Talk:William Lane Craig

Creationist?

Is it even worth mentioning Dr Craig's supposed involvement in the intelligent design movement? He is not notable for it although he has expressed support for it, but so what, that's not enough to make mention in an encyclopaedia is it? Although Craig has views on the matter of evolution, his research is not around that area. He does spend time researching and working on cosmology, physics etc. What do people think? I have even heard him say in his podcast that he is "agnostic" when it comes to evolution. I suspect the intelligent design barely warrants a mention here, but am open to other opinions since he does sometimes talk about it in his podcasts, but then he talks about an awful lot of other things in his podcasts too. For example, his moral argument, his argument from contingency etc. These probably deserve more of a mention than this "Intelligent Design" mention. What do you think? --Andygsp (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I am removing the catagories and mention of Craig as a creationist and I am disputing the characterization of Craig as such but am willing to discuss the matter and see if someone knows (with citation) something that I don't. I am aware of Craig's recent posts on his website, but I do not believe that he, at any time, identifies himself as a creationist, or a "progressive creationist." He does voice skepticism of macroevolution--but he has always maintained that macroevolution is compatible with Christianity--he says that his skepticism is not required by his theological commitments. I don't think it is fair to characterize him as a creationist if he himself does not embrace that label. Is David Berlinski, for example, also a "creationist" as he voices similar skepticism (without belief in a god)? Is Francis Collins a "creationist" because he believes, as Craig does, that the big bang carries theological implications? It isn't fair, or objective by wiki standards, to slap a label on someone when that person does not embrace the label (unless Craig has and I am just unaware of it--in which case I will yield upon seeing a citation). Adlucem2 (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

WLC is NOT a "Young-Earth Creationist". He is a "creationist" (note the use of the lower-case "c") more along the lines of Francis Collins and he (WLC) DOES agree with modern cosmology. I heard him something to that effect (I don't remember the exact words) in a debate I found on YouTube - "Willaim Lane Craig vs Lewis Wolpert"

Part 11 of 12 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ejresKtSBg

Part 12 of 12 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUsMHSeWvaA

The relevent part starts around 8:35 in part 11 and continues into part 12.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Collins isn't a creationist fitting the definition of creationism. BBiiis08 (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said Collins was a Creationist. I said he was a creationist, meaning that the universe didn't pop into existence uncaused - see Theistic Evolution here for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_Evolution. Collins is a Christian, not an atheist.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is not fitting to refer to Craig as a creationist. Theowarner2 (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Craig is a member of two creationist organisations, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, who has written against evolution. That makes him a creationist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the recent language which says Craig "inclines to toward progressive creationism" and "advoc[ates] for intelligent design." Somehow, those philosophical positions seem more descriptively accurate than the label 'creationist.' Maybe there are too many connotations to use 'creationist.' Theowarner (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Although it is probably not fitting to explicitly use the label, lacking a WP:RS so labelling him, it is hard to see WP:DUCK leading to any possible inference that he's not a creationist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but I don't think it's our place to affirm it. We present the facts: he has argued for it a few times and inclines towards a position. We need to let the people decide what that means. And wait for a clearer statement. Theowarner (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Craig believes "that the universe has an external cause" (Reasonable Faith page 152). He goes on to explain that he believes in a "finely tuned" universe and it doesn't much matter whether evolution existed or not and if it did, it's theistic evolution (pages 193-194). The most succinct explanation of his view is on page 112 of On Guard where he calls it "an end run around evolution". This is distinct from what most people would call creationism - which is associated with a belief that evolution is false. --B (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If he believes that "it doesn't much matter whether evolution existed or not", then why is he a Fellow of an organisation dedicated to 'proving' that it didn't exist (the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture) -- as well as repeating a number of that orgasnisation's talking points in his debate with Ayala? And if he's not a creationist then why does he resort to the generic creationist 'microevolution not macroevolution' talking point? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I would think you could be a member of an organization without believing in everything they believe in. The world is not black and white. As for his debate, is there a transcript so that I can read what he said? I obviously can't offer an opinion to something I haven't seen. --B (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You "think you could be a member of an organization without believing in" the whole point for that organisation existing, whilst mouthing that organisation's claims on that subject? I don't think so. The world may not be "black and white" -- but religious conservatives' thinking generally is. No, I do not have a transcript -- you'll just have to deal with watching it the same way as I had to a few days ago when it was cited at me (see #"critiques of evolution via natural selection" below). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Even FoxNews has its token liberals and MSNBC has its token conservatives, so I don't see why the Discovery Institute couldn't have its token people who disagree with it. I don't think you can just use your biases about an organization to paint everyone affiliated with that organization. I realize that the outside world may not understand/care about the differences, but Christian conservatives are not a monolithic group - we are individual people with our own opinions about various issues. I will watch the video when I get a chance to see what he said. --B (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

" whilst mouthing that organisation's claims on that subject" -- Craig is not a token evolutionist, and the DI is not Fox News. Think tanks (of any stripe) rarely, if ever, have "token people who disagree with it." And conservative Christians very much tend towards eliminationist groupthink -- see Rightwing authoritarianism for the details of the dynamics. Craig walks with, talks like and acts like a creationist -- so I see no reason whatsoever to pretend that he's not one when the subject comes up. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Information

There is some incorrect information in this article. First, Craig has never debated Bart Earhman on the existence of God, but on whether Jesus rose from the dead. Also, he does not argue against homosexuality, but homosexual behavior (which are two very different things). He does not hold that homosexuality (understood as the propensity to find members of the same sex attractive) is a sin, but only homosexual behavior. Furthermore, he does not hold to progressive creationism. He has been clear that he is undecided on this topic but open to where the evidence leads. Finally, Crossan is not a Christian theist; he is either an agnostic or atheist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.98.139 (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! If there's something wrong in the article, you are -of course- welcome to fix it. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I addressed the concerns of 76.243.98.139. However, whether or not Crossan is a Christian theist, I don't know, since he puts a different spin on the meaning of various NT passages then mainline Christians. Therefore, I left that subject alone. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Formost/finest Christian Apologist

Hello Hrafn, I see that you reverted my last edit and I'm curious as to why you did it. According to the article:

Prof Dawkins maintains that Prof Craig is not a figure worthy of his attention and has reportedly said that such a contest would “look good” on his opponent’s CV but not on his own.

Then,

Some of Prof Dawkins’s contemporaries are not impressed. Dr Daniel Came, a philosophy lecturer and fellow atheist, from Worcester College, Oxford, wrote to him urging him to reconsider his refusal to debate the existence of God with Prof Craig. In a letter to Prof Dawkins, Dr Came said: “The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.

This qualifies as a reliable source. That some atheists would disagree is not the point. That some atheists DO agree IS the point. Therefore, I propose the following rephrasing:

"He is considered the foremost apologist for Christian theism, even among some atheists."

What do you think? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think he has been described as "the foremost apologist for Christian theism" by one, single, not particularly prominent atheist. It is inaccurate WP:WEASELing to say "some atheists" on the basis of a single opinion and WP:UNDUE weight to mention Came's non-prominent opinion at all, and particularly in the lead. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing. The Telegraph is a reliable source and as such, it says, "Some of Prof Dawkins’s contemporaries are not impressed." (Italics added.) The reliable source (i.e., The Telegraph) then goes on to give an example in the case of Dr Daniel Came, who even as a single individual is a reliable source. For this reason, it is not WP:WEASELing, unless reliable sources are subject to other reliable sources (which obviously it doesn't, since that would require a retreat to an argument ad infinitum). Also, please be aware that I modified my previous edit to my above proposal, "...even among some atheists." (Italics added.)

Now, we both know (I think) that there are examples of atheists who believe that WLC is in the top of his field. One example is this. Just Google-ing (is that a word?) various search terms can return more results that say the same thing. Also note that its placement in the lead just seems to be the most logical place for it. It's not a big article and is not a statement, as far as I can tell, that can justify a whole, new section. Your thoughts? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop wittering on and on that "the Telegraph is a reliable source" -- a point I have not contested! My point is that this source does not verify the claims you are attributing to it! "Prof Dawkins’s contemporaries"≠"atheists", "not impressed"≠"[Craig] is considered the foremost apologist for Christian theism". That one example of this is an "atheist" and considers Craig to be "the foremost apologist for Christian theism" does not imply that all "Prof Dawkins’s contemporaries" are or do. Unless and until you can WP:Verify that a significant number of prominent atheists hold this view, you cannot attribute this view to "atheists" generally (with or without the WP:WEASEL of "some"). And it is grossly WP:UNDUE to do so on the basis of the opinion of a single person who, as far as I can tell, has no prominence as an atheist whatsoever outside the context of Dawkins&Craig.

Please assume good faith. I am neither your enemy nor am I trying to yank your chain. Let's discuss our differences politely. At any rate, the sentence I would like to add is

He is considered the foremost apologist for Christian theism, even among some atheists.

The source is reliable, as we both agree, and the source quotes a public letter that Dr Daniel Came sent to Dr Richard Dawkins. It clearly establishes that indeed, among some atheists, WLC is "the foremost apologist for Christian theism":

In a letter to Prof Dawkins, Dr Came said: “The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part. (Bold added.)

Also,

Dr Daniel Came, a philosophy lecturer and fellow atheist, from Worcester College, Oxford, wrote to him urging him to reconsider his refusal to debate the existence of God with Prof Craig. (Bold added.)

So, we have a reliable source (The Telegraph) quoting Dr Came who has excellent credentials (i.e., Dr. Came is not simply some guy with a Web site and an opinion) who teaches at a well known university (Oxford), and is himself an atheist. Therefore, it seems to me that the sentence I would like to add should not pose any problems. Your thoughts? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"It clearly establishes that indeed, among some atheists to one single completely non-prominent atheist, WLC is 'the foremost apologist for Christian theism'" "Dr Came who has excellent credentials no credentials as an atheist whatsoever -- so should not be cited for what 'atheists' think." -- I corrected the glaring errors in your comments. Oh, and I'm not failing to assume good faith on your part -- I'm simply refusing to assume WP:COMPETENCE (and an ability to competently apply relevant policy). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Saying "even among some atheists" adds too much baggage. Why are atheists an appropriate audience to judge this topic? Why not a Muslim, or another theologian? At worst, this is a violation of WP:SYN, and potentially also WP:WEASEL due to the use of "some". Further, I'm not happy with "is considered", since we have only one source attributing the view to one individual. If we're going to add this, we should attribute it to Dr Cane, and drop the atheism bit. That's what we have explicitly sourced, so that's what we should go with.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The point of the "atheism bit" was to make it clear that it's not only theists who have this opinion of WLC. I mean, there are many people who don't/won't accept any statement from sources who are theists because of perceived bias. So, as long as it's made clear that Dr Crane is an atheist who represents the "other side" (and thus provides balance) then I'm ok with your suggestion that that is what we should go with. Is that fair?

By the way, can you please provide a suggestion on how the thought should be expressed? And thank you for your insight. It is very much appreciated. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with " the 'atheism bit'" is that we have no evidence whatsoever that "this opinion of WLC" has any prominence outside theism. All we have is a single opinion of somebody who isn't particularly prominent as an academic philosopher, and appears to have no prominence whatsoever in atheist circles. It "should be expressed" by not mentioning it all until evidence that this viewpoint has more prominence within atheism than simply Came's own view, per WP:DUE ("Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Another way of looking at the prominence angle and WP:DUE is to ask yourself how many prominent people have expressed an opinion about Craig? How many of those opinions are featured in the article? Is Daniel Came really more prominent than all those we haven't included? If not, then what is the rationale for including his opinion rather than a more prominent one? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"critiques of evolution via natural selection"

Could somebody explain to me:

1. How participation in a debate on "Is Intelligent Design Viable" verifies that the participant engages in "critiques of evolution via natural selection"?
2. How somebody, apparently lacking any scientific qualifications or experience, is qualified to "critique" the science of evolutionary biology, or how it is any more NPOV to describe it as 'critiquing' as opposed to an opposing (and arguably far more accurate) POV description of 'bloviating ignorantly'?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary from this edit made the claim that "ID ~ Neocreationism ~ Creationism. WLC does not promote it because he doesn't believe it." I would point out:

1. The citation for the disputed characterisation is a debate on "Is Intelligent Design Viable" -- where Craig took the affirmative.
2. He's a fellow of the Center for Science and Culture whose purpose is the promotion of ID.
3. He is also a fellow of the (now moribund) International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design "a non-profit professional society that promoted intelligent design".

It is therefore very hard to see how Craig is not involved in the promotion of ID. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC)

1. Because he's said, in a debate vs Wolpert (sp?) I think, that he is convinced of micro evolution but not convinced of macro evolution, although he is open-minded about it. Also, he is not a creationist, which is essentially how ID is defined and interpreted on Wikipedia as well as in the general public, so to say he "promotes" ID is not accurate.

2. Careful, that could go both ways. Dawkins knows relatively nothing about philosophy or theology yet that doesn't seem to stop him and others from making philosophical/theological claims. At any rate, WLC is qualified to critique any science because when he does so, he quotes eminent scientists (and stays within mainline science) and then approaches it philosophically. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

1. WP:Complete bollocks -- "convinced of micro evolution but not convinced of macro evolution" = absolutely a creationist claim. See Claim CB902: Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution, TalkOrigins Archive Index to Creationist claims. The ID movement is full of "evolution but..." claims that always end with an equivocation that guts the Theory of Evolution.
2. Dawkins could be legitimately be characterised as a 'critic of religion' as one can reasonably gain reasonable knowledge of religion without expert training. He could not legitimately be considered to be a critic of (or write critiques of) theology or philosophy of religion -- as he is clearly unstudied (and it would appear disinterested) in these fields. Craig likewise is unstudied (and appears uninterested in) the field of evolutionary biology (as opposed to superficial religious criticisms of it), so likewise cannot be considered to legitimately "critique" the field.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I can only tell you what I've heard for myself. Watch the last 25 seconds of this (for context) and then the first three minutes of this. WLC clearly states exactly what he believes with regards to creationism and evolution. If you want to sum that up in the article, then I have no problem with it, as long as WLCs "creationism" belief is not interpreted as meaning a fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources stating that Craig is a proponent of ID

• Forrest, Barbara (2007). Creationism's Trojan Horse. City: Oxford University Press, USA. p. 191. ISBN 0195319737.
• Young, Matt (2006). Why Intelligent Design Fails. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. p. 13. ISBN 0813538726.
• Giberson, Karl (2002). Species of Origins. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 202. ISBN 0742507653.
• Woodward, Thomas; Dembski, William (2006). Darwin Strikes Back. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. p. 201. ISBN 0801065631.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have the quotes from the references above? I'd like to see the context, as well as how "a proponent of ID" is defined. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Forrest(2006): "...alongside design proponents such as Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig..."
• Young(2006): "Indeed the movement has attracted a number of philosophers and theologians wuth conservative religious commitments: ... William Lane Craig..."
• Giberson(2002): "CRSC's fellows, directors and advisors include virtually all of the leaders in the intelligent design movement, including ...William Lane Craig..."
• Woodward(2006): "ID theorist William Lane Craig attended a national philosophical meeting and heard emphatic acceptance of this criticism of Behe's analogy as a refutation."

If you want more, look it up on Google Books or Amazon. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I don't have a problem adding him as a proponent of ID as long as it's made clear what he means by it. This can be seen here (from 0:25 to about 1:00). Also from 3:00 to about 3:59, which also answers your question #1 in your second posting in the above section. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yep, typical dishonest ID WP:complete bollocks -- claiming that it is "Intelligent Design Theory", when even some ID proponents are on record as admitting that ID has no theory (a theory is an explanation, not merely an assertion), claiming that there is "misunderstanding" of what ID is (when the correct word is "rejection"), claiming as part of the definition that it makes "justifiable" inferences (begging the question, anybody?), etc, etc. Basically the whole ID party line. This is not some neutral party describing it -- it is a 'drunk the koolaid' partisan advocating it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually he presents no "critiques of evolution via natural selection" in that passage -- he merely asserts that (scientific) critiques of ID are inconclusive or fallacious. I do not agree with his assertion, but regardless this assertion is not a critique of evolution via natural selection. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

And in any case, we should be relying on what reliable WP:SECONDARY sources say about him -- not performing WP:Synthesis on a WP:PRIMARY source (which a video of a debate clearly is). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and suggest (here on the talk page) how you would phrase what you would like to add (including references and links). Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

We have multiple sources (both favourable towards, and critical, of ID) stating that he's an 'intelligent design proponent' (as well as fellowships in two very-prominently ID organisations), corroborated by many descriptions of his position that use the word "design" as part of the description -- so why not 'advocacy of intelligent design' or similar? I get the strong feeling (though no hard citations) that he's also an advocate of theistic science/opponent of naturalistic science (a position widely taken in ID circles, to an extent that its pretty much a tenet of ID), so if a source for that can be found, it might also bne worth mentioning. Craig isn't known for any original or prominent criticisms-of/arguments-against evolution (in fact I'd be very surprised if there is any specific criticism that is more closely associated with him than any other IDer or other creationist), so it would seem hard to justify (let alone source) a claim that he is known for that specifically (as opposed to more generalised support of ID's views). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess my main concern is linking WLC with the Creationism article on WP (he's used terminology that would make him more in line with theistic evolution). He advocates ID and certainly is a "creationist", as any theist would have to be. So, if you would like to add a statement that doesn't portray WLCs "creationism" belief as a fundamentalist-ic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis, then I'd be ok with that. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hrafn about the original revert; if he has supported ID as his sole (notable) criticism of evolution, then it is more specific to say so. It should be included in the article in either case. BTW, Bill, not every theist is a creationist. Deists are not, as well as a good number of theists who believe their god had a more distant role in the history of the Earth. Craig is in any case, but this is so because our sources say so, not because he's a theist generally.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, I too agree with Hrafn about the original revert! For some reason (I think it was due to fatigue), I clicked on "rollback" rather than "undo" which didn't enable me to provide a reason for the revert. My apologies.

