Talk:George McCready Price

Reliability of Clark

Harold W. Clark was a YEC, a protege of Price's and his successor at Pacific Union College. So he is hardly a neutral source. Additionally, he is not a historian of science, or similar, so hardly a scholarly one. I am challenging his reliability, both generally and per WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

From Numbers, "The Creationists,", note 5 for Chapter 5, page 463. Numbers said: "Unless otherwise noted, biographical information about Price is based on Harold W. Clark, Crusader for Creation: The Life and Writings of George McCready Price (Mountain View, CA. Pacific Press, 1966)"

Numbers, a reliable source, got Prices' biographical information from Clark! All the information that you deleted came from Clark, the very same source that Numbers used. I'm putting the valid information back. I think you object too much. 8teenfourT4 (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The "biographical information" in question is simply Price's parentage and early childhood (a grand total of seven lines). Uncontroversial, and therefore not unreasonable to cite to a source so close to Price. Numbers is a noted historian of science, so has considerably more latitude than Wikipedia allows itself. Numbers only took a tiny and uncontroversial fraction of his entire chapter on Price from Clark. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The other parts that I put in were but a 'tiny, uncontroversial fraction' of Clark's book. I simply noted where, for whom and when Price worked. And put it in context with his publications. There was nothing said about if anything Price did was good or bad. It simply was. The facts are that he was a teacher, a professor, and writer for many decades. I don't understand what you have against common ordinary facts about a mans life. Unless you have some kind of hidden agenda.

The claim that he "earned" his BA is not uncontroversial. And it is far better to have the "uncontroversial" material cited to a recognised expert, when one is available. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA -- your personal opinion of a prominent historian of science is irrelevant.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Numbers is not a historian. He is a bigoted propagandist. He does not tell you the truth about Price. He only the tells parts he wants you to know to smear Price's character, and ignores the rest so that you are left with a very flawed view of Price and creationists. Don't trust anything Numbers says unless you check it with the entire source material. 8teenfourT4 (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Price's work appointments from Numbers

From Numbers, note 22 to Chapter 5, pg 465: "Price's academic appointments ([eachers and professors are appointed not just hired] included the following: Loma Linda College of Evangelists, in 1909 renamed the College of Medical Evangelists, Loma Linda, California (1907-1912); Fernando Academy, San Fernando, California (1912-1914); Lodi Academy, Lodi, California (1914-1920); Pacific Union College, Angwin, California (1920-1922); Union College, Lincoln, Nebraska (1922-1924); Stanborough Missionary College, Watford, England (1924-1928) where he served as president during 1927-1928; Emmanuel Missionary College, Berrien Springs, Michigan (1929-1933); and Walla Walla College, Walla Walla, Washington (1933-1938)." This is the very same data I gleaned from Clark, and its probably the same source that Numbers used. I'm going to put back what I had before with the caveat that it also comes from Numbers. 8teenfourT4 (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

from note 23, a list of books written by Price. "George McCready Price, The New Geology (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1923); Price, The Story of the Fossils, p. 30; George McCready Price, Evolutionary Geology and the New Catastrophism (Mountain View, Pacific Press,). Price regarded Evoluiionary Geology and the New Catastrophism, which evolved from his Illogical Geology (1906) and The Fundamentals of Geology (1913), as his "most formal and complete discussion of this entire subject of the proposed successive geological 'ages"' (Price, "Some Early Experiences," p. 84). On sales of The New Geology, see Harold Clark, The Battle over Genesis (Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., i977), p. 106." 8teenfourT4 (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Except that the material you introduced into the article contained a considerable amount not in these footnotes. Also, a listing of works belongs in the 'Bibliography' section, not the 'Biography'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Why keep a convoluted sentence?

I eliminated a convoluted sentence, saying exactly the same thing in a simple, straight forward way. What's the logic behind the reversion? FleeTheCaptor (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it did not say "exactly the same thing". Your version implied that his influence was limited to the Creation science movement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 20:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

From what I've read the only ones Price had much influence on where the SDA's, a minority group, until Morris and Whitcome and the beginning of the modern Creationism movement. The creationism movement is by far the most important resultant from Price. So saying that the sentence "limited" his influence to the creationism movement seems an odd statement. Who else is more important than the creationism movement? FleeTheCaptor (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, except that the 'SDA's included some prominent creationists, on whom Price is noted to have had influence, including Harold W. Clark. Also, try to keep "Creation science movement" & "creationism movement" straight -- they are not the one and same thing -- Creation science is a subset of creationism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies: In the Name of Science was published in the 1950s (before Creation Science in the specific sense existed), and reports that Price was widely influential among fundamentalists: "...almost every fundamentalist attack on evolution in the last three decades has drawn its major ammunition from his writings. ... thousands of Protestant fundamentalists today accept his work as the final word on the subject". Obviously William Jennings Bryan was not an SDA. AnonMoos (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Material that could be added

Fads and Fallacies: In the Name of Science has some interesting stuff not in the article, such as that Price thought that apes were degenerate humans. AnonMoos (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)