Talk:Omphalos (book)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Creationism Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The facsimile reprint by Ox Bow shows the title as the one presently shown, and that title has 306 cites on Google. It is also the title found on Amazon for two reprint editions. The previous title in the article, "Creation (Omphalos): An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot" produces zero hits on Google. It would be useful if the article includeed the generally accepted title, so that a reader might be able to purchase a copy of the book, or to find it in a library, or to find discussion of it online.Edison 19:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A robot claims ISBN numbers are wrong. All were confirmed on Amazon.com today. Edison 01:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More than a stub[edit]

This article has sufficient content and refrences that I think it is no longer a stub, so I am removing the stub tags. Edison 18:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, we are to use false title information rather than correct because Google has it wrong? I have put up a PDF of the scanned version on my home page, and will put the final version up at www.archive.org shortly. Then there may be links to the correct title. *Late note*: I checked the Google version - and it looks to me like the reprint has changed the title, but then I see on the obverse that there is a printer listed, which there is not on my copy. All other details are identical. This is an odd thing.

I wonder if there were two printings and in fact the title was changed.John Wilkins 04:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Late later note: I see that at the end of the index on the online version there is "R CLAY, PRINTER" etc. The same printer is on mine at that point, but more ads follow it. So I wonder if this is a reprint, and the name was changed to increase sales? John Wilkins 04:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rescued from obscurity?[edit]

Not sure that it was "rescued from obscurity by Stephen Jay Gould" -- it's discussed over several pages in Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies: In the Name of Science... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]