In any case, let's include the fact that he is a proponent of ID yet not link it to the WP article because that article basically says that ID = Creationism, which means that he holds to a fundamentalist, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis, which he does not. From his writings and speeches/debates, he holds to Theistic evolution as described in the WP article—especially both second paragraph of the lead:

Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation. Theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who reject the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict. Proponents of this view are sometimes described as Christian Darwinists.

as well as from the Terminology section:

The term was used by National Center for Science Education executive director Eugenie Scott to refer to the part of the overall spectrum of beliefs about creation and evolution holding the theological view that God creates through evolution. It covers a wide range of beliefs about the extent of any intervention by God, with some approaching deism in rejecting continued intervention. Others see intervention at critical intervals in history in a way consistent with scientific explanations of speciation, but with similarities to the ideas of Progressive Creationism that God created "kinds" of animals sequentially.

Ok, guys/gals, I think we're getting close to a consensus here. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

One more thing. Deists are creationists, but they are NOT Creationists (note the use of the lower and upper case "C" respectively), in that Creationists hold to a literalist interpretation of scripture while Deists do not. This is the sort of distinction I'm trying to maintain with regards to the WLC article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is important to keep in mind:

1. The distinction between Creationism generally, and Young Earth creationism. It is only the latter that "holds to a fundamentalist, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis". Old Earth creationism, including Progressive creationism and Intelligent design, does not. Misapprehension of this seems to be frequently promoted by prominent ID proponents attempting to distance themselves from the "creationist" label, so I'm not particularly surprised that Bill has fallen prey to it.
2. Also (as can be seen from these articles), the term "creationism"/"creationist" (big or little c) is currently used ubiquitously to describe some form of religious objection to the scientific consensus on the history of life/the Earth/the Universe (ubiquitously including an objection to the Theory of Evolution). I would therefore suggest that we have been presented with no evidence that Craig is not a creationist (capitalised or not). Therefore although I would agree that (as we have no source for it) we should certainly not explicitly describe him as a "creationist" nor link his article directly to the creationism article, I see no reason not to link him to intelligent design (a linkage we have multiple sources supporting), due to the fact that "that article basically says that ID = Creationism".
3. Theistic evolution fully accepts the scientific consensus on evolution (and adapts their theology to accommodate it), Craig does not. Lacking a cast iron source for this claim (per WP:REDFLAG), we should not accept such a description of him.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You make some good points, especially number 3. So, go ahead and make a proposal on the wording/sentence structure. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion remains the same as above "advocacy of intelligent design" or similar -- but with the explicit priviso that there's no good reason not to link it to the article on intelligent design. I would also point out that this fits more comfortably with the theme of Christian apologetics -- as there are many theists (and indeed Christians) on both sides of the evolution-by-natural-selection/not-evolution-by-natural-selection debate, whereas there are virtually no atheist or agnostic advocates of ID. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you have the sources, and you do, then I'm ok with it. Go ahead and add that in. Good job. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Added + Repaired dead ISBNs

I am curious why some book titles that Dr Craig has been an editor on are missing? For example: Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology Wiley-Blackwell ISBN #1405176571

According to this source from the Evangelical Philosophical Society website, this book is listed under the category "Books by William Lane Craig".

I am not sure whether books that you are an editor in qualify for mention in the bibliography or not. But still I feel that this example alone qualifies for a mention somewhere. Perhaps some may say it doesn't deserve a mention because he is not a significant contributor in terms of authorship to the book. But then the book is a collection writings, so this is hardly surprising. But he is a significant contributor to the book in the sense that he co-edited the book and it is a significant academic work in its own right. Anyway, what do you think? --Andygsp (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the ISBN links so an admin can remove the notice Cheers (Petersgoldpan (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC))

Almost a complete lack of third party sourcing

Given that the vast majority of this article is cited wither to his 'reasonablefaith' websites, or to his other writings -- and the majority of the remainder is cited to affiliated organisations, it is not in the leasr bit clear that William Lane Craig is notable. I am therefore tagging this article as such. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you want to delete the page, you'd actually have my blessing on that. Craig is perhaps the most prominent Christian apologist working today, but he's very hard to establish as notable outside his own press-machine and the press-machines of his colleagues, which tend to mutually-reinforcing. Theowarner (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

In such situations where there's the impression of notability, but not the third-party substance, it's generally not possible to get an article deleted -- so the best that I can do is press the lack-of-third-party-coverage, to see what improvement I can press for in what is there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Do a brutal edit and just eliminate everything that isn't covered by third-party sourcing. I'd love to see what that looks like. Theowarner (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

In such situations I would also ask: what is he prominent for? He seems to be prominent simply for being well-connected in conservative Christian circles, rather for anything he's done. The Kalam Cosmological Argument, for example is neither particularly original nor particularly compelling. Lacking either any third party notice, or any particular basis for notability, it is hard to see what a balanced article can say about him. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, Kalam gets a little a press but only because Craig actively promotes it so much. Occasionally, letters to local newspapers will appear that are almost certainly from his devotees. I agree that it is neither original nor creative, but such is not its relevance. And I agree, without using Craig's own press-machine, very little will remain. It's hard to envision what will obtain! Theowarner (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

By my estimation 20 out of 27 sources are affiliated. Additionally, the overwhelming majority of these are self-published meaning that the article also falls afoul of WP:SELFPUB. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. You had not indicated previously that 'self-publishing' was why you were removing biblographic entries. Theowarner (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't. But per WP:IINFO & WP:PSTS, an article is meant to be here to describe how secondary sources describe him, not simply list his works. So the latter should not dominate the former. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

To which the question has to be asked: if William Lane Craig and his 'reasonablefaith' websites are so "important", then why does nobody other than William Lane Craig and his 'reasonablefaith' websites write about them? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably because, as I mention above, it's very hard to establish Craig's notability outside his own press-machine. Nevertheless, if the article exists, it's absolutely essential that Craig be described as both a scholar and an para-religious leader. Theowarner (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Surely per WP:V & WP:WEIGHT, "it's absolutely essential that Craig be described as" reliable third-party sources describe him? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

So, what do you propose? Deleting the page? Even when Craig is mentioned on FOXNews, it's clear that they are reading from his press-kit. Theowarner (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I would propose restricting the article, as far as possible, to what genuinely independent sources say about him. If the article is almost solely sourced to his writings, his websites, and his press-kits, how can it possibly be a NPOV article about him? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I think you'd be left with about a sentence, then. Theowarner (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I did say, "as far as possible". Given that you are fighting tooth and nail for extended coverage of his website, I rather doubt if I'll be allowed to take the article down to one sentence -- but I would hope for some trimming. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• How about we start by eliminating any paragraph that does not have even one third-party source? If we can't find a third party source that at least discusses the general issue, let alone the specific claim, then how can we claim that the issue is "important"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  Alternatively, we could hold an RfC on what to do next. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I propose we delete the biography section in its entirely. Theowarner (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to AfD it, I'll support you -- but I prefer not to nominate an article myself unless I think I've got a reasonable chance of getting it deleted (and I think this one has too much 'I've heard of him so he must be notable, even if I can't provide third party sources or what he's notable for' to get deleted). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hrafn that the article probably won't be deleted in its entirety. Honestly, I also fall into the camp of "I've heard of him so he's probably notable", which is to say I think there's probably enough sources out there somewhere to meet WP:N. That said, I don't think Theowarner was suggesting we go to AfD. I think he was suggesting we delete the section titled "biography". Unfortunately, I have to disagree with that proposal; the biography section may be the only well sourced section in the entire article, since it's the only information for which we prefer primary sources from the subject. It's also fairly common to have a biography section in a BLP, so as long as the article stays around, it would probably be good to keep that section in some form. I don't necessarily oppose changing any (or all) of the content in the section, however, or deleting content which is unsourced entirely. I also agree there's a serious problem with the article being essentially single sourced to WLC's website.

Further, I'll point out that we need to make sure the article doesn't turn into a forum through which editors promote the image or ideas of WLC, such as by presenting him in the way he wishes to present himself (instead of how 3rd party sources would present him), or by linking to his works in a way which is unduly self serving (such as by including external links to articles which don't discuss him, e.g. the Christianity Today article). These are both common problems with articles which don't have lots of reliable third party sourcing (which is one of the reasons the AfD process exists). If I get some time (which, unfortunately, seems unlikely given my recent schedule), I'll try to track down some better sourcing, and clean up some of the article. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥

Sorry -- Freudian slip there. Though I would not exactly call the biography section "well sourced" -- have you seen the number of tags on it -- 2/3 of it isn't sourced, and the other 1/3 is only sourced to WLC & his website. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well yea, it does have tags all over it... but it probably shouldn't. Cite 1 and 2 cover all the info there, as far as I can tell from a quick skim. I believe the tags are there because cite 1 and 2 are closely tied to WLC, and an editor preferred something a little more secondary. However, as I mentioned above, that shouldn't be necessary for a bio section. So yes, well sourced. Not perfect, by any stretch, but certainly adequate.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Shouldn't be necessary for a bio section"? Perhaps. But then a bio section shouldn't be in an article that is already chock-to-the-gills with primary-sourced material in the first place. And lacking third-party notice, should we be including the Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease bit? It's not exactly standard bio fodder. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that problem is with the rest of the article using primary sources, not with the bio section existing. But otherwise, yes, I'm in agreement with you. I've also removed the disease bit, since that doesn't seem particularly relevant to the article or the subject's domain. If we had third party coverage of it, we might be able to include it again in the future.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed trimming of material lacking third-party sourcing

As neither his debates nor his "Atlanta-based ministry" have received any third party notice, I'm proposing starting my trimming there. Any objections? I would note that the ministry material probably falls afoul of WP:SELFPUB, "the article is not based primarily on such sources", due to the volume of citations to the Reasonable Faith website in the article. Thereafter I'll probably suggest further trimming of views and activities that lack any third-party notice. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Go for it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Have any of his views, other than on ID, received any third party mention? If not, I'd suggest that they go as well. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Drrll asked for comments on the article's shortening at WT:WikiProject Christianity. For the record, I agree with the shortening (compared to, say, this version) and don't think that any of the removed sources, with the exception of the Whittier Daily News, satisfy Wikipedia's standards of reliable sources independent of the subject. Some primary sources might be acceptable, but they will never suffice to establish notability, and the article should not be mainly based on them. Huon (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the information pulled from Craig's website was not out of line, and was actually helpful. By all means edit out the Craig fanboys, but leave good information there. I want to see who he has debated. I want to know what fields of study he has covered. If this info needs to come from his website, I don't care. Like it or not, Craig is an interesting figure in Philosophy of Religion, at the very least because he's the most fun to argue against. I come across him often enough in my studies to want to keep an eye on him from time to time, and it annoys me that his entry has been unnecessarily (in my view) stunted. I don't want the article to be removed or information to be suppressed, purely because you don't like him. I'm going to suggest that the information which comes from the website relating to his debates and activities be re-included as it does not violate facts and is impartial. Joycey17 (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Joycey. Thanks for participating in the discussion. There are a couple issues with much of the information that was removed. Please take a look at WP:SPS, and WP:BLPSPS. Note, in particular, clause 5 of sps: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves... so long as... the article is not based primarily on such sources." We have a problem in this article, right now, where we have almost no secondary sources discussing Craig. Including a substantial amount of information based on a single primary SPS is therefore problematic, because it limits our ability to determine what content is notable (as judged by independent parties), what content should receive what amount of weight (as judged by its prominence in 3rd party literature), and generally speaking, what other kinds of emphasis, structure and coverage we should include (as determined by the distribution of coverage by neutral parties). Ultimately, we need secondary sources to solve this dispute, and until then, we have to emphasize the secondary sources we do have. Are you aware of any other secondary sources we haven't included?   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He is best-known among philosophers for his extensive and influential work in the philosophy of time and the philosophy of religion. He is known to the wider public as someone who is able to articulate and defend the doctrines of the Christian faith in a way that is highly accessible but also philosophically and theologically rigorous. He became a Christian at the age of 16, pursued undergraduate studies at Wheaton College, and holds two earned doctorates: one in philosophy from the University of Birmingham, and one in theology from the University of Munich. He has authored or edited over 30 books, as well as over a hundred articles in professional journals of philosophy and theology." - Michael C. Rea, (here). Joycey17 (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The Sam Harris quote...

What is doing in this article? Considering how far we've trimmed this down.... it seems out of place to include that particular sentence. I propose its deletion. Theowarner (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a recent addition that slipped in under the cover of another, already-reverted, edit. I've removed it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

cool. And future editors should, I think, feel free to excise it should it reappear. Theowarner (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed a lousy source. The publisher isn't exactly known for being "Fair & Balanced" (no matter what their slogan may say), the writer appears to be a featherweight & the story is just a piece of publicity-seeking fluff. Speaking for myself, I can't understand this Christian obsession with Dawkins. In this instance he's the wrong choice for a debating partner -- Craig would be better off seeking a raconteur like Stephen Fry -- who would most likely make for a far more interesting and memorable debate. But Dawkins seems to be their Moby Dick. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal dislike of a reliable source, especially a prominent one, is not adequate justification for removal of it and the material it supports. If you believe that such a view is supported by the community as a whole, take it to WP:RSN and see if it results in strong consensus supporting your view. I have restored the material and its references. Drrll (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Per forming consensus here, I've removed the addition. If consensus shifts in favor of the quote, it can be reintroduced at that time. For now, I agree that the quote is out of place and of dubious origin. It appears to only be presented in the article in order to make some kind of point about "WLC beating atheists", which is undue given it isn't notably represented in that form elsewhere.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Drrll: for somebody who spends so much time whining piteously on WP:WQA, your mud-slinging is contemptibly WP:POT. Likewise WP:POT is your "personal dislike" claim, given your previous conniptions over Barbara Forrest (who unlike Fox News is a WP:RS). There is in fact nothing "personal" about my impeachment of FN. Fox News does not have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as can be seen from the 'Accusations of misrepresentation of facts' section of that article. Further, nothing on Lauren Green suggests that she gives any extra weight to the piece. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The source is a straight news story by a straight news reporter and not an opinion piece. Whether a source is not reliable or "dubious" is not determined by the consensus of a few editors at a particular article. From what I've repeatedly seen in the archives of RSN, Fox News is a reliable source for news content, just like sources with a reputation for being slanted to the left are (such as MSNBC, The CBS Evening News, and NPR). This has been brought up numerous times at RSN, but if you want, it can be brought up yet again. Drrll (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It is somewhat of a stretch to call Green "a straight news reporter" -- she has no background in journalism and her previous engagements, Fox & Friends & Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld are hardly "straight news". And I would disagree that WP:RSN has in any way unambiguously defended FN's reliability -- in fact the consensus seems to be rather more against reliability than for it -- particularly as one thread turned up the fact that FN has actually argued in court for their legal right to lie to their viewers (and won,on First Amendment grounds). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll point out that my objections to it were not based on the reliability of the source, nor were Theo's. Whether or not FN is reliable, this quote doesn't belong.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's fine to say it's straight news. I'm not sure what that means, though. The quote is certainly true in that Dr. Harris really did say it. Of course, Ms. Green got the quote from Dr. Craig's press release. But, my point was that the quote doesn't really seem to be doing very much in the article. A short paragraph on Craig's accomplishments certainly doesn't need a Sam Harris quote. Theowarner (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If I assumed correctly, this is concerning Sam Harris' quote about how William Lane Craig is "the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists". Quite obviously none of you three did any proper or even basic research into this matter, as the video of the source of the quote, which is the second installment of "The God Debate", has been made available on YouTube since April 12, 2011, and the full transcript of the debate made available as early as May 3, 2011 in case for some reason the video is inaudible (the quote is at 27:45), yet as of this writing the video is still available and very much audible, thus there is really no excuse for the above arguments about news reports. And if you are honestly concerned about WP:V, rest assured that the uploader of the video is the University of Notre Dame, which would fit adequately into "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and the debate has been "made available to the public in some form". All the above exchange does is reveal to us a form of self-inflation between three individuals who are largely dismissive of such obvious and widely available facts in favor of ignorance. In light of the above facts, the three of you should be barred from further edits on this article, as the three of you are obviously not editing this article in good faith. Maiorem (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend you read WP:AGF. Youtube is not a reliable source, so cannot be used for the claim. See WP:RS. That said, the reason it was removed was not because of sourcing. We don't simply publish everything that's ever said anywhere. The quote has not received notable third party coverage to warrant receiving WP:Weight in the article. If you can provide notable third party coverage of the quote, then we can discuss including it again.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

As I have mentioned, in light of the above facts which I have stated, there is no good faith in such edits by the three of you. Obviously I was not talking about YouTube as a reliable source, but do consider that this was an actual debate held at the University of Notre Dame, and I have already given the reasons why citing WP:RS would be ignoring the issue altogether. In fact, it doesn't even address the reliability of YouTube, since YouTube cannot be judged reliable or not on its own; it is the uploader that needs to be judged, since different uploaders on YouTube obviously have different reliability, e.g. "Loose Change" vs. "University of Notre Dame". Regarding WP:Weight, the quote does not require any "notable third party coverage" in order to receive due weight as its weight is given by the prominence of the utterer in its context, i.e. Sam Harris in a debate held by the University of Notre Dame. This is neither a dispute nor a minority viewpoint and is significant to the extent of William Lane Craig's influence upon the atheist community.

