the major publisher & library journals statistics organization, COUNTER. But I am not using my own judgment here, or saying that it's notable because in my expert judgment it's notable. I do not think I have ever done that. What I do, though, is use my knowledge to find the secondary sources that demonstrate it , and explain why they do demonstrate it.

That PSCF is not a NPOV scholarly journal but reflects a particular viewpoint is shown better by saying what indexes cover it, and who publishes it. Incorporating in the article for the sponsoring organization is overkill. I suspect Hrafn & I have the same thought, that it is necessary for NPOV to indicate that this is not a source for scientific opinion. But the information presented in the article does that. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

DGG:

1. Your "standard practice" appears to have no basis whatsoever (at least none that you have even attempted to articulate) in either guidelines, a "common sense" "occasional exception" to them, or policy. Therefore, unless and until you have gained an addition or change to policy or guidelines that validates this "standard practice", it is without merit.
2. That my attempt to actually address guidelines and policy is "unique to" myself, is an indictment of your previous policy-free discussions, not of my argument.
3. I will take leave to contradict you that by "saying that the GNG is inapplicable to journals", and given that there are (AFAIK) no other applicable guideline, then you are precisely stating that you "propose an exception of WP:N for journals." This "exception" being that for journals DGG et al's viewpoint, based on WebCat and Ulrich and undocumented criteria, should be substituted for the guidelines.
4. Given that I am not accepting this "exception", I will point out the obvious, that WebCat and Ulrich do not contain "significant coverage" on any of the journals they cover.
5. I will further point out that WebCat and Ulrich are WP:PRIMARY sources (in that they are a mere factual listing of what libraries and indices carry the journal, without attempting any "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims"), and that it is policy (specifically WP:IINFO) that articles based purely upon such information is insufficient for an encyclopaedic article (hence {{primarysources}}).
6. DGG is in error both in stating that we may be of "the same thought" and that JASA/PSCF "reflects a particular viewpoint". It is precisely the lack of a homogeneous viewpoint among evangelicals interested in the relationship between science and religion that makes the journal of interest. The viewpoints expressed in it cover the range from Theistic evolution to Young Earth creationism. The contents and balance of content of the journal documents the ASA's engagement with each new form of creationism in its turn (from YEC through to ID), and the movement of the ASA's center of mass to TE. The journal and the Affiliation mirror each other, and it would thus be incoherent to attempt to explicate either separately. Further, I would also be surprised, given what I had read, if the journal claimed any great degree of editorial independence from its parent.
7. The "information presented in the article" is a mere WP:DIRECTORY listing -- unsurprising as it was gleaned from two directories.

On the basis of the above, I'm afraid that I am going to have to insist that the merger remains the most appropriate course of action. This is not only because of its compliance with guidelines and policy, but because even if contraindicated by them, it would still be the most commonsensical approach, given the degree that the topics of the journal and the Affiliation are intertwined, that an "occasional exception" should be made to allow them to be covered together.

A concluding thought: dogmatically following policy will tend to be problematical at times -- but a dogmatic approach that has no basis in policy is much worse. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Perspectives in Science and Christian Faith

Does a journal Perspectives in Science and Christian Faith also exist, or are the hits I get for that on Google just from people who did not properly write down Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith? --82.136.210.153 (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I received a reply from their executive director, and those 'in' cases were indeed meant to be 'on'. Those are not two very similarly named publications. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Editorial Board; Warren Brown

In addition to the § Editors, this publication has an editorial board. Warren S. Brown was on that board for decades. See the e-mail (in the collapsible content) below. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

E-mail

From: "ASA" <network@asa3.org> Subject: Re: Contact Us Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:30:31 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000 American Scientific Affiliation In response to your "Contact Us" submission: Thank you for contacting us, [edit]. Yes, they do mean Perspective ON Science and Christian Faith, and yes, Warren Brown was indeed on our editorial board for many decades until the end of last year. We're not quite sure when he started, having begun before any of our current editors and board were on! It was apparently in the late 80's. After John W Haas Jr, the editors have been Roman Miller, Arie Leegwater, and now Jim Peterson. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Randy Isaac Executive Director Thank you,