Talk:Richard G. Colling
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
"The stance that science and religion are diametrically opposite is not suppressed by all Nazarene colleges and universities..." edit
Try to parse this 73-word sentence:
- "The stance that science and religion are diametrically opposite is not suppressed by all Nazarene colleges and universities: Darrel R. Falk of Point Loma Nazarene wrote a book similar in intent to that of Colling, while Karl Giberson of Eastern Nazarene, the first Nazarene scholar to publish with Oxford University Press, has written three books on the tensions between science and religion, and is under contract for a fourth book titled Saving Darwin."
If you read it carefully, you'll realize that it says that Colling, Falk, and Giberson hold the view that science and religion are diametrically opposite. That is obviously untrue. It also indicates that Olivet Nazarene "suppresses" that view, which might or might not be true, but is unsupported, carries extremely negative connotations, and is irrelevant to an article about Colling.
I think the intent was probably to say that not all Nazarene colleges and universities oppose efforts like Colling's to reconcile evolutionary biology with Biblical creation. I'm going to try to fix it. NCdave (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Expressions of doubt edit
There are some recent issues with disruptive edits, made by new user User:Fountainviewkid here and at Olivet Nazarene University that don't follow the MOS, per WP:ALLEGED, by introducing "expressions of doubt" -- "allegedly" and "so-called" in these cases. The material is documented and verified using reliable sources that meet WP:RS and WP:V but the editor in question seems to be making a clear POV push away from verifiability. It looks like a textbook issue, but I may have acted foolishly and pushed this to the level of edit warring. I'd like to take a time-out and chat about this. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I have tried to bring the article to a more neutral viewpoint.By adding "expressions of doubt" I am allowing for the unclear details. Since this is a religious organization we cannot expect the Association of Higher Ed. to fully understand the Nazarene view of "academic freedom". I therefore wish to purposely make this more ambiguous rather than pushing biased terms like "bowed", and "self-proclaimed". --Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)