Here I reiterate Jimmy Wales' points about weight:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

So, which category of the above do you place Sam Harris' quote? Maiorem (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Maiorem, I referenced AGF because it will be beneficial to you, not to me; If you can't assume good faith of the editors you're working with, then we can't work collaboratively, and this conversation will inevitably be futile. Please understand that we're all here to improve the article, just as I've assumed for you. You stated above, "Obviously I was not talking about YouTube as a reliable source", but you then go on to justify why it can be used as one. We can't simply disregard WP:RS or other policies, as they represent the broad, site-wide, community consensus on what is acceptable. As for the rest, please understand this isn't a "view" we're talking about, it's the opinion of one individual, for which we don't even have a reliable source. Placing it in the article gives improper weight to the statement, as it necessarily assigns a significance which cannot be backed up by notable coverage elsewhere. Does all that make sense?   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

So you mean to tell me that videos uploaded by the White House official YouTube channel are not considered reliable sources? If you do hold that view, you'd have been a laughing stock in all journalism circles. I already said in detail previously how the reliability of YouTube as a source cannot be generalized to all YouTube channels. Furthermore, you're trying to tell me that a video of the entire debate as recorded by the University of Notre Dame doesn't qualify as a reliable source? Don't you think you're not making any sense here? I do. In addition to that, you did not answer my last question in my previous response. This is the opinion of one individual, no doubt, but it is the opinion of a prominent individual with impact on a (majority/minority?) group. First, you need to establish if the atheist community is a majority or a minority group, then consider the weight of Sam Harris' statement about William Lane Craig's influence on the group. The weight should come from both Sam Harris' prominence as well as its impact on the group, regardless of "notable coverage". Maiorem (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Youtube videos can be used sometimes, in very rare cases, but they are discouraged in all cases for a wide variety of reasons. For one, it is a primary source, which puts us in the category of WP:SPS (or more specifically WP:BLPSPS). Two, verifying the identity of a youtube user is tricky, videos can be doctored or edited, and they are are typically more volatile, and so may change or be removed more readily than elsewhere, so youtube is almost always less useful for reliably verifying the content than other published mediums. Three, there are copyright issues we have to be concerned about, also making youtube less useful than other published mediums. Four, there is an issue of weight, which I will point out is the issue here; if a youtube video is the only reference presented for a claim, then the claim is almost certainly not prominent enough to warrant coverage. Consider, if this view is important, why hasn't it been covered elsewhere? For further information on the reliability of youtube as a source, I'd suggest searching the archives of WP:RSN, and/or posting a query to the noticeboard yourself.

However, as I mentioned above (and above that, and at the beginning of the discussion too), the issue is really weight rather than reliability. This does, indeed, tie in to the nature of youtube, but we'd have the same issue even if we had some other primary source. This quote hasn't received coverage anywhere, and it hasn't been demonstrated to have had any effect on, or have been held by, any group (minority or majority). We could grab a whole bunch of primary sources mentioning WLC in some context on youtube and post quotes, but those would be equally undue. Unless and until we have notably third party coverage of this quote, it just simply doesn't belong in the article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, here's a past discussion about youtube on RSN which explains these issues in more detail. Once again, this is really a weight concern, but you may find that discussion useful anyway. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, primary sources are discouraged on the basis of original research. Secondly, direct quotes of a living person must always come from a primary source. Next, verifying the identity of a YouTube channel (not user) is easy in the case of official channels, such as the one I linked above as The Official of the White House. The claim that a particular video is doctored or edited must be backed by evidence, and in this case, it is absolutely difficult to see how it has been doctored or edited, especially when uploaded and hosted by the University of Notre Dame. In addition to that, the argument that YouTube videos are "typically more volatile" does not change the reliability or veracity of its contents. On the issue about copyright, that is moot as long as it is hosted publicly on YouTube by an official source, which, in this case, is the University of Notre Dame. The archives of WP:RSN has absolutely nothing on YouTube.

I have already put forth my points about weight in my previous two posts here, which you have so far successfully ignored. As for the question as to why the quote hasn't been covered elsewhere, I'd simply point to the Fox News article that has been much discussed about here. So, we've established that the debate itself is the primary source, and the secondary source would be the Fox News article. In addition to that, the Fox News article also serves as notable third party coverage. Continuing along the lines of reliability, my questions still remain. Is the atheist community a minority or majority? Following that, is Sam Harris a prominent person in this community? Next, does Sam Harris' quote reference William Lane Craig's impact on the community? Maiorem (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

One quote from that discussion:"It isn't original research as long as one treats it appropriately as a primary source, which is to say that it's used only for objective, descriptive, and uncontroversial claims." I'd say the fact that Sam Harris said a particular sentence is objective and descriptive. Most people interested in William Lane Craig will have heard of Sam Harris, I'd venture. So it's relevant and interesting. Why controversial? Joycey17 (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Maiorem, the archives of RSN do, indeed, contain discussions of youtube. [I linked to this one above, which highlights some of the points I addressed in my reply. The broad community consensus is that youtube is discouraged, and is most often used to give undue weight to a claim. That is the case here. I did not ignore your comments on weight. What we have is a single offhanded comment that Harris made about Craig once, which was clearly intended as a joke. He hasn't repeated it, and no one besides FN seemed to deem it noteworthy enough to cover it. It is a single opinion, not demonstrably held by any group (or even seriously held by Harris). Putting it in the article is, indeed, a weight concern, since it implies statements about other atheist writers that they have denied, and serves only to boast the image of WLC. Why is this particular quote so important to include? Consensus seems to be set on this issue, but perhaps we could find some other content to include which serves the same role and doesn't share these same concerns. Would that work?   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It highlights some of the points you addressed in your reply? Really? Well, I couldn't see how four out of eleven users would count as a "broad community consensus". That was not an offhanded comment either, and now you are forcing your own interpretation of Sam Harris' quote about William Lane Craig. Would people need to repeat their words even once for it to have weight or even consideration? No. Regardless, Fox News has covered it, and thus it would satisfy third party coverage. How do you judge or determine if it was "seriously held" by Harris? We are simply citing him word-for-word and not including any interpretation of his statement, but apparently you cannot resist interpreting his quote in a biased way that is in no way backed by any evidence. I now ask you to clarify what you mean by saying that it "implies statements about other atheist writers" since there is no mention of "atheist writers" to begin with. It does not serve to boast William Lane Craig's image so much as to cite a view of William Lane Craig by a prominent figure (unless you disagree with the notion that Sam Harris is a prominent figure, in which case I must ask why he gets his own page, and even much more detailed than this one). I am not saying that this quote is important to include, but the way that you three have handled even this minor issue has revealed that these edits are not done in good faith. If by "consensus" you mean the upholding of the views of three users, then you wouldn't be lying. My concern is not with this quote, actually, but it is with the "good faith" that the three of you so obviously lack. Thus, when I am asked to assume good faith, I will say that you three have lost that with regards to such absurd reasoning and total unwillingness to properly investigate even one simple quote. Maiorem (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can't assume good faith, that unfortunately means we can't have a productive conversation. If you feel the discussion I linked you to is insufficiently decisive about using youtube as a reliable source, then you're welcome to search the RSN archives for the multitude of other discussions regarding it, or to post your own thread on RSN to get a further opinion. If your purpose in this discussion is not to argue that the quote should be included, then there isn't anything else to say. Testing the good faith of other contributors is not a valid use of an article talk page, per the talk page guidelines. If you'd like to bring new sources or content to the article, then I'd be happy to discuss those with you further. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the burden of proof is on you to show that YouTube as a reliable source is disagreed by "broad community consensus". So, if this is what it takes to continue pressing the issue, then I would argue for the inclusion of the quote. If all you can do is cite WP:THIS or WP:THAT without even knowing its contents then I am afraid you should not even be allowed to edit anything. I am not testing the good faith of other contributors; I am showing that there is a lack of good faith in the three of you. Discussing this here in the article's talk page is acceptable under WP:DR. And here's what it says too: "Assume that an editor is acting in good faith until it's absolutely clear that they're not." Before I started commenting here, I did assume good faith, until I saw the disastrous handling of such an issue by the three of you, as well as an excessive citation of WPs to the point of abuse. Would you like to take this to WP:BLPN?Maiorem (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I've invited you to post about this issue on a noticeboard repeatedly; by all means, take it to BLPN. However, you've made it clear that you're not interested in including the quote as much as "demonstrating bad faith", so as far as I can tell, the discussion on article content is already over. If you'd like to bring new sources or content to the article, then I'd be happy to discuss those with you. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, you've invited me to post about this issue on the wrong noticeboards. I'm not the one having issues with citing a direct quote from a YouTube video. Also, "demonstrating bad faith", you say? Even if I do allow you to have some sort of "good faith", it only goes to show your gross incompetency at objective editing, which is one of the requirements of editing articles on Wikipedia. As far as you are concerned, you are nobody to say whether discussion on article content is already over. Assuming good faith is an ideal, but the actual situation here is quite shameful.Maiorem (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

@Maiorem, I think you should read Wikipedia:BATTLEground, and take note. @Everyone else, I think you should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRS#Quotations. The quote can be included using YouTube as the source, or a debate transcript if one can be found. I don't think any proper reason for leaving it out has been shown.Joycey17 (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Joycey17, for that. However, if you do find any part of my response is objectionable, do point out the specific parts to me, as to me, I am strictly putting forth an objective analysis of the information handling process by the "regular editors" here. Indeed, in all my comments, I did not "hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." Neither did I "insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom [I] have a disagreement." Maiorem (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Joycey. The quote was removed because it has not received any traction anywhere, and therefore, including it would be giving undue weight to a position which may not be held by anyone at all, or at absolute best by a single individual. That doesn't qualify as a "significant minority" view, which is the bare minimum for nearly all content on wikipedia. It would be great to expand on Craig's image in the academic, atheistic, apologetics (etc) communities, but to do so we need a good, reliable, secondary source... not a joking remark in a debate found on youtube. It would be great if we could get new sources discussing Craig, and then we could base our article content on those. Are you aware of any sources we're not already using?   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an excellent conversation. I'll just chime in and say that the primary reason I think that the Sam Harris quote has no place in article is that it seems to be about establishing Craig as an prominent and effective opponent to atheists, neither of which are our place to assert. We can produce quotes from equally prominent persons that suggest Craig is a nobody and ineffective. So, selecting any one quote presumes a position and becomes bias. I think this point has already been made, even though the conversation seems to have continued. Theowarner (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

As I have explained earlier, this is a quote by a prominent member of the atheist community. It is not your place, jess, to interpret it as a "joking remark" where Sam Harris has never claimed it to be. Furthermore, it is not merely a debate found on YouTube; it is a debate hosted by the University of Notre Dame at their faculty, covered by the University of Notre Dame, covered by Fox News, and for which there is a transcript made available by a third party. You should be aware of how misleading it would be to label this simply as "a debate found on youtube" rather than state it as it is. I have listed seven sources on the William Lane Craig section of WP:BLPN which contribute to much of the removed content over the past 16 months, and where there is no mention as to why they are considered unreliable sources. As have been mentioned, WP:SELFPUB allows the use of self-published sources. And to address your concern, Theowarner, Sam Harris is in a position to make such a claim as a prominent member of the atheist community, and thus the inclusion of that quote would be justified by the position of the speaker. Or why don't we quote Richard Dawkins and A.C. Grayling on William Lane Craig as well? For someone who is not a prominent and effective opponent to atheists, these guys sure have a lot to say about William Lane Craig. Maiorem (talk) 07:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

@Maiorem, I'm just saying, keep it in mind. @Jess and Theo, thanks for the feedback.. I'll go mining for sources when I have time. I'm a little bit confused by your response in particular though, theo. If it were the case that WLC were a prominent and effective opponent to atheists, wouldn't that be grounds for reporting it on a wiki page? And if some people say he is, and some people say he isn't, shouldn't we be reporting both instead of neither? I actually think the controversy Craig seems to generate is a fascinating thing on its own, and perhaps worthy of some content.Joycey17 (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Joycey17 -- I personally doubt that "prominent and effective opponent to atheists" is something that we could demonstrate using the ordinary techniques of research that available to us here on wikipedia. Again, this is part of my objection to using the Harris quote whatsoever. It doesn't substantiate very much if anything. But, again, the real and most important reason not to use the Harris quote is that it opens a tube of biased toothpaste... and you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. In this case, the Harris quote is absurdly biased. Dawkins and Grayling also have plenty to say about Craig as was mentioned above, but so do other prominent apologists and a few minor philosophers have comment on Craig, as well. I think I could probably put together a list of fifty to a hundred quotations about Craig, all of which would only serve to indicate a wide variety of opinions about Craig. And none of those opinions are really factual claims. Most are just congratulatory or dismissive. The tone would almost certainly not survive and, more to the point, a litany of opinions seems to me to be the opposite of what wikipedia is about -- so, neither rather than both. We're only interested in reliable, third party information --- not the rhetoric of cultural debate. The most I can offer here is that we include the word "controversial" somewhere in the article, but frankly... that seems a little be too loaded, too. Theowarner (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess I just don't see how the quote is "absurdly biased". It's just one atheist's observations about how other atheists seem to have reacted to Craig. I think that it could serve as support for another point, something along the lines of "Craig is a controversial figure amongst atheists. Sam Harris described Craig as (insert harris quote), while other atheists, such as (someone representative of this view), dismiss Craig as irrelevant (or whatever they say that makes you think the harris quote is unrepresentative)." I understand your concerns about putting opinions in an article, but I think you're going down the wrong track here. "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view should not be interpreted as the exclusion of certain points of view" (WP:NPOV). Personally I think if you stopped describing disputes it wouldn't just not be "what wikipedia is about", it'd make wikipedia just about disappear altogether.. Joycey17 (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Theo, if you knew well enough that there are about fifty to a hundred quotations about Craig by prominent atheists, prominent apologists and a few minor philosophers, do you not think that William Lane Craig is notable enough to receive comments from this many individuals? Furthermore, how do you judge that Richard Dawkins is even notable enough to receive his own page in that sense? Even Sam Harris. Regardless if they are factual claims, the quotes reflect what others view of Craig, and if we use them as direct quotes without interpreting them as jess did as a "joking remark" or some other, they would be perfectly in line with what Wikipedia is about. And, in case you have not read my response above, Theo, third party information is not the only source of information required for a BLP, and indeed, we're not talking about rhetoric of cultural debate either. And I second Joycey17's suggestion to include a quote by some other prominent atheist which dismisses Craig as a counter-point of the Harris quote if you are that concerned with neutrality, rather than throw the baby with the bath water. Maiorem (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Joycey, I think that suggestion would be a good one, provided we can find two quotes which appropriately represent a notable community view about Craig, and can source the statement that he is "controversial". I don't necessarily think that would be too hard, but our current sources don't yet back up that he is controversial, at least any more than any other public figure. The best way to do this would be to find sources, and then discuss how we should present the ones we have. @Maiorem, our content policies are different than our article inclusion policies. If you don't think Dawkins is notable, you can take the page to AfD, but his page meeting WP:N has no bearing on this content discussion. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean your content policies and your article inclusion policies. I would suggest you take time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's content policies and article inclusion policies and not place your own restrictions. Also, I want to know how you came about judging Sam Harri's quote as a "joking remark". Maiorem (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Maiorem, please see the last paragraph in the lead of WP:N. It's stated elsewhere too. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jess. If "controversial" is too loaded, perhaps "Atheists have deferring views" would be less so? I went looking for some support for a quote to contrast with harris, and the best I could come up with on short notice was Laurence Kraus's view that WLC is more of a "proselytizer" than a "philosopher", which can be found here. Is this ok, or does anyone know of anything better? On a side note I came across this. Given we are proposing talking about atheistic opinion of Craig, should this source be used and if so, how? Joycey17 (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and? You're not answering my question, Jess. Maiorem (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The "atheistic opinion"? I feel like the following problems emerge when we do this 'Atheists think [insert Sam Harris quote] and [insert some other quote.]' The problem is this: Sam Harris' quote probably doesn't represent about half the atheistic response to Craig. 'Atheist think X and Sam Harris is a rare exception' might be more accurate. I'm not sure. And, also... we just don't know what the quote means. Sam Harris may have be evaluating his fan mail rather than describing his own opinion. 'Sam Harris' fans think [insert Sam Harris quote] but Sam Harris thinks [insert some other Sam Harris quote.]' Theowarner (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

