Talk:John Hick

Mark Mann link

The Mark Mann link does not link to the correct Mark Mann. I'm going to remove it. Hazillow (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Completely rewritten and proposals

Okay, I've completely rewritten the article and currently everything in it is now sourced. I've also removed the non-free book images. The result of this is not only a very different "views" section, but a complete gutting of the "Major Works" section. However, I feel a lot of the stuff that was in that section was helpful - meandering, long, hard to follow, but helpful. Here are some proposals for future editors:

1. Make sure everything you write has a source. This should go without saying. If you feel like clicking the "edit this page" button, STOP!!!! Look at your library. Do you have a book about John Hick or about him? Do you have an independent, scholarly resource that you found online? If you answer no to either of these, please do not edit! Much of the stuff in this article that was unsourced was true, but Wikipedia only goes by what can be verified.
2. I realize that the discussion on his philosophy is rather one-sided, and Wikipedians feel the need to put opposing viewpoints in every single article they can. But please, please, please keep it in check. This article is not about whether or not his views are valid (personally, I do not think they are, but I'm an atheist), it is about him as a man and his contributions to philosophy and theology. Please do not make a "Criticisms" section; instead, work the criticisms into existing parts of the article, or make another section about John Hick's life/work/philosophy/eating habits/whatever you think should be included and criticized/ and put it there. Sections completely devoted to "criticism" or "controversy" often become dumping grounds for any sort of POV that the editor wants to inject into the article. Because of this, they often go like this: "Critics allege..." "However, Hick responds..." "but some allege that this is ignoring..." These types of things are not good.
3. Please don't actually make a section about his eating habits.
4. Trivia sections are discouraged. Incorporate the tidbits into the article.
5. Please don't think I am dictating how this article should be. I'm merely giving suggestions for future improvement so we don't see this on the AfD again. This man has contributed a lot to his fields.
6. I think we should try to get a reassessment on this article's importance. Currently it is "low." But through my research in writing this article, he seems to have contributed more than anyone else in the 20th century to religious philosophical thought.

And that's it. Please don't be mad if I gutted your contribution.--Hazillow (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hick IR 2nd Ed Cover.jpeg

Image:Hick IR 2nd Ed Cover.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs a lot of work

This article is written like an essay, and only cites 2 sources in the whole article. It needs a ton of work in order to make it suitable for Wikipedia. Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is a very limited article, but the page should not be deleted because of that. John Hick is a highly respected and internationally renowned philosopher of religion, and someone more than deserving of an entry here. I have done extensive studying and writing on Hick and his work, and recently interviewed him for my own website. I will take on tidying up this page if it not going to be deleted any time soon. Pelusa MG (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Some great work has been done on this page these last couple days. Thanks Hazillo for helping out. Just a brief question: The Metaphor of God Incarnate (2nd ed. 2005) on the "Major Works" section was originally called The Myth of God Incarnate (1977). Should it be listed under its original name or newer name? Kristamaranatha (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)