Talk:Theistic rationalism

Comments pre-afd
From WP:NOR:

So far, in the sources, we have:
 * Gregg Frazer's opinion


 * Henry Thiessen's opinion


 * Gary Smith's opinion. First, in the biography on George W. Bush:

Then in his political column.

If Auburn could provide the rest of the text on what Henry Thiessen said, I would appreciate it.

And in any case, that's three people. The rest don't see "Theistic rationalism" as being separate from "Deism." Thus, it is a tiny minority and constitutes WP:OR. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First, I cannot provide the rest of the text, as posting that would be copyright infringement. If you'd like to read the book, I'm sure it is at your local library or book story. We are not required to only use online sources, and some of the best sources are only available in print. Secondly, you've yet again misapplied WP:OR. The statement regarding a tiny minority that you've quoted above is in reference to our neutrality policy and has no relevance here. There is no opposing viewpoint, so there is no neutrality problem either. Adding a belief that aliens from another solar system were responsible for 9/11, and backing it up with one man's claim would violate the tiny minority clause. A book which discusses a concept does not. - auburn pilot   talk  02:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've formally proposed the merge - see Talk:Deism. Tevildo (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

First usage of term in 1856
I am deleting the statement "The first-found usage of the term is in the year 1856," which appears to be sourced to the contributor's search for the term in books using Google, for a couple of reasons. First, the failure to identify with a Google books search any previous usage of the term merely suggests that no earlier use appears to be accessible to search in the Google books dataset. It does not necessarily mean that no earlier use has been found elsewhere — which is what the statement being deleted implies. Is Google books comprehensive? Do scholars familiar with the area agree with the assessment that there is no earlier use of the term? Second, this form of sourcing is a violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy (WP:NOR). Dezastru (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, Usage of the term prior to the year 1856 has not yet been found.--JimWae (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're basically saying the same thing. What is your (new) source? Dezastru (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @Dezastru, I tweaked the language per BRD; this is a new edit so if you don't like my proposed new language then please revert and discuss.--Other Choices (talk) 07:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Who are the researchers that are studying this field
This seems like a small group of politically motivated researchers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.145.38.143 (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)