@Maiorem You asked me some questions that I didn't understand. "Theo, if you knew well enough that there are about fifty to a hundred quotations about Craig by prominent atheists, prominent apologists and a few minor philosophers, do you not think that William Lane Craig is notable enough to receive comments from this many individuals? Furthermore, how do you judge that Richard Dawkins is even notable enough to receive his own page in that sense?" I think that Craig is notable enough to deserve a wikipedia page. Is that what you're asking me? Dawkins is notable, as well. The number of quotes we can root up about people isn't really the point. But, I feel like I'm not getting your question. Theowarner (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok Theo, so we have 3 sources: The harris quote, the Krauss essay and the Muehlhauser reviews. The Harris quote is more or less supported by the Muehlhauser reviews, while the Krauss essay states a different opinion. If these three sources are what we are going off, I'd say that constitutes at least enough evidence to say that "some atheists regard Craig as an effective debater", or simply to state the Harris quote as at least partially representative. If "probably doesn't represent" is still your concern, it's on you to back that up with sources. Joycey17 (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, again, we seem to be trying to do something here that seems somehow to introduce bias. What's the point of saying that "some atheists regard Craig as an effective debater"? Effective is the word that I have an issue with. That may be a fact and, in fact, I have no doubt that it is. But, why should we mention that? We've already mentioned that he's a debater.... why do we need to express some comment evaluating his effectiveness? That seems like a judgement that we aren't supposed to represent. He's a debater. End of comment. Theowarner (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It is here that I agree with you that it is not necessary to state "some atheists regard Craig as an effective debater". However, we should include quotes by prominent atheists such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, A.C. Grayling, etc. about Craig to indicate that Craig is indeed notable among the atheist community, or at least among the academic atheists community. Maiorem (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, we disagree about whether Craig is actually notable among the atheist community and/or the academic atheists community or to what extent that notability exists. But, more to the point -- I'm not sure that demonstrating his notability in that way is as important as our description of what makes him notable. There's a quote which I provided about Craig's notability within apologetics. It's not saying that he is notable per se but does speak about his influence on Christian apologetics. I'm only just realizing this by Craig's relationship to atheism is a little bit difficult to talk about because it's not like he's made any inroads in the atheistic community like he has in Christian apologetics. Kalam is a great example of a lasting contribution that he's made. There's nothing in his critique of atheism except that he has actually made a critique of atheism... but, there's no real reason why Craig's criticism is weightier than anyone else's. Theowarner (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That disagreement is unfounded in light of the amount of quotes we do have concerning Craig by many atheist academicians. Craig's notability within apologetics is a separate issue from Craig's notability among atheists, thus one does not supersede the other. Regardless of Craig's influence on Christian apologetics, Craig's notability among atheists is the issue at hand. Once again, you are in no position to talk about Craig's work among the atheistic community; your personal ignorance of Craig's work cannot be used to justify the impact of his work; this should be left to appropriate representatives of the atheistic community to decide, but as a matter of fact, they have a lot to say about Craig. Kalam is not the only contribution that he's made even though that's what he is most prominent for. William Lane Craig has contributed a section titled "Theistic Critiques of Atheism" in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism and here he has provided for us the unabridged version. Consider that his critique has been published by a reliable and notable third party, that places some real weight to his criticism. Of course, there are many other critiques he has offered of atheism that can be found on his website, and they are weighted in that they are offered by one who holds a PhD in Philosophy and one who holds a Doctor of Theology. Maiorem (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That, by the way, would be an excellent source for a line like "Craig has criticized atheism." Returning to this whole "personal ignorance" of mine, as your put it, you're right that simply because I don't have specific knowledge that Craig is notable among atheists, then it does not follow that Craig is not notable. Nor, of course, does it follow that simply because we can find atheists talking about Craig that he is in fact notable among atheists. "Notable" doesn't mean "has been noted." It's a judgement about relative importance. And, again, we're not actually discussing right now whether Craig is notable or whether Craig is notable among atheists. That's an interesting topic and I'm sure we've touched on it. What seems to be the issue is whether the Harris quote is appropriate for use in the wikipedia page whatsoever and then, whether what it does in the article is appropriate. I would prefer we locate a quote that is plagued by so many issues. Theowarner (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That line does not do justice to Craig's critique on atheism. It would be more accurate to state, as I did, that "William Lane Craig has contributed a section titled "Theistic Critiques of Atheism" in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism." with reference to The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Actually, we are still discussing as to whether Craig is notable among atheists, hence the argument as to whether we should include references to Craig by other notable atheists. These issues appear to be manufactured and not inherent, and would not serve to impede its inclusion in Wikipedia. Maiorem (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Theo, have you ever watched the debate where the quote originated from, or at least read through the transcript of the debate? From the context of utterance we can determine what Sam Harris meant when he said that "I just want to say, it’s an honor to be here at Notre Dame, and I’m very happy to be debating Dr. Craig, the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists. I’ve actually gotten more than a few emails this week, that more or less read, “Brother, please, don’t blow this.” So, you will be the judge." How is 'Atheist think X and Sam Harris is a rare exception' more accurate? Of course you are not sure, because you do not have sources to back any of your assertions. Direct quotes do not offer an interpretation or original research, Theo. Allow me to clarify my previous question; I was referring to Craig's notability among atheists, which you disagree with. Maiorem (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen that debate and read the transcript and especially the parts in question. As I read the quote, I see many ways that the sentences can relate to each other. I would say that the "fear of God" phrase is a reference a coy reference to the e-mails he received. And that he's asking the audience to judge whether that fear should exist. He's not at all suggesting that that is his own opinion on Craig. Likewise, he's using "atheist" to refer to his e-mails, not to the broader atheistic community. Anyway... You seem to be rebuking me for not have my own sources. I'm not sure what sources you're asking me to provide. We're discussing a single quote. What will other sources do for us? Theowarner (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You see many ways that the sentences can relate to each other, but those are your views and are thus unimportant. "I would say that the..." is also your own personal opinion and is thus irrelevant. "He's not at all suggesting..." is your personal interpretation/opinion and not derived from any explanation offered by Sam Harris regarding his statement and thus requires no consideration. "Likewise, he's using..." what? Are you serious here? That Sam Harris specifically said "many of my fellow atheists" is actually referring to his e-mails, which would mean his intention was to say "the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow e-mails"? I must urge you to please seriously consider what you are saying as an editor before coming up with excuses for this quote. Indeed, we are discussing a single quote, and I'm asking for sources which would validate your personal opinions regarding the meaning of the quote or the intention of its utterance, where you completely ignore the context of utterance. Maiorem (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that my interpretations, while being my own, are not irrelevant. Frankly, any interpretation about the quote is worth considering since we are offering the quote and endorsing the quote. We're lending it weight relative to other quotes and relative to the page. When I said that the quote referred to the e-mails, did you really think I meant the e-mails and not the persons who wrote the e-mails? I can't believe that you're being charitable or proceeding in good faith if you understand me in that way. Again, quote-selection is an act of interpretation and I'm concerned that this quote leads to inflammatory and biased interpretations. And, finally, I'm not ignoring the context of its utterance. I am in fact insisting that it's context be respected. It matters a great deal and complicates, especially considering that we will be divorcing it from its context. Theowarner (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Your interpretations are irrelevant because you are not a representative of any community. If a non-English speaker were to misinterpret a particular quote which could lead to misunderstandings, would that be enough reason to exclude a quote? No. As far as I see it, your interpretation of this quote is far from valid, and does include a personal bias in the quote. We do not lend it weight; the context of utterance, i.e. the person speaking it, the location at which it was spoken, as well as the event in which it was spoken, are the ones lending weight to the quote. Not you, not me, not our interpretations. Furthermore, you need to be careful with your language, as going by what you said, "he's using "atheist" to refer to his e-mails", when applied to his quote, it would have to mean exactly as I have interpreted it. I am interpreting it as it appears, without making additional assumptions that are not available. What you believe concerning me is not of my concern, nor is it the concern of anyone else. As I have shown, the context of utterance gave this particular quote considerable weight. Thus, quote-selection in this instance does not give it undue weight, but the reason why this quote was selected was due to the inherent weight. Your concern is unfounded and is based on a poor interpretation of the quote. If you respected its context then perhaps you would not have interpreted it the way you did. How we are going to divorce the quote by mentioning the context of the quote baffles me; please explain. Maiorem (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to arrange for a dispute resolution. Thanks! Theowarner (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

POV -- referencing FOX News....

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/19/christian-pastor-atheists-debates/

This article is referenced in two citations. I'd just like to point out that the article draws heavily on a press release from Dr. Craig.

Here: http://www.pr.com/press-release/348093 Also... the quote it contains (" “I think we are living in a time in human history where physical science is more open to the existence of a creator and designer of the universe than at any time in recent memory.”") is unknown to me. I'm not sure where it comes from but if you google it, it appears no where except for the FOX News story and articles that clearly derive from it.

I guess I'm a little concerned that it isn't just part of the promotion for Craig's UK tour.

And, it's worth adding.... This one quote is hardly useful in summing up Craig's work. His comment that the goal of apologetics is to turn back the Enlightenment is more of a summary, to my mind.

Theowarner (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This was also removed, per the above discussion. I don't personally see how the quote is relevant to Craig's bio, except to promote his views; This quote is about the state of apologetics, not about Craig, and the dubious nature of its origin is even further reason it should be left out.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we reduce the bio section even further?

The bio section contains a list of where Dr. Craig went to school. Personally, I'd like to remove the BA from Wheaton College. That seems pretty insignificant. My proposal, though, is that the MAs in Church History and Philosophy of Religion as well as the PhD and ThD be moved to the grey box off to the side there.... And just be listed as data and not as complete sentences. As for where he taught, I propose we eliminate all of that and state in the grey box that he currently is a Research Professor at Talbot. So....

Craig received a BA in communications from Wheaton College, Illinois in 1971 and two MA degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinoisin 1975, in philosophy of religion and church history. He earned a Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of Birmingham, England in 1977 and a Th.D. underWolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich in 1984.^[1] From 1980 to 1986 he was an assistant professor of philosophy at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He briefly held the position of associate professor of religious studies at Westmont College, Santa Barbara, California from 1986 to 1987. From 1987 to 1994 Craig pursued further research at the University of Leuven, Belgium. Since 1996 he has been a research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, California.^[1]

↑We do that.

Theowarner (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ethics?

I would like something about WLC's view of ethics, as expressed here [1], that if God orders genocide, because God is good, that genocide is morally acceptable. That certainly solves the Euthyphro dilemma - good is whatever God says it is. (It just makes a mockery of good and evil as we understand them.) --Hugh7 (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a secondary source which has noted Craig's view on ethics? Otherwise it's probably not notable enough for a discussion in this article. Huon (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure about the notability issue but I think that a summary of his beliefs is appropriate. It's interesting because a lot of people think he's just a philosopher and apologist. But, he has a lot of views that seem to get lost in the mix. The one above is one. His views of sexuality are interesting, too. Theowarner (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, this article does not need to misrepresent Craig's ethical views. He has never identified himself as a divine command theorist. Although he believes God's commands are always good, they are good only because God commands only that which is consistent with his own nature. The divine nature is the objective standard that gives definition to good and evil, not divine commands. Second, I get the impression that the only reason you would want his views on biblical ethics mentioned is in order to depict him as pro-genocide. And on a side note, he has publicly endorsed fellow Christian philosopher Paul Copan's book, Is God a Moral Monster?, which attempts to acquit God of the charge of genocide on the basis of ancient historical and literary arguments. Theo, Craig's particular views on sexuality are no more pertinent to his Wiki article than his views on illegal immigration. He is most well known as a apologetical author and debater, as an analytic philosopher, and as a philosophical theologian, so his positions on those subjects are more to the point. 98.91.11.166 (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I can agree that the article does not need to represent his ethical views, much like his views on sexuality or illegal immigration. You're right that he's known as an author and debator. I'm not sure he's known as an analytic philosopher, however. But, I agree with the sentiment that we should definitely focus this article on the areas where Craig is competent. Theowarner (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Is he notable?

I have a general feeling that this article is currently not very complete. I compare it with other articles, such as the one for Bart Ehrman, and I see dissimilarities between the two. I actually think the Bart Ehrman article is far better written, but that's just IMO. What do you think? Does this thing need a re-write? That said, Bart Ehrman has appeared on the Colbert Report, a credible criteria for whether you're notable or not LOL. But seriously, what do you think about the dissimilarities? Theowarner, you're probably the loudest anti-craig person here, so what do you think? --Andygsp (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman is a figure with similar notability to Craig, and he has a well written article, I agree. I think the rewrite should be based on a similar format to the Erhman page. If you want to attempt this, feel free (WP:Bold). Joycey17 (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the recent remove of the tag about WLC's notability. He is notable. No doubt about it. Theowarner (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is he notable: have you found answers to the questions of (i) what exactly WLC is notable for and/or (ii) what third party material there is that demonstrates that he is notable? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, I don't believe there's a need to cite a third-party source calling him notable. I'm not sure why the article does not mention his many debates with other notable people such as Gerd Lüdemann, Marcus Borg, Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier, Paul Kurtz, Antony Flew, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Peter Atkins, A. C. Grayling, Victor Stenger, and Shelly Kagan, to name only a few. Of course, Polly Toynbee and especially Richard Dawkins categorically refuse to debate him (Grayling refuses to debate him again on meta-ethics), and Dawkins has stated that he is an unworthy opponent whom he "loathes viscerally," but that does not mean Craig does not deserve his own Wiki entry. He most certainly does. 98.91.11.166 (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

98.91.11.166: your 'beliefs' have no basis in policy. WP:Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so yes, significant third party coverage is required. The article does not at present cover these debates, because nobody can find reliable third-party coverage of them. And the reason that he may "not deserve his own Wiki entry" is NOT because a whole bunch of people think he's loathsome, but because nobody can find significant, reliable independent coverage on him! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You'll find references to WLC and his apologetics and debates on the websites and blogs of a number of prominent atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers to name a few). All seem to agree that, although he's a douchebag whose arguments don't hold water, he's fairly prominent in the field of public speakers on apologetics. Although blogs aren't generally strong sources, I'd say we have enough evidence from people who are reliable in knowing when an apologist is sufficiently prominent to warrant a specific rebuttal. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

"...he's a douchebag whose arguments don't hold water..."

If only Dawkins had the courage to defend that contention to Craig's face. Unfortunately he's felt too uncomfortable to debate academics since his rather humiliating exchange with John Lennox. 98.91.11.166 (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Such debates value style over substance and are purely entertainment, with little or no scholarly merit. Why should Dawkins want to turn up to such a 'dog and pony show', against an opponent who appears to have little in the way of serious academic gravitas? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You can dismiss all debates as mere sophistry if you like, but it does not change the fact that, although Richard Dawkins has been been more than happy to debate such intellectual giants as Kirk Cameron and Ted Haggard, he refuses to debate well qualified academics who are abundantly capable of chewing up his poor, tired arguments and spitting them out. He speaks with supreme confidence, but his actions demonstrate that underneath he is a coward. If Dawkins elects not to show up at Oxford's Sheldonian Theatre for the scheduled debate with Craig, then Craig will simply give a philosophical lecture critiquing the abysmal arguments in The God Delusion. You might think William Lane Craig lacks "academic gravitas," but Dawkins' biological background in no way qualifies him as an authoritative voice on the question of the existence of God; Craig's philosophy credentials do. 98.91.11.166 (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(i) Such sources bestow no notability (both on general principles, as self-published sources, and because such sources often poke fun at quite obscure individuals), (ii) per WP:BLPSPS, they may not be used in a BLP about a third party. As such, they're of no help whatsoever. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you're still inclined to label Craig an "obscure individual" despite the fact that, as one of the world's foremost apologists for Christian theism, he has engaged so many other "notable individuals" in public debates and has written more extensively than anyone else on the Kalām cosmological argument for the existence of God simply astounds me. If Craig does not meet your notability standards, then no Christian apologists do. 98.91.11.166 (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

98.91.11.166 Kindly cease and desist misrepresenting my comments. I DID NOT "label Craig an 'obscure individual'". My point is that (i) "Dawkins, Harris, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers", etc quite frequently ridicule quite obscure individuals (I can go to their blogs and dig up examples, if you want), (ii) so that the fact that they ridicule Craig is not a sign of notability. And repeated claims that he's "one of the world's foremost apologists for Christian theism" (or variants thereof) are simply worthless argumentum ad nauseam, lacking substantiation in the form of reliable third-party coverage of his activities as an apologist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"Kindly cease and desist misrepresenting my comments. I DID NOT label Craig and 'obscure individual'." Your point is well taken, so chill. Sam Harris, whom you mentioned by name and who himself has made no "notable" contributions to any field except popular (i.e., militant, non-academic) atheism, debated Craig at the University of Notre Dame, as I noted previously, on whether science can provide us with a system of moral values (the topic of Harris' recent book, The Moral Landscape, which has been negatively reviewed by both professional philosophers and scientists alike). Would you call this merely "poking fun?" Moreover Craig spanked Harris because of the latter's use of red herrings as well as his evident lack of education and competence in ethics. Hrafn, there is no need for a third-party source labeling William Lane Craig a notable figure deserving his own entry, as his impressive C.V. clearly implies he fits that description. 98.91.11.166 (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a wonderful book called A History of Apologetics by Avery Cardinal Dulles. It mentions Craig and thus, I would say that Craig is notable. What is notable, however, is that it mentions Craig as a utterly minor player in a small corner of modern apologetics. Theowarner (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Which corner of apologetics would that be? I'm not really that worried by the fact that it only "mentions Craig as a utterly minor player" in it -- at this stage, even third party sourcing as to his shoe size would start to look good. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

