Talk:List of Christian apologetic works

Omissions

If this page survives the AfD, it should be noted that Gordon Clark, Cornelius Van Til, and John Frame are all missing. --Flex (talk|contribs) 02:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientific apologetics - disputed section tag

Several of the works listed are clearly non-scientific and should be removed. For example:

• Behe, Michael. 1996. Darwin's Black Box. Touchstone, New York.
• Dembski, William A. 1999. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois.
• Dembski, William A. 2004. The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois.
• Gish, Duane Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, El Cajon: Institute for Creation Research, 1996

Perhaps the section needs to be retitled or deleted completely. -Fremte (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add to that the deletion of the book by Del Ratzsch. It's a good book, but it very specifically addresses the creation/evolution debate critiquing both scientific creationism and naturalistic evolution (reserving a chapter to consider theistic evolution). This isn't apologetics. It isn't written to defend a specific position it's written to provoke thinking on both sides of the debate (assuming this debate even has two sides which, IMO, it doesn't). Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Culling

In the near futire I plan to cull this list down to works with WP articles per the common selection criteria at WP:LSC. Creating a complete list is impossible, of course. This should address the concern stated at LSC that the list not be indiscriminate. Novaseminary (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Y Done Here is how the article appeared before the cull in case anyone could benefit from what was there, or thinks some of these would be LSC-ok redlinks. Novaseminary (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Why was The Case for Christ, a book too obscure to warrant its own article, retained as part of this cull? I am also amused that 2/9, and the only ones from the last decade, are on the subject of Richard Dawkins. Is Dawkins really the biggest challenge to Christianity in the 21st century? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• The Case for Christ had a redirect, but I would be fine removing it. Of course it did have an article until you redirected it several years ago (which makes sense to me based on the shape of the article then), and it might meet WP:NBOOK making it equivalent to an appropriate redlink, maybe. It was discussed in American Atheist, even. Anyway, I merely culled the list. I haven't begun adding (or adding back) books with articles (or that we can expect to soon have an article) not already here. And I also haven't verified the works that are here. Some might not meet the definition of Christian apologetics; for some, the article doesn't make it clear nor does any source listed here or at the article. Novaseminary (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• It was merged because it was entirely unsourced. You didn't answer me on the Dawkins issue. You also may wish to take a look at Christian apologetics#Further reading, which is meant to be the summarised version of this list, but is currently more extensive. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• I said I agreed with the merge, but also think the book might meet WP:NBOOK. I didn't answer on Dawkins because I thought the question was rhetorical. Whether I think Dawkins is the biggest challenge to Christianity this century is irrelevant, of course. I did explain, so far as I could, why I am not vouching for the completeness or accuracy of the list as is. I agree that the further reading section needs work, too. Regardless, I am not a big fan of this sort of a list to begin with. I would prefer to let the sources used or discussed in Christian apologetics stand on their own with wikilinks to a book's article in the reference. I don't know why adding books here is worthwile; to the extent something new is added, it often borders on or crosses into OR. Novaseminary (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Although I expressed the Dawkins issue humorously, I was also making a serious point -- whether Dawkins (and McGrath for that matter) were being given undue WP:WEIGHT. My impression is that atheism/atheists are considered more a symptom of underlying challenges to Christianity rather than a cause in themselves. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What information to include?

StAnselm seems to be against full {{cite book}} listings (although speaking for myself, I prefer them). But I think at least some information beyond author and title is needed -- I would suggest date of publication and ISBN as 'bare essentials'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not against them - but if we're going to use them they should be for the books listed. There were only two out of seven, and those ones were corrupted, s I thought it was easier to remove them. But I'm happy either way. BTW, do you approve of restricting the list to books with WP articles? StAnselm (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll get to work at doing templates for them at some stage then. Yes, I'm in favour of restricting to books-with-articles, unless a compelling argument can be made for a non-articled book (and the substantiation for such an argument would most probably contain sufficient WP:RS material to write an article in any case). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A recent spate of edits added many many books without WP articles. It also added some OR to the lead. I just wanted to note my suppprt for only including works with WP articles. Any pther work with a strong enough case to be made would probably meet WP:NBOOK anyway as noted above. We should wait to listc then, until such an artocle is created. Then we can rely on NBOOK as the way to avoid indiscriminateness. Novaseminary (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)