Talk:Roger Rusk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
| This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.
|
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
I suggest this article should be reviewed by a couple of mainstream academics active in the fields of theology & biblical history. The author give the impression that Rusk was universally acclaimed as a genuine scholar, when in reality he enjoyed almost no credibility outside british-israelite & christian fundamentalist circles. If wikipedia wants to maintain (or improve) its credibility, articles need to be more balanced. A simple note outlining the essentially fringe-nature of Rusks points-of-view would be a move in the right direction. At the very least make clear that he was a physics professor, not a theologian or historian by training & background.
Whatever may be the merits of Roger Rusk's contributions to physics and elementary education, the professional discourses of theology and biblical criticism do not know of him. His name should definitely not be enumerated in the category "Biblical scholars" unless that term is so elastic to be useless.Akma 01:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