[Looks up the book for himself on Google Books] Natural theology, I take it? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised given the relationship between Intelligent design and William Paley. Do you think we can make a sentence or two out of this? I'll be WP:BOLD and make an attempt. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Added it. The reference to natural theology in Dulles however was somewhat indirect -- so I was unable to make mention of it without engaging in marginal WP:Synthesis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow... you did that very well. That's really all we can say, imo. Theowarner (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Being described by Sam Harris as "the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists" is not notable enough? That was stated during the second installment of "The God Debate" at the University of Notre Dame on 7 April 2011. Here's the video of the debate as recorded by the University of Notre Dame, and here's a transcript of the debate. Objective enough? Maiorem (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. Sam Harris' opinion of Craig does not make Craig notable. Now, I know that's not quite what you mean, but I'm not sure what the factual claim here is. Craig has a reputation among atheists? Well... that's certainly not true because many atheists couldn't care less about Craig. So, Craig has a reputation among some atheists? Well, that certainly is true, but hardly notable. I have a reputation among some atheists. So, I suppose the point would be that Craig has based some threshold of notability among atheists. This may be true, but, were it, we could hardly substantiate based only on Harris' word. There are, of course, contextual issues with the quote that need to be preserved, bias issues considering how much Craig has used this quote in his promotional literature, and, most importantly, the quote simply doesn't substantiate the intended, underlying meaning. For the record, I think Craig is notable so this conversation has already moved passed its intended purpose, but Craig's notability is neither caused by Harris' quote nor substantiated by it. Theowarner (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Theo, you are in no position to claim that "many atheists couldn't care less about Craig". Harris, on the other hand, as a prominent representative of his own group, the atheist community, is in a position to make any such claims about Craig, which proves to be the contrary. As I have argued, Sam Harris' opinion of Craig's impact on his community is notable in itself. You are not as prominent as Sam Harris is, thus your claims that "many atheists couldn't care less about Craig" carries no weight or verifiability. If you have indeed taken note of what Harris specifically said, Craig's impact is on "many" atheists, not "some". If there are any, please state the contextual issues with the quote, as the whole debate has been made available on YouTube as well as in transcript, as I have pointed out. Do not merely make up excuses. Also, Craig did not use this quote in his promotional literature; that press release was not from Craig, but the organizers of the Reasonable Faith Tour. Furthermore, if there were issues with the use of that quote, Harris would have been the first person to speak out against its use in the promotional material, but he has never said a word denying it, thus there is no bias issue here. Please explain what is the alleged "intended, underlying meaning", because that appears to me as original research rather than taking the quote at face value. Do not impose your own interpretation of the quote, especially with no evidence to back that view. Maiorem (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"Theo, you are in no position to claim that "many atheists couldn't care less about Craig". I'm not? It would seem to me fairly obvious that many atheists couldn't care less about Craig. I'm not offering it, though, as a factual claim for inclusion in the article. I'm only suggesting it in weighing the significance of the Harris quote. I appreciate your interpretation of the Harris quote, that it is a claim about Craig, but I'm not convinced. I think it's a claim about his e-mail and, more importantly, I think it's probably meant in a complimentary setting. Everyone says something nice about their opponents... I'm not sure we can take it that seriously. Also, I have to say that I don't really think you're conducting yourself in the manner that's assumed of editors here on wikipedia. That said... I think I've made my objections pretty clear but I can restate them here: The quote's meaning is not clear because the quote could be complimentary, more so than accurate. Furthermore, the quote's claim (something like 'many atheists are afraid of Craig') strikes me as being the sort of claim that simply shouldn't be represented on wikipedia. "Atheists are afraid of X" is just an inflammatory statement. Even balanced against some other opinion. I'll think more on it. Theowarner (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Theo, you are not in such a position. That is your own opinion and is tied to my question to you in the other section, for if there are about fifty to a hundred quotes about Craig by atheists, how then could you claim that many atheists couldn't care less about Craig? Your suggestion is worthless if it were simply a matter of your own personal opinion. Furthermore, I did not offer any interpretation of Harris' quote, but merely suggesting a direct quotation of Sam Harris. Obviously the quote is a claim about Craig made by Sam Harris; that is no interpretation. You're not convinced, and? Then what? No, it is not a claim about his email. What you think is unimportant because we're offering a direct quote, not an interpretation, per WP:NOR. I'm not sure I could even take you seriously. Regardless of the quote's meaning, we offer it as a direct quote, void of third party interpretation, along with the context of the quote, such as follows: "During the second installment of the God Debate in the University of Notre Dame, notable atheist Sam Harris described Craig as "the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists." Is there any personal interpretation involved in the citation of this quote? Are there any issues to be found? No and no. If the manner that's assumed of editors here in Wikipedia is to be nice to everyone, then I admit that I don't act like that. I act in a fair and objective manner, which may involve direct criticisms against those who are guilty of wrongdoing. And even when the quote is stated explicitly, you still cannot be bothered to recheck the quote and instead opt to misrepresent the quote's claim as "something like 'many atheists are afraid of Craig'" and this is not acceptable for an editor of any kind. Of course "Atheists are afraid of X" is an inflammatory statement, but that does not even come close to what Sam Harris said. Maiorem (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the issues of interpretation emerge by quote-selection, not in added language that we would include. My point is that in selecting this quote, the wikipedia page suggests that it is a fair representation of the atheistic evaluation of Craig. So, is there an interpretation involved in the citation of this quote? Sure. Absolutely. We're assigning it weight. And, I think, undue weight. My point in offering possible interpretations like "atheists are afraid of Craig" is that those are inflammatory interpretations that one might reasonably interpret from the quote were we to use it. Frankly, it is entirely close to what Harris and it strikes me as a reasonable interpretation. Again, your tone and your assumptions about my good faith are not courteous. Theowarner (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not see your points as valid. Also, I do not see how one might "reasonably interpret" that "atheists are afraid of Craig" from the quote. That is not at all close to what Harris said, and perhaps that might stem from ignorance of the term "fear of God", but that is pure speculation as to how people might utterly misinterpret a phrase. The only way that quote could be interpreted that way is via failure in comprehension. I may not be courteous in that I am direct in terms of my criticisms, but I am not wrong in saying such things. Maiorem (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't see "the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists" to be a statement about atheists being afraid of Dr. Craig? Really? Theowarner (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course! If I had to explain this to you, Sam Harris simply meant that Dr Craig has caused many of his fellow atheists to doubt atheism. Can you please explain to me how "the fear of God" could be interpreted as a fear of Dr Craig? Maiorem (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, "doubt atheism" is YOUR interpretation. And second of all, "fear of God" means "really afraid." God is an emphatic and is not necessarily theistic. I think that's part of the wit of the quotation itself. Anyway, I'm going to arrange for dispute resolution. Theowarner (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That interpretation is on the basis of the meaning of "fear of God", which does not mean "really afraid". Please see Wikipedia's article on the Fear of God for more information. The "God" in this phrase is not emphatic. There is no such use of the phrase in the English language or in any other language for that matter; it is an absurd notion and would make absolutely no sense to suggest that "fear of God" refers to "great fear" in the least. Did you take it to mean something along the lines of "God's fear"? If so, that is due to your ignorance of the English language and the use of phrases which occur in the English language. This is a fact and is not meant to degrade you, but to show you where you have erred in your interpretation of this phrase. As such, you are strictly unqualified to comment on any interpretation of any quotes. I would also appreciate that you redirect me to the dispute resolution were it to occur. Maiorem (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/put+the+fear+of+God+into Theowarner (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Take it in its proper context, please. The debate is theological in nature, and it is irrational to state that William Lane Craig makes atheists scared. Also pardon my ignorance of the use of this phrase in America, as I am neither American nor do I study American English. However, my stand still remains that Sam Harris did not mean that William Lane Craig caused many of his fellow atheists to be greatly afraid. However, even if it were so, then it still stands that it is a direct quote by a prominent member of the atheist community and thus would not decrease its weight in terms of who uttered it, when it was uttered, where it was uttered, under what circumstances was it uttered and why it was uttered. Maiorem (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Synthesis based upon Craig's own book

98.91.11.166 keeps insisting on reinserting the following material:

Craig has worked extensively on the philosophy of time and defends the presentist or A theory of time over and against the eternalist or B theory. With respect to free will, Craig is a metaphysical libertarian and advocates the Molinist solution to the problem of human freedom and divine predestination. In 1979, he authored The Kalam Cosmological Argument, a defense of the argument of the same name.

Given that the source for this is Craig's own book (Craig, William Lane; Sinclair, James D. (2009). "The Kalam Cosmological Argument": 101–201. doi:10.1002/9781444308334.ch3. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)), this is mostly blatant WP:Synthesis, as well as inappropriate given the extent to which the article is already cited to Craig-affiliated material (particularly his Talbott CV, to which the bulk of the article is sourced). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't suppose you'd consider a philosopher/theologian's published works to be authoritative sources for his own views. If biographical information can be cited from third-party sources, provided those sources are scholarly enough to understand the nuances of his positions and are not antagonistic toward William Lane Craig (so as to avoid straw men), then sure—diversification of references is important. But for a list of someone's professional views in a biographical entry, it seems eminently reasonable to cite the person expressing those views as the most authoritative source concerning them. 98.91.11.166 (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I consider YOUR own interpretation of Craig's book to be YOUR "own views", and thus blatant WP:Synthesis. Please state where in his book he states "I worked extensively on the philosophy of time and defended the presentist or A theory of time over and against the eternalist or B theory." Please state where in his book he states "With respect to free will, I am a metaphysical libertarian and advocate the Molinist solution to the problem of human freedom and divine predestination." This is your interpretation. Please provide WP:SECONDARY sources supporting this interpretation. While you're at it please provide evidence that anybody other than Craig (and his friends) could care less about this book. "To cite the person expressing those views" (even assuming that they weren't heavily filtered through your own interpretation of them), without ANY third-party commentary is blatantly POV and unbalanced. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with inserting "philosophy of time" into a list of Craig's areas of interest. But, "worked extensively" is a problem for me. Aside from Craig himself, I'm not aware of any third-party source to substantiate this claim. He's published a few articles on time here and there... a book... From what I can tell, he's a small fish in the field of time. Theowarner (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, someone has to interpret the sources as saying something. So, yes, those are my (reasonable) interpretations of his own words. You are unfamiliar with the person over whose article you've lorded, and for some reason you seem hyper-skeptical about every single claim that has been made concerning his beliefs. Craig is relatively unconcerned with the case for meta-biological "intelligent design" in his books, articles, lectures, or debate presentations, yet it dominates the "Views" section mainly because third-party sources have jumped on him for his weak endorsement of ID. The citations are skewed in an ID direction at the moment and consequently are misleading. It suggests to the reader that creationism is the focus of Craig's philosophy or apologetics; he is not a creationist. I agree secondary source citations should be provided, but wanting to strip a biographical entry of its primary source content is ridiculous, especially considering the subject is alive and a controversial figure. Craig defends Molinism in Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom (New York, E.J. Brill; 1991), The Only Wise God (Eugene, Wipf and Stock; 1999), "The Middle Knowledge View" (Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), and "Middle Knowledge, Truth-Makers, and the Grounding Objection" (Faith and Philosophy 18 (2001): 337-52)—all according to the Wiki entry for Molinism, which names Craig as one of the view's most prominent defenders. Molinism, furthermore, is a proposed way to maintain both libertarianism and individual predestination, so his position on free will is clarified by his advocacy of Molinism. His endorsement of the A theory of time is fully explained in The Tensed Theory of Time: A Critical Examination (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2010), The Tenseless Theory of Time: A Critical Examination (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2010), as well as in Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time (Wheaton: Crossway; 2001), "Timelessness and Omnitemporality" (God & Time: Four Views. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), and elsewhere in other works. This is why I could claim he has "worked extensively" in the philosophy of time, but if you still feel this language is too generous or exaggerated, then remove it and replace it with something you believe is more suitable. The fact is, there is an abundance of primary source material stating his philosophical and theological views (Obviously these are not merely my private and unsubstantiated interpretations; if you still doubt it, then the Molinism article must need your correction, too.), and it is not inappropriate to cite his books and articles for information concerning his own beliefs. 98.91.11.166 (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll jump in here and say that I don't think the quote above can possibly be used in our article. It contains, at least, the following assumption: Craig's work on the philosophy of time is extensive. Personally, I doubt that extensive is true. I've mentioned this before. I think that, ultimately, we will need to substantiate Craig's views by observing those views represented in third party, reliable resources. I think that 98.91.11.166 has done a good job of demonstrated that Craig works in the field of the philosophy of time. This means that the phrase "philosophy of time" deserves some place in the article. That's about it. I see no reason to mention Molinism yet. Oh, and let me say that 'philosophy of time' is already listed as one of Craig's interests. And, finally... Craig doesn't really seem to be notable when it comes to the philosophy of time. Maybe he is. We'd need a source for that, though. Theowarner (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No reason to mention Molinism despite having at least four separate sources where Craig has argued for it, not including his own website where he has presented numerous articles on Molinism? And please allow me to remind you here that self-published works are allowed per WP:SELFPUB. Maiorem (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Relative to Craig's body of work, Molinism may or may not be notable. But, relative to Craig's notability in general, it doesn't strike me as especially notable. What I mean is: Craig get's a wikipedia page because of XYZ. I have difficulty imagining that Molinism is the X,Y, or Z. But, I think this depends on what we going to include as his views. Just a general description of the areas of his publication? In a sense, I'm okay with that. But, when it come to understanding that entire person and what he's doing in the world, his published works aren't entirely representative. His debates are a big part of that and so are some of his other opinions, like his opinions of homosexuality, on the place of religion in public life, his perceptions about Christian persecution, his view of apologetics in the life of Christians and so on. But, all of these views make the article rather incendiary. My inclination is to just keep the article very brief and only mention the most major and most significant ares of his professional life. Debates. And the most general description of his academic life. He's an analytic philosopher and leave it at that. Interested persons can do off-wikipedia research if they want more than that. Theowarner (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"defense of cosmological intelligent design from the fine-tuning of the universe"

I would point out that as far as I can remember, none of the cited sources (which I added) mention either cosmology or fine-tuning in mentioning Craig's "defense of intelligent design". The claim would therefore appear to be pure WP:OR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Which is why a list of Craig's most acclaimed debates would be an appropriate addition to the article. He provides a philosophical argument for a Designer of the universe on the basis of cosmic fine-tuning almost every time he debates the existence of God. There are numerous videos on YouTube, most of them uploaded by the user drcraigvideos, which attest to his endorsement of cosmological "intelligent design," if one wants to call it that. 98.91.11.166 (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No. Even if it weren't for the already-excessive reliance on Craig-as-a-source, we could not use these. They are WP:PRIMARY sources, so cannot be used for interpretations such as "his work in theistic and Christian apologetics also includes defense of cosmological intelligent design from the fine-tuning of the universe", without a WP:SECONDARY source supporting this interpretation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree with Hrafn's interpretation here. A debate isn't really a fair basis for a comment about Craig's overall beliefs. They are primary sources. But, also, debate have a problem as a source whatsoever because they're really about presenting Craig's views, they are about winning over an audience for or against a proposition. This means that Craig may not present his views on issue X, but a version of issue X that will win the argument. So, we really can't use debates for much. Theowarner (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

While I think we should assume Craig states his positions accurately in debate (I find it rather cynical to suspect without warrant that he might be covering up his actual beliefs for rhetorical purposes.), if the consensus is that public debates are not the most reliable sources to gather someone's personal views, then that's fine. I would also note, however, that the aforementioned user has also uploaded plenty of lectures where Craig makes a case for a cosmic Architect on the basis of the fine-tuning of the Big Bang's initial conditions and argued against the multiverse hypothesis. Would you consider lectures more reliable sources than debates? Hrafn, cite secondary references for the "Academic background" section if you believe there is too much reliance on primary material for this article, but primary references should not be barred from the "Views" section since no one can articulate William Lane Craig's positions more accurately or more authoritatively than Craig himself. 98.91.11.166 (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

To expand on the comments above, primary sources are okay for some things, but according to WP:SPS, we need to be careful about their use: "Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." BLP's are even more restrictive than regular articles on insuring the accuracy of the things we report, particularly when it comes to the views or actions of the subject. We have to be careful that his position has not changed, and we should not be presenting certain facts disproportionately to others. This all becomes rather difficult when working with a single primary source, which isn't republished in any secondary medium. Youtube is also not a reliable source, primary or otherwise. The question should be, "has any reliable secondary source ever published information on Craig's views on this topic?" If the answer is no, then why are we going out of our why to try to include our own coverage?   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Which Book?

