Talk:Victoria Institute

references

When you happen upon really, really BAD referencing, whats to discuss? Mthoodhood (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well you did not "happen upon" it here. I see far, far worse referencing on a daily basis. As far as I can see you seem to be equating 'not Harvard' with "really, really BAD". For myself I find Harvard referencing to be a pain -- another level of templates to remember and another level of complexity to potentially screw things up. You do not have a consensus for these templates, so per WP:TALK, should not be adding them to this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I had not seen this page before working on it the other day. It has a mish-mash of reference calls.

Some pseudo-harv ref calls like:

Numbers(2006) p162

A couple citations like:

McNatt, Jerrold L. (September 2004). "James Clerk Maxwell's Refusal to Join the Victoria Institute" (PDF). Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 56 (3). American Scientific Affiliation: 204–215. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

A couple URL direct links like this:

Haas, Jr., J.W., "Science & Christian Faith in Western Europe: Personal View," PSCF 42 (March 1990): 39–44, accessed 5 November 2009

A ref call not following any typical reference format at all:

A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Andrew Dickson White, D. Appleton & Company, 1896 ("a sort of festschrift to Cornell University" {page xi})

I believe that the idea is for referencing to be consistent in an article, but this isn't consistent. Most of the work involved is getting the references into the right Cite format. The harv footnote calling is minor work. If someone is doing pseudo-harv calls anyway, why not do it right? This is something I like to do. And once an article has consistent reference calling, it is easy for new references to be added in the proper format simply by observing what already exists. Mthoodhood (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

1. "Some pseudo-harv ref calls" WP:CITESHORT with explicitly accepted 'manual' citation -- standard
2. {{cite journal}} -- standard (no point in providing a 'shortened footnote' for a work referenced only once -- it simply adds to duplication, rather than reducing it).
3. I've converted the 2nd PSCF cite to match the first.
4. White isn't actually referenced, so I've moved it into 'Further reading'

There is no requirement for rigid consistency, and I take a 'horse for courses' approach myself -- using (manual) shortened references only where they are useful to cut down duplication. I see "the harv footnote calling" as an unnecessary embellishment. If you want to use them on an article you have written, then you're welcome to -- coming in solely to impose them on others who will be the ones who have the task of maintaining them is neither reasonable, nor in keeping with Wikipedia conventions. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Disputed claims

The claim that "Its library and study center were destroyed in World War II by bombs" is clearly supported by a reliable source:

Because its library and study center were destroyed by bombs in WWII, the institute has had little recent influence on the British scene other than through its journal Faith and Thought, which published the 114th (and last) volume in 1988. Much more intense discussion of science/Christianity topics has taken place in recent years in the Research Scientists Christian Fellowship (RSCF), the organization which cosponsored with ASA/CSCA the Annual Meeting at St. Catherine's College, Oxford in 1985. RSCF has never had a formal journal and recently has joined with the Victoria Institute to cosponsor a new journal, Science and Christian Belief, which began publication in 1989 with Oliver Barclay and A. Brian Robins as coeditors. RSCF has made it a clean sweep by a name change to Christians in Science.

[1]

This piece also seems to support the claim (cited to a source not available online) that "Faith and Thought was merged" into Science and Christian Belief. Therefore, lacking a countervailing source, I am reversing these changes. I would also bring WP:COI to Ackworth's attention. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Hrafn

It’s a fair cop! I’m a complete newbie and though I am responsible for maintaining half a dozen websites I’ve always been frightened of dipping into Wikipedia editing – it seems my fears are justified!

I have read through the links you kindly sent about becoming a Wikipedian and I now feel even less confident! I would add that I completely agree and support the aims of Wikipedia and recognise and utterly respect the need to avoid conflict of interest and to adopt a neutral point of view.

My problem is that this page DOES HAVE factual errors about The Victoria Institute which I want to correct. These errors were pointed out to me by the current Council after I became administrator last year. I understand that this means I am close to the organisation and must take extra effort to avoid a conflict of interest, but equally I’m sure you appreciate that those involved in an organisation today may have a better idea about what is happening in 2012 than an article published in 1990 (though it is easier to cite the latter than the former). However, to respect your wishes and to avoid an accusation of conflict of interest I will confine my comments to this talk page rather than trying to edit the actual article.

So the errors…

Firstly and most importantly, the institute is not dead! The article is correct that The Victoria Institute (or Philosophical Society of Great Britain) now uses the working name ‘Faith and Thought’ and this name is shared with our journal (strictly ‘Faith&Thought’). I regret this confusing nomenclature and council agree that wherever possible we will stick to ‘Faith and Thought’. If it didn’t amount to self promotion I might be tempted to create a separate page for ‘Faith and Thought' to describe the current organisation's aims and activities better. As it stands, a Wiki search returns [Faith and Thought] which erroneously suggests equivalence with Science and Christian Belief.

This is error 2 on The Victoria Institute page, Faith&Thought (the journal) has NOT merged into Science and Christian Belief. We DO jointly publish S&CB with Christians in Science but Faith&Thought remains an independent journal, with a greater emphasis on appealing to the generalist rather than specialist. It has been published continually (as far as I can tell from the boxes that now occupy my loft!) since 1957. For the record then the history is:

• 1865 – The Victoria Institute (or Philosophical Society of Great Britain) founded,

• 1867 - Publishes Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute

• 1958 – Journal renamed ‘Faith and Thought’, continues to present day, twice a year, latest issue October 2011 No. 51 with articles on The Date of the Last Supper, Stephen Hawking and the Multiverse and others.

The third ‘error’ is the claim that ‘its library and study center were destroyed in World War II by bombs’ for which you cite an article by Haas published in 1990 but this is an article of broad scope that does not reference this claim and it seems likely he was simply mistaken. Certainly his claim that the 114th volume in 1988 was the last is demonstrably wrong (they are on my bookcase). He may have got this idea from the list of back copies held on ‘Biblical Studies.org’ which also reveals that he wrote an article for the journal in 1998 (conflict of interest?!). In the next few months I intend to update the website with a list of back copies from 1988 to the present day but you will already see that there is access to the text of selected articles from 1954 to 2007. The current council assure me there never has been a ‘library and study centre’, this may have been someone’s private home but we cannot verify this and to assert that "therefore it had little recent influence…" is false. We need to find other reasons for our lack of influence, not blame Hitler!

I wonder if you would be so kind as to consider correcting these errors for me. I’m sorry I can’t cite independently peer-reviewed journals of international renown to verify these claims but I assure you we do exist! I might try editing articles myself when I feel more confident, but perhaps I should start with an unrelated sphere of interest. I’ve found a website that claims Elvis works in a fast food outlet and as I can find no websites that incontrovertibly disprove this assertion I thought I might claim verifiability rights! If I believed in smilies there would be lots, but if I have offended then I claim Puck's defence. Sincere thanks.

Ackworth (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ackworth: We actually have two sources for F&T (journal) ceasing publication -- World Evangelical Fellowship, Evangelical review of theology, Volume 15, p. 191 (stating that it merged) and Haas (giving no details other than the date). Against this we have the evidence from your website that the journal currently exists. This leaves us in a rather messy situation, particularly as they are the only third party sourcing on VI/F&T in the modern era. If they are removed as unreliable, the article simply stops at 1927. I think I'll take this issue up with WP:RSN. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1990/PSCF3-90Haas.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)