Talk:C. John Collins

Independent sources
I would note that none of the following are independent: This leaves the Challies review as the sole independent source -- but it makes only a bare mention of Collins. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC) … and also appears to be nothing more than a blog. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * David Klinghoffer, who like Collins is a Fellow at the Discovery Institute
 * The Discovery Institute
 * the ESV Study Bible (which he is a contributor to)

Publishers Weekly article
The Publishers Weekly article can be found here. It makes only bare mention of Collins' book, and no mention at all of it being "well received among conservative evangelicals such as J.I. Packer, J.P. Moreland, and Henry F. Schaefer, III". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

On closer examination, this fans-list turns out to be from Publishers blurbs (e.g. here on Amazon). Such blurbs are not considered to be a WP:RS. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Christianity Today article
Collins plays a significant role in this article. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOMBARDMENT
I would draw editors attention to WP:BOMBARDMENT, and that larding up this article's uncontested opening sentence with numerous citations (solely for Collins' existence and position) does not improve the article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. I didn't add those references, and you are correct that some of them did not independently add value, and that appending them to a bland opening statement was not optimal.
 * But why not fix the problem, rather than simply destroying swaths of the article? Some of the references that you wantonly deleted were in fact substantial; having actually read them (did you?), it took me a few minutes to write a more appropriate sentence for them to append.  And you could have easily spent the half-a-minute that it took me to find a source for this paragraph, which instead you wantonly deleted.
 * The best I can say is that your editing on this page today has been irresponsible. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No BlueMoonlet, I do not typically look at the individual citations contained in a blatant bombardment. This is not being "irresponsible", it is merely making efficient use of my time. Removal of such a bombardment is not "destroying swaths of the article". I would further note that a number of these sources are of poor quality. The best of them is a couple of short paragraphs on Collins & his book buried deep in an 8 page article (which itself is in Christianity Today, hardly the most independent of publications). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If you, by your own admission, do not have the time and/or inclination to properly do the job of editing the articles you edit, then perhaps you should reconsider which (or how many) articles you choose to edit.
 * And it is destructive. Most of the time you do this, I'm sure, someone like me is not around to call you on your excesses.  Thus, while it is true that the information you delete still exists in the page history, it will most likely never see the light of day again.
 * And what is your problem with Christianity Today? It is the flagship publication for its particular community.  Serving a particular subset of the world's readership does not lessen a publication's independence.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, BlueMoonlet I DID NOT admit to "not hav[ing] the time and/or inclination to properly do the job of editing the articles [I] edit" -- kindly cease and desist putting words in my mouth.
 * No, removal of superfluous citations IS NOT "destructive" -- it is normal editorial practice.
 * 1) My problem with CT is exactly that "particular community" -- which just happens to be the exact same particular community (i.e. Evangelical Christianity) that Collins himself is part of -- hence its not being rather less than perfectly independent on this topic.
 * You have pervasively misrepresented and demonised my statements and actions. I would request that you stop. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I stand by my statement, which is only partly a characterization of what you said and is also partly my judgment of it. You admit that you frequently do not take the time to evaluate material before you delete it.  I am flabbergasted that you clearly think that is entirely proper.
 * You are the one who has narrowed the scope of my criticism to "removal of superfluous citations." If you look again at my original post, I am critical of your removal of non-superfluous citations, and even more so of your removal of text that could easily be sourced if you took half a minute to think about it.
 * This makes no sense to me, but I'm not sure what to say to it. Are you saying that sources that serve a particular community, rather than a general (secular liberal) readership, are inherently suspect?  If so, can you cite any policy in support of such a position?
 * I don't believe I have misrepresented you, and perhaps my point #1 above helps to clarify that. I remain strongly critical of your posture and your actions, but I have been careful to criticize your actions and not your person.  I reject the charge of demonization, and I would request that you retract it.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet: this thread is explicitly on the WP:BOMBARDMENT of the lead sentence. Your original criticism of me was explicitly on the topic of the citations I removed (even linking to that edit). Now I'm meant to believe that you were in fact criticisng me for some other unspecified crimes committed through unspecified edits. I would point out that this complaint is (i) off-topic (ii) unsubstantiated & thus (iii) WP:Complete bollocks. As such I am completely disinterested in your further tortuous self-justifications. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for using your usual level of careful attention, respectful dialogue, and good sense. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Pastor todd...
In reference to this edit: HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) You need to include a title=... parameter with all cite web templates.
 * 2) Crossway, the publisher of ESV Study Bible, is NOT a third party source on the subject of Collins, the "Old Testament Chairman" for this bible. The cited webpage is there specifically because he is one of their "contributors".