A while ago there was a wonderful sentence in the first paragraph that mention Craig's The Kalam Cosmological argument. Now, it seems to have been replaced with a sentence about Reasonable Faith. Reasonable Faith is a fine book but it is one of many books that summarize apologetics. It's hardly the best, first, or last. But, The Kalam Cosmological Arugment is far more unique. In fact, if I were to reduce Craig's entirely article to one sentence, I think it would still need to mention The Kalam Cosmological Argument. I think we should revert to Kalam over Reasonable Faith. I'm making the change now. Please discuss here if there are issues. Theowarner (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer neither book to be mentioned in the lead, lacking any third-party notice bestowing particular importance on either of them (in fact lacking any third-party notice, they really belong nowhere but the Bibliography). But having to choose, I'd prefer not to see the unsourced claim that "Craig's most popular book ... is Reasonable Faith", so TKCA would appear the lesser of two evils. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing on ReasonableFaith

A thread was posted about the recent changes to this article on the Reasonablefaith forum. Here's the link. I've encouraged some of those posters to discuss the topic here. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Small proposed change

"He is a prolific debater best known for defending the existence of God, the ontological necessity of God for objective ethical values and duties, and the historicity of the physical resurrection of Jesus." Δ "He is a prolific debater best known for defending the existence of God, the ontological necessity of God for objective ethical values and duties, and the historicity of the physical resurrection of Jesus." Theowarner (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a source for the two claims you'd be deleting? I don't see any, but perhaps I missed them. If not, then yes, go ahead and remove them.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No sources. I'll delete them. Theowarner (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:IRS Non-dust jacket sources

Re the PS tag. There's enough here to replace some of the book cover sourced content with 3rd parties. Good luck In ictu oculi (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Splitting the "views" section.

This article requires expansion. I am proposing that the views section be split into two categories: the kalam cosmological argument, and other views. William Lane Craig is known for his defence of the kalam argument, so it should have its own section. This section could be expanded using <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#4>.. What does everyone think? Joycey17 (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as the Kalam Cosmological Argument has its own page, this should be necessary, and the KCA page should be linked here. Maiorem (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

@Joycey Sections aren't typically split in order to give emphasis. They are split to logically group content, or separate longer sections. Right now, we only have two or so sentences, so splitting the section seems premature. I definitely agree that the article needs expansion, and including that source is very helpful to that end. However, I'm not sure how suitable it would be to, for instance, include a detailed formulation of Kalam within this article. You have not proposed we do this, of course, but I'm sort of reading between the lines to envision what content you wish to include. Can you give more specific examples of what you have in mind? Thanks.

@Maiorem, KCA is already linked in the lead and views sections.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Not saying a detailed formulation is needed, but perhaps a general one would be welcome? I would suggest stating the aims of Kalam, noting what makes Craig's formulation unique in light of past versions, and possibly listing a few responses to it as per the new source? Joycey17 (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Stating the aims of Kalam, noting the uniqueness of Craig's forumlation, and listing responses to it would be informative. It would also be more suited to the page on Kalam. And, of course, it's important that it be substantiated with reliable sources. We could each probably write a fine paragraph, but that's not how wikipedia works. Theowarner (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"Extensive and influential"?

Pretty loaded language there. I'm deleting it. Theowarner (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Source's words, not mine. Joycey17 (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Well, we seem to be at this again. We're talking about this sentence: "He is notable amongst his fellow philosophers for his extensive and influential work in thephilosophy of time and the philosophy of religion." I feel that it should not be included for the following reasons.

• It is not our place to assert that Craig's work is either extensive or influential as these are terms of evaluation. The alternative evaluation, the Craig's work is scant and unimportant, is equally inappropriate. WP:NPOV. The neutral comment, therefore, is that 'Craig writes' or 'publishes' or something like that.
• The quote is not reliable. It comes from the introduction in a debate. People may not realize this but the biographical introductions in a debate almost always come from the participants themselves. I'm be 100% certain in this case but, I'm willing to bet that Dr. Craig had a hand in crafting those sentences. Alternatively, regardless of whether Craig had a hand in it, biographical introductions in debates are almost always complimentary. It's a sign of graciousness at a debate to speak highly of the participants. We should not understand the sentence as an attempt to objectively describe Craig's career. Theowarner (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I think I can accept your reasoning in terms of "influential", but I think the source covers "notable" and "extensive" well enough, and they seem to be much less on the loaded side. I think someone like Rea would be given the job of moderator partly in order to provide a sense of authority to the introduction, so I think on that basis (that he does provide it), it would be ok to leave the less loaded terms there. Joycey17 (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Harris and Krauss

I'm sorry to continue rehashing this. But, right now, as the article reads, we have "Craig did XYZ." And then, two sentences from Harris and Krauss evaluating Craig as both really great and not so great. The combined effect seems to be that Craig is less a straight forward philosopher, but some wild and crazy guy. I'll work think about how better to explain that but, I think both quotes (especially combined) are not appropriate in the article and really undermine any objectivity. Craig's bio should basically be this: "Craig is a philosopher and apologist. He writes on subjects ABC. He reintroduced Kalam." And nothing more. This attempt seems to be about depicting him as a divisive cultural figure or someone who is both effective and loathed or whatever. Those characterizations may be true, but it's just not our place on an encyclopedia article to get into that. Now, if Craig's career suddenly becomes more important and we need to produce twenty-five times more material for the page, then speaking about his reception in the atheist community might be important. And that's another thing: why are we citing two his debate opponents? Why a colleague? Or just a third party observer? I'm but these sentences are a total fail. Theowarner (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that it makes the article more interesting, and helps establish WP:N. Craig is an interesting figure; people who have divergent opinions stated about them consistently generally are. It's the main reason I'm interested in Craig at all. Should we ignore what makes Craig interesting? Now I'm not saying that what you're saying seems to indicate a genuine desire to make Craig appear as uninteresting as possible, which would be a violation of WP:NPOV. It just seems to me that it's fine. The material is sourced. It's relevant and interesting. It's objective (I don't see how it's not; you called the Harris quote unrepresentative, I suggested you place a counter-quote so we could describe the apparent dispute and make the article more interesting. Failing that, I provided one for you, and was even generous enough to ascribe the POV to "some" atheists, rather than just Krauss, per your view that the opinion was widespread.) So, I think there is no reason it should not all be included in a proper WP article. I believe that if the information indicates that Craig is less a straight forward philosopher, that's probably because he is not a straight forward philosopher. He's apparently a little bit controversial; i.e. interesting. I think the main point here is it's not exactly the aim of WP to suppress interesting, relevant information. Also, WP:N is the criteria for importance, and that is what is being partially established by the quotes. The source for that other sentence is moderator Michael C. Rea - an analytic philosopher at the University of Notre Dame. Thanks for your feedback. Joycey17 (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but "more interesting" isn't the point. When you ask, "should we ignore what makes Craig interesting?" I'm forced to answer: yes. For the most part, when makes Craig interesting is precisely inappropriate for this article. For example, I find some of Craig's comments on his podcasts (like his view that women who refuse to have sex with husbands are abusing their husbands, that it is the woman's duty to give sex to his husband) that make him most interesting. But, clearly, that is DEEPLY inappropriate for a wikipedia article. That some people think Craig is the greatest philosopher since Thomas Aquinas and some people think he has the analytic ability that God gave celery are opinions that should not be represented on this page. We should stick to the obvious and easily sourced facts about Craig's career and leave it at that. As to your suggestion that Craig is not a straight forward philosopher, I agree and that's because he's also known as a public debater. We can mention that inert fact. Again, when we evaluate his status as controversial, we're opening a massive can of biased worms. This might be different if the controversy Craig caused was unto itself about Craig -- like the controversy Che Guevara started or Andy Warhol started. But, Craig is just participating as a public intellectual in an controversy as old as time: does God exist? It strikes me as not noteworthy that some people think he's great and some people don't. The same can be said for almost every person involved in that debate. Theowarner (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just these opinions are coming from notable people, on what seems to be a key issue relating to Craig: his reception amongst those whose opinion he has spent his career challenging. If you've got more notable sources with more representative quotes, those should be shared instead. However, I think there is a clear call for this sort of information, generally. You could argue that the controversy that Warhol or Guevara were involved in was related more to people's opinion's on art and politics, just as the controversy around Craig is related to people's opinion on religion. The point is, just as Warhol and Guevara were arguably focus points for more wide-spread attitudes in society, Craig is similarly (albeit less publicly) a focus point. My argument is that he is interesting in this regard. Joycey17 (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Please note this revert, along with the series of prior reverts by SPAs. @Maiorem, what consensus? I don't see anywhere this was discussed further, since prior consensus was to remove the material.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There was no such prior consensus to remove the materials as the relevant sources were not even discussed here. I even brought the matter up to WP:BLPN but even then you have failed to answer to my query concerning the reason as to why those sources were not accepted, and now it is automatically cleaned up so if there is need, you will have to go to the archives to refer to the previous discussion where your silence concerning the issue is noted. Furthermore, three different users (go check the IP addresses if you wish) have agreed, based on the recent reverts, that the removed material has no basis for their removal. Do not talk about prior consensus where there was none. Maiorem (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say Reasonable Faith and Closer to Truth are not reliable sources because the former is self-published and the latter is entertainment, not a scholarly source. Apparently Hipocrite agreed at the BLP noticeboard. The current long version of the article is full of primary sources. I agree with Jess and Hipocrite: It's better to have a short, well-sourced article than a long, poorly-sourced one. Huon (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Reasonable Faith website, then you are correct in saying that it is "self-published", but it is still an acceptable source for WP:BLP under WP:SELFPUB as I have stated before here as well as the WP:BLPN. In addition to that, Closer to Truth is not entertainment. An agreement from a dyslexic user who has zero administrative power and one who embellishes his own page with random nonsense from January to October of 2010 (all his own doing, removing content, inserting content, arguing with himself, etc.) and who has not addressed my statements on the board means absolutely nothing. Maiorem (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS states: Self-published or questionable sources may be used [...] so long as [...] the article is not based primarily on such sources. If half the article is exclusively based on self-published sources and the other half still features them prominently, with very few truly reliable secondary sources to compensate, that is not acceptable. You have stated your opposition, but it seems you are alone while everybody else who commented agrees on this. And I'd strongly advise you to redact your comments about Hipocrite. You asked for additional opinions at WP:BLPN, you got one, and since you don't like it you now try to discredit it by attacking the user. Not cool. Huon (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Maiorem, please note WP:PA. That type of comment is unacceptable. Consensus was settled on this, and you were told as much when you escalated the problem to BLPN. It's time to drop the stick and move on. Please find reliable, secondary sources, and we can use them to expand the article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

However, according to your reversion, the following sources are ignored without basis: The Evangelical Philosophical Society; The Cambridge Companion to Atheism; The Kalam Cosmological Argument; Closer to Truth; The Tensed Theory of Time: A Critical Examination; The Tenseless Theory of Time: A Critical Examination; Naturalism: A Critical Analysis; God, Time and Eternity; Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom: The Coherence of Theism: Omniscience; Contending with Christianity's Critics: Answering New Atheists & Other Objectors; Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus; Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse in Dialogue; and more. Are all these self-published sources? No. Hipocrite's opinions cannot and should not be accepted because he has demonstrated lack of understanding concerning the issue, in addition to the problems which can be observed in his contribution. The user is thus unfit to comment or edit. This is a fair assessment of the individual's ability and not merely an ad hominem which disregards the user's capability in any other field, if any. Both you and Mann_jess need to educate yourselves on what is considered to be a personal attack. Mann_jess, I should not need to remind you about what constitutes a reliable source. Don't just sit there and simply waive all of these off as self-published sources; you need to provide sound reasoning, which is not seen from either of you concerning the removal of such sources. Yes, Huon, you still have not answered concerning Closer to Truth, which you have somehow unreasonably regarded as "entertainment". Maiorem (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is well sourced. The characterisation of Closer to the Truth as 'entertainment' and therefore 'not reliable', is joke which merits no serious discussion. The only problem is the 'organizational affiliation' section. I would prefer to have sources from each of those organizations but this seems to be extemely difficult and some do not appear to have websites. However, in general, the article does not rely exclusively on a single source. Secondly, are you seriously saying that a man's CV and his university page are not acceptable sources on Wiki? Where is your evidence for this?HyperEntity

Somebody removed the 'organizational affiliation' sections. Good work. We can add it later when it is better sourced.

Maiorem, please provide (1) reliable secondary source, and the content you wish to include using that source, and we'll discuss it. Your continued disparaging remarks regarding Hipocrite are uncalled for. Please stop.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

All of the materials that you wish to remove. Why no discussion before removal? And here you are talking about "consensus"? I see zero mention concerning the above sources I have listed. In what way are they not reliable? And please refer back to what is considered to be a personal attack. I do not need to repeat myself. Maiorem (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Now, for example, out of the ten books cited as references, only five of those are authored by William Lane Craig, while two of them were co-authored with Paul Copan and JP Moreland. Thus their inclusion fits the criteria that "the article is not based primarily on [self-published] sources." Maiorem (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you guys are talking about this, but talking while continuing to revert war does not exempt you from the edit warring policy. Protection has been tried as a "warning shot" if revert warring continues the next step is to start blocking the edit warriors and/or place longer and longer protections on the article without regard to the state it is in at the time protection is applied. Note that having consensus on your side is not a valid reason to edit war. The only exemption to the policy is reverting blatant vandalism, which is obviously not what has been happening here. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Maiorem (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate all these recent edits... at least we have more content to talk about. I'm concerned that the article is too sycophantic. There's no reason to spend this much time on the Kalam Cosmological Argument, for example. And, I seriously question the entire inclusion of "professional organization." 108.54.52.228 (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that last comment was me.... could I ask for some clarification over why it's okay for us to source Reasonable Faith? It seems to me that Craig's own website might contain something that we may want to use... but, it also seems obvious to me that Craig's self-interest will bias many of the statements on the website, too. So, it cane be used unto itself... we need to be careful with it, actually... and look at the recent edits, it seems to be being used entirely too much. Theowarner (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Because there is no evidence of self-serving bias. Is 6 references to the website too much for you? Maiorem (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Maiorem above gave a lengthy list of supposedly reliable sources. Let me break down this list:

• The Kalam Cosmological Argument, The Tensed Theory of Time: A Critical Examination, The Tenseless Theory of Time: A Critical Examination, God, Time and Eternity; Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom: The Coherence of Theism: Omniscience and Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus are all authored by Craig. While they probably are not self-published, they are still not secondary sources.
• Naturalism: A Critical Analysis and Contending with Christianity's Critics: Answering New Atheists & Other Objectors are co-authored by Craig. Still primary sources.
• The Closer to Truth link is not to anything that was on the program itself, making the question whether it's educational or entertainment moot (and I may have been wrong there, although I still doubt the show is a reliable source). Instead, it's the biographical sketch of a "participant". That is not a source independent of the subject, and I doubt there's editorial oversight for participant biographies.
• The Cambridge Companion to Atheism looks reliable to me, and while my revert removed that source, it left the sourced statement, namely that Craig is particularly notable for the Kalam argument, more or less intact with a different source. I wouldn't mind expanding the short version of the article a little and incorporating this source.
• The Evangelical Philosophical Society was claimed as a source, but I could find no reference to it.
• While I'm at it, yes, I am saying that a man's CV at his own university or at any organization with which he is affiliated is not a secondary source and thus should be avoided. My source here is WP:RS, which says: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Faculty pages and self-published CVs are not third-party sources and do not have a reputation for fact-checking.

In summary, there was just one secondary source, and the basic gist of what it was used for is present in both versions. If no secondary source can be found for any given claim, that claim is probably not relevant enough to be included in the article. Craig is already on the border of notability because there is very little significant coverage in secondary sources; emphasizing primary sources raises problems of undue weight. The same holds for the Reasonable Faith website. Using it for some biographical details, such as Craig's birthdate, is acceptable - but using it more often than all secondary sources combined is highly problematic.

In regard to personal attacks: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views." Using Hipocrite's dyslexia and his user page edits as an ad hominem means of dismissing his opinion on the reliability of sources (and now even his fitness to edit and comment!) seems to fit the bill. Huon (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Primary sources can be used for non-interpretive citation of information. WP:PRIMARY states clearly in its policy that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base articles and material entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy."
• Ditto
• Personal doubts do not constitute valid reasons.
• Fine.
• The Evangelical Philosophical Society is the very first reference.
• Faculty pages, I would argue, do have a reputation for fact-checking. The allegations that the CV on a particular website is self-published needs to be proven, otherwise it is commonly accepted as published by the university or organisation.

In summary, your discontent towards using primary sources is moot.

Hipocrite's dyslexia is not an affiliation, but an affliction. Please learn to differentiate between the two before making further accusations against me. Indeed, do you even know what is dyslexia and how it affects a person's ability to read? It is also fully justifiable that a person's fitness to edit and comment be judged by his own writing or contributions. Does this bother you? In short, if I want to dismiss or discredit someone's view by using his affiliation, I would point out that X is a Y, therefore his views regarding Z should be dismissed. Obviously, that is not what I did. Maiorem (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Evangelical Philosophical Society reference is currently misattributed to "Faith, Reasonable" (which by the way seems to be a mistake in the use of the first= and last= parameters of the cite template); that's why I missed it. It's another "author profile" which is not independent of Craig. And while you are correct about the importance of my personal doubts regarding the Closer to Truth show, the point is moot because we do not actually cite the show. Huon (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

How do you determine if an author profile is or isn't independent of Craig? We're not dealing with the Closer to Truth show; we're dealing with its website and how it handles information. Same difference. Maiorem (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

An author profile is written either by the author himself or by his publisher, neither of which is independent of the author and neither of which is likely to be subject to editorial oversight for such purposes. When Closer to Truth writes about its own authors, it is not a "third party". If you want to, we can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard for confirmation. Huon (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The author's publisher is independent of the author, and your claim that "neither of which is likely to be subject to editorial oversight for such purposes" is unfounded. In addition, regardless if it is independent of the author or even subject to editorial oversight, they remain as viable sources according to WP:BLPSOURCES so long as it is accepted that Closer to Truth is a reliable source. Furthermore, the Wikipedia policy against using primary sources is mainly to avoid original research, as apart from that, there is no other issue with using primary sources. Maiorem (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Since we currently seem unlikely to agree, I have asked for community input at the reliable sources noticeboard. Huon (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

’'the point is moot because we do not actually cite the show’’

And yet you have a page dedicated to the show: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closer_To_Truth

I have yet to see any evidence that Craig is the author of his profile at Closer to the Truth. CTTT is a TV show which hosts discussions on scvience and phiosopphy. To claim that it is unreliable (based on merely on suspicion) and simply because Craig was a guest there is akin to claiming that a Time magazine article summarising Sam Harris’s work on neuroscience could not be reliable source on the grounds that they interviewed Harris before. If you are concerned that the views expressed in the article do not match Craig’s actual views you can verify them by reading his (cited) books and watching his videos on CTTT. If you are uncomfortable with how often CTTT is cited, please note that virtually every paragraphy is backed up with a reference to Craig’s books.

