Talk:Nancy Pearcey

---

Untitled

WP:AUTO

---

Autobiography

I've left a note for npearcey regarding WP:AUTO, and invite her to work with us here to include her viewpoint in manner acceptable to all. FeloniousMonk 22:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent additions and sources

Recent additions have included:

• Unsourced information (education section)
• WP:SPS used in violation of WP:ABOUTSELF
• Unreliable sources (Amazon blurbs)

Additionally, the article is mostly cited to sources affiliated with Pearcey (whereas WP:Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Tags

OK, I can see that the paragraph on Pearcey in the New Yorker Bachmann profile doesn't necessarily amount to "significant coverage". But it is undeniably a valid source independent of the subject of the article, and as such should help with the primary sources concern. As it stands, every sentence in the article is sourced, and the sources which are connected with the subject would seem to pass the criteria listed at WP:BLPSPS and WP:SELFPUB. I don't really see why having all three tags is justified. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of the article is cited to Pearcey's blurbs on affiliated sites. That most certainly creates a problem with WP:SELFPUB: "the article is not based primarily on such sources", and I'm seeing very little in the way of reliable independent "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail", to demonstrate notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Of eight references, only three (numbers 2, 4, and 5) are cited to Pearcey's blurbs. The rest are to books and news sources unaffiliated with Pearcey (ChristianNewsWire is doubtless sympathetic to her viewpoint, but that's not the same as "affiliated") and one website of a Christian book award which Pearcey won. To my eye, that doesn't amount to "primarily based". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

#3 is a PR release from her university ("Office of Public Relations, Philadelphia Biblical University") -- that most certainly is "affiliated". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That renders her entire 'Career' section cited to affiliated sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'm still not convinced that half the sources amount to "primarily based", but it's not that big a deal. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I found a 2010 interview with Pearcey in the online magazine Evangelical Outpost which verifies about half the material in the "Career" section. I'd think that constitutes an independent source addressing the subject in detail, as well as being another source not affiliated with the subject. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been a few days, and nobody's responded to the question of whether the tags are still justified with these additional sources. Hrafn, do you still feel that notability hasn't been established, and that too much of the article is based on sources affiliated with Pearcey? If so, would you mind if I asked for an outside view at WP:3O? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Only passing mention in four independent sources does not amount to "significant coverage", and thus does not establish notability. And sourcing her

entire 'Career' to affiliated sources is inappropriate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The Evangelical Outpost interview is far from a passing mention, and as I noted above, it now supports about half of the "Career" section. I'll ask for a third opinion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, third opinion: I think the {{Notability}} tag isn't needed, as there seems to be enough sources to establish notability. Sure, the sources could be beefed up slightly, but there's enough to meet the fairly low hurdle of notability and to pass BLP concerns. As for {{Primary sources}}, yes, that's still an issue, and something that needs fixing. A few minutes on Google Books provides a few which seem to establish notability and may be useful to back up existing points in the article (I'm just providing the third opinion!):

1. Winnifred Fallers Sullivan (9 March 2009). Prison religion: faith-based reform and the constitution. Princeton University Press. p. 77. ISBN 978-0-691-13359-1. Retrieved 13 August 2011.
2. Paul Copan; William Lane Craig (1 October 2007). Passionate Conviction: Modern Discourses on Christian Apologetics. B&H Publishing

Group. p. 266. ISBN 978-0-8054-4538-1. Retrieved 13 August 2011. {{cite book}}: line feed character in |publisher= at position 16 (help)

1. Angus Macleod Gunn (September 2004). Evolution and creationism in the public schools: a handbook for educators, parents, and community leaders. McFarland. pp. 28–29. ISBN 978-0-7864-2002-5. Retrieved 13 August 2011.

The first two come from within Pearcey's realm of Christian apologetics (or "worldview research" or whatever the label of the week for what Pearcey does is) and the third is from a critic. I've removed the notability tag and hope that editors can seek consensus on these or other secondary sources to reach a point where the other warning template can be removed. Hope that helps. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom — that's very helpful! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Look up Albert Mohler and Pearcy. He has interview her and highly reccomnds her book. She is quite famous in the reformed christian community. There should be no issue of her notability. While some may consider it a niche she is a leading scholar in that realm. She has taken up the mantel of Francis shaeffer (neither of which are dominionists, as soon as I saw that I had ask what is that? Just new slander!) I think she is standard reading at Christian colleges and some seminaries, I could be wrong. I assume that would make her notble. Heck she is notable enough for Ryan Lizzie to attack. I don't know how to sign these things. Kyle Mullaney

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nancy Pearcey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017050517/http://hbu.edu/Choosing-HBU/Academics/Colleges-Schools/School-of-Christian-Thought/Departments/Department-of-Apologetics/Faculty/Nancy-Pearcey.aspx to http://hbu.edu/Choosing-HBU/Academics/Colleges-Schools/School-of-Christian-Thought/Departments/Department-of-Apologetics/Faculty/Nancy-Pearcey.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

New book on masculinity

update pubs 24.19.179.253 (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)