Talk:The Atlas of Creation

Creationism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Muslim review

Here I found a revie of the book from the Muslim Point of view. Should we include it?Jeff5102 (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing to indicate that either The American Muslim or Sheila Musaji is an unreliable source. I would say "use it, unless and until we find a good reason not to". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Gutierrez

Could somebody please tell me why the contents of Carlos Gutierrez's office has any relevance to this encyclopaedia, particularly given that the man has no scientific qualifications nor ever had any responsibilities over the administration of science or science education? I'm sure this rather attractive volume has found its way onto the coffee tables, display cases, or similar of any number of prominent persons of a conservative persuasion. So what? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has no relevance whatsoever. I've removed it.--Dmol (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for including this fragment is as following: I cut-pasted the Atlas of Creation-part from the Adnan Oktar-article into a new article. Thus, my reasoning was as follows:

1) If this fragment could be included in the Oktar-article, it could really included here;

2) It is sourced by an article of Harper's Magazine, which can be regarded as a WP:RS, and shows that this 'event' is at least somewhat notable.

This were the thoughts behind the inclusion; see what you can do with it.;)Jeff5102 (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
— WP:IINFO

What does its presence in Gutierrez's office tell us about the book (or about Oktar for that matter)? If nothing significant (as I would suggest), then this material should be omitted from either article. In fact I'd suggest that the only article it would be even remotely relevant for is Carlos Gutierrez. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know. It was not me who placed the Gutierrez-story in the Oktar article. It was User:We66er who edited this fragment in in September 2008. Anyway, let's keep it out, shall we?Jeff5102 (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas of Creation mailed to Danish Priests and High Schools - Relevant info?

In September 2007, apparently in the wake of the 2005-'06 Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, some unknown party decided to mail a number of copies of "Atlas of Creation" (unsolicited) to both some Danish priests and some Danish high school biology teachers. There are still a few sources available for free online (unfortunately only in Danish):

http://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/artikel/261405:Kirke---tro--Mystik-om-gave-til-praester

http://www.b.dk/danmark/ekspert-advarer-mod-gratis-bog

http://politiken.dk/debat/kroniker/ECE367416/kreationismens-hule-verden/

I got one of these copies (it's sadly the revised vol. 2, sans fishing lures...) from a friend whose mother received it because she was a priest.

Mojowiha (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]