I’m glad you sent this to the noticeboard but I’m not sure what difference it’ll make. The sections citing CTTT do not rely primarily on it. They employ Craig’s books and so do not violate Wiki guidelines. Even if you remove CTTT, we can still back every statement there with a reference to Craig’s books.User:HyperEntity|HyperEntity]] (talk)

As I keep repeating, articles should be based on "reliable, third-party" sources per WP:RS. Closer to Truth (it's actually not Closer to the Truth; I too got that wrong before Maiorem pointed out my error) is closer to being a third-party source than Craig's books, but it still falls short. (By now three editors at the noticeboard agreed that the CtT profile should be considered unreliable or at best a primary source.) I'm not necessarily uncomfortable with how often we use CtT, I'm uncomfortable that there's nothing better for us to use. Huon (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As I also keep repeating, primary sources are also allowed per WP:RS, the only restriction being no original research. Please explain how Closer to Truth "falls short" of bring a third-party source, apart from your unfounded allegation that it is not independent of the author. Indeed, three editors have voiced similar sentiments, but when pressed to explain, for example, in what way is it lacking as a reliable source (I am thus far even willing to concede that it is a primary source!), they keep silent over the matter. The last such editor even claims that citations of the subject's own books are "OR/synthesis from primary sources", but even the allegation is baseless. As such, there is no reason given to take their position. Maiorem (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Just noting that some editors might be "keeping silent" due to WP:SHUN, considering the overwhelming amount of WP:IDHT behavior here. It's been explained why these sources are either unacceptable or incomplete, and why basing the article on primary sources isn't allowed, yet we have two editors who keep coming back to flatly assert they're acceptable. Maiorem, if you're interested in getting a broader opinion on these sources from the community, I'd recommend taking the issue to WP:RSN. You may reject the opinions of editors here, and at WP:BLPN if you wish, but doing so while continuing to argue in this way isn't productive.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It has not been explained why these sources are unacceptable. (Incomplete? Seriously?) As have already been explained, the article is not based entirely on primary sources, thus the use of primary sources in this regard is allowed. Their acceptability is noted by WP:PRIMARY. In case you have not noticed, the issue has already been taken to WP:RSN almost 24 hours ago. Maiorem (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Terrific! I hope you will heed the opinions you've been receiving on RSN, which as of yet appear to compliment the advice you've received on this talk page and BLPN. I'll reiterate that the best way to proceed right now would be to find new reliable secondary sources about Craig. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And you just totally ignored what I have said about WP:PRIMARY. Good job. Maiorem (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did, because it's already been explained repeatedly. I'm not interested in explaining it again. Please accept that you've received input from editors here, editors on BLPN, and now editors on RSN that the sources are not acceptable for the content to which they apply, and arguing against that consensus is unlikely to do any good. You may disagree with the consensus, but demanding it be explained over and over is tendentious. Please drop the stick, and move on. If you have reliable secondary sources discussing Craig, I'd be more than happy to discuss those. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What explanation? There is zero explanation coming from you concerning your ignorance of WP:PRIMARY. I asked for one good reason for going against WP:PRIMARY, but so far no one has given any. The only editor other than you and I that contributed to the BLPN discussion is Hipocrite, which, as I have established, cannot qualify, so don't treat one editor's invalidated agreement as "consensus", as you are oft to do. Of the three editors on RSN which are of the opinion that Closer to Truth is not a reliable source, one also opines that the subject's blog is a reliable source for info about himself, which goes against your arguments for not using primary sources. That is why I sought clarification on why they do not treat Closer to Truth as a reliable source, since 1) they have no evidence that Closer to Truth is not independent of the author and 2) it does not go against WP:BLP or WP:RS (specifically, WP:PRIMARY) standards. Thus, no matter the "consensus", if such "consensus" does not comply with the above standards, it should be ignored. So far, Jess, your only defense for this issue is "consensus" but you never addressed the WP standards in context. Also, for your information, WP:STICK is not WP:POLICY, and you of all people should go take a look at WP:TE yourself and not be so hypocritical about it.

Thus, here are the basic questions answered: Do we already have secondary sources discussing William Lane Craig? YES. Can we use primary sources in light of the fact that there are secondary sources which means we're not basing the article primarily on primary sources? YES. Is Closer to Truth a primary or secondary source? IRRELEVANT. Are articles to be solely based on secondary sources? NO. Good luck going against policy!

While you're at it, go and take a look at what consensus ISN'T.Maiorem (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me repeat: Articles "should be based on reliable, third party" sources per WP:RS (first sentence of WP:RS#Overview). While this article currently has two such sources, it is clearly based on primary sources, which is not acceptable. On primary sources, WP:RS states: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. [...] Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." We have entire sections based purely on primary sources. And:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves [...] so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving; [...]
2. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This is what Wikipedia policy says about primary and self-published sources. Your claim that as long as we have some secondary sources somewhere we are free to use as many primary sources as we want is rather absurd, to be honest.

How about a request for comment? If the editors who disagreed with you somehow all simultaneously misinterpreted Wikipedia policy, surely wider community input would be of assistance? Huon (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In which case you need to brush up your understanding of what a third-party source is. The only sources that are not third-party sources currently in the article are the Reasonable Faith web articles. Closer to Truth is not a primary source, and we have not made any "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources". No, we do not have entire sections based purely on primary sources. Apart from the Reasonable Faith website, none of the others are self-published sources. Your view of what is or is not absurd is not a valid ground for objection. I'd much prefer one argument like the above which actually touches on WP:POLICY than ten editors simply saying that such a source is not valid without offering any explanation. Maiorem (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Your own interpretation of policy is erroneous. WP:RSN has agreed that the Closer to Truth profile is not reliable, not independent of Craig or both. Claiming that books written by Craig are not primary sources on Craig is so obviously wrong that I'm at a loss for words. I'll initiate a request for comment so we may enjoy some additional community input. Huon (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, your own interpretation of policy is erroneous. See how unhelpful that is? Your assertion of my erroneous interpretation is invalid unless you can somehow explain it. Bear in mind it is some of the editors who wrote on WP:RSN, not WP:RSN itself, that is of the opinion that the Closer to Truth profile is not reliable, but those opinions are not compliant with WP:POLICY as there is zero justification from WP:POLICY for their personal views, which is why I pressed them to clarify further, failing which, it would mean that their opinions are not backed by any existing WP:POLICY and thus cannot be accepted. I never claimed that books written by Craig are not primary sources. With this, I doubt that you are even clear on what third-party sources are, which is why I provided that link in my previous response here. A primary source can also be a third-party source. If that statement sounds wrong to you, then it means you have not clearly understood what a third-party source means. So unless Craig is the publisher of his own books, or if Craig paid for his books to be published, then those books are not self-published (how hard is it for anybody to understand this?) and therefore they are not subject to restrictions on self-published materials. Maiorem (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And here's an update from another section of RSN, with the consensus there being that an individual's resumes and CVs are reliable sources. Maiorem (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence

William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an American analytic philosopher and theologian.

Right now, this is how the first sentence reads. We have previously had discussions about the inclusion of the word "analytic," but we seem to have moved past that. I think theologian is probably inappropriate as Craig typically differs to theologians on some questions, suggesting that he doesn't view himself as a theologian. I think there's an argument, nevertheless, to be made about whether he is a theologian. My problem right now is: where as the word "apologist" gone? It used to be there. I would argue that Craig is known throughout the world primarily as an apologist and, to a lesser extent, within his own field as a philosopher. An analogy might be drawn between Craig and Dawkins. Dawkins, a biologist, is known primarily for his advocacy of atheism, and within his own field as a biologist. I think the sentence should be edited to this.

William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is a Christian apologist, American analytic philosopher and theologian.

Theowarner (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Theowarner, did you know that many theologians have different and sometimes conflicting views? The most recent and obvious case would be Mike Licona vs Norman Geisler, and both are regarded as respectable theologians, so in this regard your argument that to call William Lane Craig a theologian is inappropriate because he "typically differs to theologians on some questions" is obviously false. There is no need for an extensive argument about whether he is a theologian since he has already obtained a Doctor of Theology which certifies him as a theologian. In any case, I am fine with the mention of him as a Christian apologist. Maiorem (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine including theologian. Theowarner (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Reasonable Faith describes him as a philosopher and theologian. Biola University describes him as a theologian. Closer to the Truth describes him as a theologian. The EPS describes him a philosopher and theologian. None of these describe him as an apologist. Therefore, I see no reason to add it. However, this article is being edited by almost entirely by antitheists like theowarner who makes YouTube videos ruminating Craig's ability to brainwash children. In the minds of these people, being called an apologist or an Evangelist is an insult. This is why he's determined to add it.

Still, I have no problem with adding it if Theo and friends give us a convincing reason to. However, if added, I will insist that it be placed in following manner:

William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an American analytic philosopher, theologian and Christian apologist.

This will ensure that readers know that Craig's focuses primarily on philosophy and theology and not on humiliating atheists in debates.

I think who ever made this comment should be ignored entirely. The edit he/she proposes, therefore, is worth ignoring the question before us remains:

William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is a Christian apologist, American analytic philosopher and theologian.

Theowarner (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that no matter what Craig focuses on, he's primarily known for his apologetics. I'd suggest that the American qualifier, which refers to Craig himself and not to his brand of analytic philosophy, should be moved, though:

William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an American Christian apologist, analytic philosopher and theologian.

Huon (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

On what basis are you claiming that he is known primarily for apologetics? Second, The fact that a person is known for debating people does not by itself make them worthy of an article. Being a successful academic is. Craig is primarily an academic. Known was used here to refer to his 'fame' within the academic world. If this was unclear we can make it clearer.

Someone needs to learn to use those four tildas... I often forget, too. Anyway! I think this is an interesting problem... namely: what is he best known for... apologetics or philosophy? Or course, apologetics is a proper subset of philosophy so it's in a way, it's both. I suppose, though, that this is something that it's almost impossible to answer authoritatively. 1) apologetics or 2) philosophy. Anyone who knows Dr. Craig knows him for his defense of the existence of God primarily, that much should be true. And thought seem to be an apologetic. It's done in a philosophical manner, but so is most of apologetics these days. So... I'm inclined to say apologetics. Let's see what other people say. Theowarner (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Claiming 'Christopher Hitchens is a critic of religion' before his work as a journalist or 'Bertrand Russel is a critic of religion' before his philosophical work is absurd. These facts alone does not make them prticularly importnt. Their academic work does.

Well... I'm not so sure. I would say Hitchens probably is known as a critic of religion more so than as a journalist. Russell is probably more a philosopher than a critic of religion, though. I read his history of philosophy long before I was interested in his atheism. And in terms of Hitchens, it is actually his criticism of religion that make him significant, at least, more so than his journalism. Theowarner (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I claim Craig is known for his apologetics on the basis of the article's two secondary sources. One deals with the Kalam argument which certainly belongs to apologetics, and the other is the Fox News piece which focuses on Craig's role as a debater. That's what the secondary sources have to say. If you honestly believe that's not enough to make Craig notable, I won't stop you from proposing the deletion of the article. Huon (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Kalam argument is also a philosophical argument, and Craig's role as a debater is too vague since debates are not always on apologetics. Maiorem (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

While the Kalam argument covers all three of Craig's proposed designations, his debates as discussed in the Fox News piece are pure apologetics. Huon (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. According to the Fox News piece, "In his debates he suggests that the question to ask is not whether science can prove God's existence but rather the philosophy that "science can establish a premise in an argument leading to the conclusion that God exists."" The existence of God is not purely apologetics, but also a philosophical argument. Maiorem (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Huon: I don't think a disagreement over putting 'Christian apologist' merits deletion of the article.

With regard to point about Hitchens : This man spent over 40 years as a literary critic and touring the world as a journalist. He is certainly known as a critic of religion (as is Russel) but putting that before his journalism (or Russel's philosophical career) is a grave mistake.

Again, I stress: 'Known' here refers to his 'fame' within the academic community. If this is unclear we can make it so. Hitchens is journalist, Russell and Craig are philosophers. Their work in these areas merits a Wikipedia article. A one time debate with John Shook or Sam Harris does not. I don't deny he is also known for his debates and I am willing to include it. But we need to consider priorities. HyperEntity (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC).

Then let me stress again: In order to gauge Craig's fame within the academic community, we would need reliable secondary sources. The secondary sources we currently have point towards Kalam and debates. It is not for us to decide that Craig is famous (even among other philosophers) when there are no sources to that effect. And while a disagreement over wording does not merit deletion, a disagreement on whether there are sufficient sources to support Craig's notability may. And regarding Maiorem's objection: It's hard to imagine a part of apologetics that could not be considered either philosophy or theology. But we can probably agree that the sources supporting Craig's notability focus on his apologetics while his philosophical and theological work outside apologetics is not mentioned. Why be less precise than possible? Huon (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Would his debate with Sam Harris at the University of Notre Dame suffice? Or how about his debate with A.C. Grayling? Or his debate with Lawrence Krauss? George Williamson? Peter Atkins? I can list at least 20 more people whom he had debated with on the existence of God alone, and the five arguments that William Lane Craig always presents for the existence of God are all philosophical arguments, not theological arguments. Secondary sources alone are not necessary for gauging his notability within the academic community; his CV speaks for itself. For your information, apologetics does not always involve philosophy or theology; for example, the apologetics of much of the Old Testament is largely based on a study of Ancient Near East sociology, which is neither philosophy nor theology, let alone apologetics from a linguistic aspect. I don't think you know what apologetics actually is. On the other hand, his philosophical and theological works are all within the context of apologetics. Maiorem (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Then let me stress again: In order to gauge Craig's fame within the academic community, we would need reliable secondary sources.

The Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy devotes its discussion of the KCA primarily to Craig's version of it. An atheist philosopher states that Craig's cosmological argument is the most cited argument for God in Western philosophy of religion. Even more than Alvin Plantinga's reformed epistemology argument. These sources are not sufficient to establish notability? Is Fox News now a more reliable source than Cambridge University? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperEntity (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Of the sources currently given in the article, the Cambridge source and Fox News are the only reliable secondary sources, and Cambridge is, of course, the better one. Those sources say Craig is notable for Kalam and for his role as a debater; our article should reflect that sentiment. We can't use those sources to establish notablility and then turn around and claim that he's really notable for something else. We also cannot ignore secondary sources when gauging his notability in the academic community as Maiorem suggests; doing so would violate WP:OR, especially WP:SYN, and WP:V. Huon (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not ignoring secondary sources when gauging his notability; however, you are fixed on the idea that his role as a debater is limited to apologetics; his debates are largely philosophical in nature and not apologetic, even though the two may coincide. Maiorem (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Protected again

I've protected the page for a week. Use the time to resolve this dispute. Those who continue to edit war over this article when protection expires will be blocked without further warning. Regards, causa sui (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Maiorem (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can start by listing the central issues of contention here. Just glancing at it now, I have several.

1. Referring to KCA as "the most widely discussed argument for the existence of God in contemporary Western philosophy" may be sourced appropriately (although Dr. Smith clearly has an interest in making KCA seem important since he's one of the persons who treats it seriously) but, the article doesn't need to assert it as a fact. There's a difference between asserting that Dr. Smith as made some comment about KCA and asserting that the comment itself is true. It's not our job to agree or endorse Dr. Smith's evaluation. Likewise, even if the claim is factually true (if we could count discussion and measure its wideness) the claim itself hopes to lend Dr. Craig legibly or important, which is also not our business.
2. By mentioning that Dr. Craig is the author of "over 30 books," there seems to be some suggestion that this is, unto itself, a reason for the article. Authoring over 30 books doesn't make Craig notable. However, I would say that authoring one specific book, namely The Kalam Cosmological Argument, makes Craig notable. I've argued in the best at this should be mentioned in opening paragraph. The "over 30 books" seems deeply irrelevant. Compare to Bertrand Russell's page... there is absolutely no need to mention the number of books Russell published in his life time...
3. So, which books should we include in the opening paragraph? There are, at present, four books listed: "The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology (co-authored with Quentin Smith) (1993), Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time(2001), and Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (co-edited with Quentin Smith) (2007)." Clearly, the last three are not prominent books and deserve no place in the opening paragraph. I've heard some conversation about including Reasonable Faith in this opening paragraph. I might be convinced to support including Reasonable Faith (perhaps in conjunction with Dr. Craig's ministry), but hardly these last three.
4. I think the section of Craig's academic background is strong. The Talbot School of Theology is part of Biola University. That should included but other than that, it's very strong.
5. There's a section called "Work." I'm not sure that that's a good name for the section... How about "Major Ideas" or something like that. I would argue that there are only two things that need to be included in this article whatsoever: Dr. Craig's apologetics (his debates would be mentioned here) and his philosophical work on the KCA. Beyond that, everything else is pretty much insignifant (from the level of inclusion here on his artilce.) However, if we're going to open the door to things like Philosophy of Time, then I think we need to be sure that we're including his Reasonable Faith Ministry. This is a balance act, in other words. His philosophy of time work is not equitable to his work on Kalam or his status as an apologist. Frankly, I would prefer keeping the article short and just eliminating the section on Philosophy of Time altogether. And the section on divine foreknowledge, which seems sort of orphaned.
6. I also challenge the sourcing of the philosophy of time and divine foreknowledge sections, too. I doubt that these can be supported using third-party sources. I question Closertotruth.com as a source, too.
7. The section of KCA is a little too involved for me. What makes KCA unique among the cosmological arguments is its use of infinity. That's more or less all we need to say. Spelling it out as a miniature presentation of the argument itself seems to involved. There is a wikipedia page on the argument already, it's worth noting. Also, the POV in the presentation is a little suspicious and seems to presume the success of the argument. I think the best way to clean this up is simply to describe the argument in the most general terms and refer readers to the article on Kalam itself. Theowarner (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Please read the statement again; "his defense of the Kalām cosmological argument is the most widely discussed argument for the existence of God in contemporary Western philosophy." It is not the argument itself that is referred to as "the most widely discussed argument", but rather, that statement is referring to William Lane Craig's treatment of the argument. In addition to that, Dr Smith is not involved with the making of this statement; the statement originates from The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, published by Cambridge University Press.
2. That "suggestion" in itself is no grounds for its removal, especially since it is a subjective view from you and not an objective observation. In addition, by listing some of the books he has authored or edited, one can see the nature of his books, and even this is fairly notable among theologians and philosophers.
3. I propose we follow the list provided by his profile on the Reasonable Faith website: The Kalam Cosmological Argument; Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus; Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom; Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology; and God, Time and Eternity. I would also propose we add "William Lane Craig also wrote articles for professional journals of philosophy and theology, including The Journal of Philosophy, New Testament Studies, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, American Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophical Studies, Philosophy, and British Journal for Philosophy of Science."
4. Fine.
5. Actually, the section on Philosophy of Time is related to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and the section on Divine Foreknowledge (and it should have been a separate section from Philosophy of Time) deals with Craig's Molinist views, which is a significant point for theologians since Christian theology is branched into Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, etc. and so it is important to make clear his soteriology. The section should more accurately be labeled "Works" rather than "Work".
6. Well of course you will hardly find any third-party sources which state the same since these sections deal with Craig's own views on these matters. Indeed, since you question Closer To Truth, please state appropriate reasons why it should not be considered a reliable source. Is it simply because it is a Christian source that you find it unreliable?
7. The section on the Kalam Cosmological Argument presents the way Craig argues for and defends it. Not every philosopher deals with the Kalam Cosmological Argument the same way, e.g. how Craig has modified the "Hilbert's Hotel" thought experiment for his argument of the impossibility of an actual infinite in relation to the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The POV does not presume the success of the argument, but rather the factuality of the argument. If you still feel that there is a POV issue, then by all means introduce counter-arguments which Craig has not addressed. Maiorem (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

1. So, accepting your corrections about my reading of the sentence and its origin, my comment remains: the article doesn't need to assert it as a fact. There's a difference between asserting that it was made some comment about Dr. Craig's defense of KCA and asserting that the comment itself is true. It's not our job to agree or endorse an evaluation. Likewise, even if the claim is factually true (if we could count discussion and measure its wideness) the claim itself hopes to lend Dr. Craig legibly or important, which is also not our business. Another way to put this is: "He has made major contributions to the philosophy of religion and his defense of the Kalām cosmological argument is the most widely discussed argument for the existence of God in contemporary Western philosophy" and "He has made major contributions to the philosophy of religion including his defense of the Kalām cosmological argument" make the same point: Dr. Craig has done X. To add to that a comment about how important it is is not the job of this article. Likewise... I just realized that "major contributions" is something I have issue with. "Contributions" is neutral. "Major" is not.
2. I've made a point here about including the words "over 30 books." You're response is that the connotations I describe are just my opinion. I would suggest that I'm not pointing to an arbitrary connotation. I mentioned Bertrand Russell's article which makes no mention of the number of books he's published. You've also suggested including mention of his scholarly articles. I feel like next you're going to want to include his facebook notes. It's simply a question of what that phrase ("over 30 books") is doing in the article. Compare these two sentence: 1) "Dr. Craig is an author and research professor at Talbot." 2) "Dr. Craig is an author of over 30 books and is a research professor at Talbot." What's the difference? Well... clearly the the phrase "over 30 books" is an argument about something... probably about how prolific he is... something like that. Anyway, it's doing something. I'd like to hear your thoughts on what it's doing there.
3. You propose we follow the listed provided on Dr. Craig's website? Is that... utterly biased?
4. Good.
5. Why is it important to establish Craig's soteriology? I should say that I entirely understand his work and contribution to this field. My comment is about the relative important of that contribution to the entire wikipedia page. It may be something that Craig is personally interested in and spends a great deal of his working on... but that doesn't translate into mention on this page. I think that the word "Molinist" is all we need to include.
6. As to why I question closertotruth, well... there are a few reasons. First of all, as was discussed above, the biographical information provided to closertruth comes from the guest (Dr. Criag) and can hardly be treated as third party. Second, when Dr. Craig speaks about his own positions, I question the weightiness of the position. If it doesn't exist anywhere except from his own mouth and writings, it's hard to imagine that we need to include it here in the article. And closertotruth, while Christian, is also uncritical of the information they provide. They are platform for intellectuals to speak. It also seems to be a rather personal project of Dr. Kuhn and seems rather like Reasonable Faith in that regard.
7. I don't think the POV issue in the KCA section will be resolved by presenting the opposing views. In fact, those seem inappropriate for inclusion here. My objection here is several fold. "Craig's primary contribution to philosophy of religion is his revival of the kalam cosmological argument. In The Kalam Cosmological Argument he formulates the argument in the following manner: Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence." I would insert a phase like "which is a cosmological argument from the impossibility of actual infintities." But, okay... I can accept it as it stands. I may nudge it some way as it still leaves me with the feeling that the article endorses it, but I can set that aside for the moment. Theowarner (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that you consider the Smith quote unimportant but has no problem with including the fact that Craig is a member of Discovery Institute. You insist that we shouldn't put anything in the article that portrays Craig in a positive light. Please look at the following articles on these philosophers and pay attention to these quotes:

Hilary Putnam: '…has been a central figure in analytic philosophy since the 1960s, especially in philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, philosophy of mathematics, and philosophy of science.[2]

Saul Kripke: Since the 1960s Kripke has been a central figure in a number of fields related to mathematical logic, philosophy of language, philosophy of mathematics, metaphysics, epistemology, and set theory. Kripke has made influential and original contributions to logic…

Richard Rorty: Rorty is one of the most widely discussed and most controversial of philosophers of recent years,[14] and his works have provoked thoughtful responses from many well-respected philosophers.

Wilfrid sellars: He is widely regarded both for great sophistication of argument and for his assimilation of many and diverse subjects in pursuit of a synoptic vision.

Bertrand Russel: He is considered one of the founders of analytic philosophy…and is widely held to be one of the 20th century's premier logicians.[2]

Ludwig Wittgenstein: Bertrand Russell described him as the most perfect example of genius, "passionate, profound, intense, and dominating",

Now according to you we should not give credit where credit is due. We should not claim that these are all important figures in their fields (even if the claim is well sourced). Instead we should delete these claims because it is not our job to state that X has made major contributions to such and such field. Why? I'll respond to your other points later Theo.HyperEntity (talk

Again, I would appreciate it if you would focus your response on the comments I make about the article and not focus on me as a person. That will help us to build the best article possible. And, you mischaracterize me saying that I consider the Smith quote unimportant. My actual comment was: "the article doesn't need to assert [Smith's claim] as a fact. There's a difference between asserting that Dr. Smith as made some comment about KCA and asserting that the comment itself is true. It's not our job to agree or endorse Dr. Smith's evaluation. Likewise, even if the claim is factually true (if we could count discussion and measure its wideness) the claim itself hopes to lend Dr. Craig legibly or important, which is also not our business." Could you respond to that comment? Theowarner (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The reply dealt with your comments. Your argument, as far as I understand it, is that if we put this quote it will make Craig 'look good' and you don't like it when the article makes Craig look good. My reply is threefold. First, I cited a number of Wikipedia articles where similar statements exist. Consider the following quotes from these wiki pages:

Stephen J Gould: He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation.[1]...and has received wide praise for his book Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Gould's greatest contribution to science was the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

Albert Einstein: Einstein is often regarded as the father of modern physics and one of the most prolific intellects in human history.

Out the list I cited, one was selected by Wiki editors as among the best articles here, at least one of them was voted a good article, and all of them are well sourced. Unless you give an account of why we should treat Craig differently from other academics on Wiki we'll keep it.

Second, your subjective reaction to a factual proposition is not, by itself, good enough to change said proposition. Third, you did not have problem putting the (rather rude) Krauss quote about Craig nor did you have a problem putting the Avery Dulles quote stating that one of Craig's books led to a resurgence of philosophical theology in Evangelical circles. Based on these facts I suspect your motivations are more than an honest concern about the 'objectivity' of the article.HyperEntity (talk)

1. Your contention would be with Cambridge University Press then. Your assertion that "the claim itself hopes to lend Dr. Craig legibly or important" is your personal subjective view and does not contain objective arguments against the claim's inclusion.
2. Slippery slope. So what if Bertrand Russell's article makes no mention of the number of books he's published? In this case we have a source for that claim. I already stated many times (ironically) that I do not wish to repeat myself. Previously, I have said "In addition, by listing some of the books he has authored or edited, one can see the nature of his books, and even this is fairly notable among theologians and philosophers."
3. How is following the list provided on Dr Craig's website biased in any way? Also I would like your input concerning the listing of the journals he has contributed to.
4. Skipped to next issue. I already said that I do not wish to repeat myself. Craig's soteriology is important information to Christians and other theologians. It is not simply a matter of personal interest, but they are part of his professional works both as a philosopher and as a theologian.
5. Can you prove that the biographical information provided on the website comes from the guests themselves? Can you prove that Closer to Truth is uncritical of the information they provide simply because it is a platform for intellectuals? It being a personal project of Dr Kuhn, regardless if it is true, would not make it similar to Reasonable Faith, or are you able to show what similarities there are?
6. The phrase which you propose be included has already been addressed in the defense of the premises, so it would be redundant to include it again, and because it is not part of the premises, but an established fact which is drawn upon by the premises. Your personal feelings, as I may have mentioned before, are irrelevant. Maiorem (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

1. "Your contention would be with Cambridge University Press then. Your assertion that "the claim itself hopes to lend Dr. Craig legibly or important" is your personal subjective view." Okay. Can you tell me what you think that claim is doing in the article? Theowarner (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Simple: to state a fact. Maiorem (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

With no connotations?Theowarner (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Any connotations that may be derived from the inclusion of the statement is subject to the readers' own interpretation. The fear of connotations is not a valid reason against the inclusion of any statement. Maiorem (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

1: Smith’s claim was based on a review of the philosophical litrature regarding the existence of God. This is his job as professional philosopher. If you think his claim is false, please review the entire litrature yourself and present us with your findings. Until then, we’ll leave it as it is.

[And yes: It’s not your business to present Craig as a major philospher of religion because you’re a deeply biased man (and frankly, given your YouTube record, shouldn’t even be allowed to edit this article)].

2 & 3: The purpose of this article is present factual and enlightening information about Craig. The opening states that he’s edited and written over 30 books. This, combined with the fact that his work is highly cited shows that a respectable academic. Similar facts are presented on the pages of many other philosophers and academics, and there is no reason not to mention here. Craig (like Swinburne, Plantinga, Lewis and Rorty) merits a wikipedia article and whatever images leap to your mind when you see that sentence is not our problem.

As for what books to include, I think we should include important works (the Craig/Smith book is widely cited and is a standard textbook on the relationship between God and Big Bang Cosmology). We should also include edited works. I think the edited book by Craig and Smith is OK as it emphasises Craig’s work in philosophy of time. I’m open to suggestions but I feel we should add books that support the line: ‘’He is known for his work on the philosophy of time and philosophy of religion.’’

5. What’s wrong with work? He works on philosophy of time and religion. What’s the problem?

6.The propositions sourced from CTT are backed up with references to Craig’s books. On what basis are you challenging it?

7. If you don’t like the POV we can open a criticism section next to the argument. This would make article too long so I suggest leaving it as is. HyperEntity (talk

(1) The first point I made was about the inclusion of the phrase “"the most widely discussed argument for the existence of God in contemporary Western philosophy.” There seems to be some disagreement about who is the source of this sentence. It was, I thought, Dr. Quentin Smith, but I'm not sure now. Maybe someone can clear that up for me.... I don't own a copy of The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. At any rate, you're response to me was that the claim was based on his evaluation of the literature and that I needed to produce evidence that it was false. If you recall, I said: “even if the claim is factually true (if we could count discussion and measure its wideness) the claim itself hopes to lend Dr. Craig legibly or important, which is also not our business.” So, you're response is ultimately non-responsive. I am accepting that the claim may be factually true. However, my concern is that it connotes something that we don't need to connote, namely that Dr. Craig is important. There's a phrase that's worth including here... res ipsa loquitor. The thing speaks for itself. To say that Dr. Craig is the author of the KCA is enough because it speaks for itself. If we then come in and add something to that, like an evaluation, we're stepping over a line that we're not supposed to. (2 & 3) I'm glad that you said that the purpose of this page is to “present factual and enlightening information about Craig.” I'm actually not sure I agree with that. I think the purpose is more like: what you need to know about Craig. The difference is that you would accept anything factual and/or enlightening. I think your standard is not qualitative and certainly opens up the door for the inclusion of all sorts of information that really should not be included, like Daniel Dennett's comments on Craig. But, on the point, this section of conversation is about the phrase “over 30 books” and which books to mention in the opening paragraph. Your point seems to be that the fact that he has published over 30 books “shows that a respectable academic,” and I think you mean “respected.” So, on its surface, this is not true. Many people have written 30 books and are not respected because of it. Likewise, it's not our job to demonstrate that Craig is respected. I think our job is to point readers to the information they need without commenting on it. We have included a complete bibliography and if its not complete, I definitely recommend we fill it out. That's really all we need to do. On the other hand, we may want to highlight one or two books as the most important. It's a way of indicating to our readers that if they start with a certain book, they will be make large steps towards what they need to know when it comes to understanding the significance of Dr. Craig. In this sense, The Kalam Cosmological Argument seems like an obvious first pick. And then Reasonable Faith if we need a second. Books that Craig has edited, as you suggest, are hardly essential to understanding Dr. Craig. (5) I have called into question the relative importance of Dr. Craig's work in the philosophy of time. Again, this is measured against the overall length of the article, how long it should be, and Dr. Craig's importance. That is to say: if the article is 1 paragraph long, do we mention Time? If it is 5 paragraphs long, do we mention Time? Is his work on Time part of what makes Dr. Craig important? Now, I express these rhetorically. In general, my claim is that his work in Time is not what makes Dr. Craig important. If he had done nothing else, we wouldn't even have a page on him. So, since we have a page for other reasons, do we need to include Time? I would say 'yes' but we don't need to elaborate on it like we have. I think one sentence ought to cover it. (6) I have challenged CTT has a source on the grounds that is (a) one person's project and (b) uncritical. Also, biographical comments on CTT almost certainly come from the guests themselves (from Dr. Craig) and so can't be read as a third party comment. (7) I mentioned this already but I'll repeat it here: “I don't think the POV issue in the KCA section will be resolved by presenting the opposing views. In fact, those seem inappropriate for inclusion here. My objection here is several fold. "Craig's primary contribution to philosophy of religion is his revival of the kalam cosmological argument. In The Kalam Cosmological Argument he formulates the argument in the following manner: Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence." I would insert a phase like "which is a cosmological argument from the impossibility of actual infintities." But, okay... I can accept it as it stands. I may nudge it some way as it still leaves me with the feeling that the article endorses it, but I can set that aside for the moment.” Theowarner (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

HyperEntity, given your propensity for both ad hominems and ridiculously mean-spirited participation, I propose that your IP address be banned outright from editing this article. I am ignoring your comments. Theowarner (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, since you guys have never engaged in ad hominems throughtout the history of this article. You have a personal intersst in making this article look bad. Drawing attention to this fact is important. Having someone to counteract your influence is important. Other than that, I think my comments were pretty much on topic. You are also free to ignore me but I'm not going anywhere. I am prepared to work constructively to improve this article. This is in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines which encourage cooperation. If you aren't interested in cooperation you will be violating those guidelines. I've seen many cases where people tried to do what you're trying to pull here. They ended up banned. Don't be one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperEntity (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, hyperEntity, if you claim to be "prepared to work constructively to improve this article," I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I must say that when you say "you guys," you seem to be point the finger at someone for something... And you're accusation that I'm a "deeply biased man" is certainly not going to foster the sort of cooperation you claim to be interested in. I'll respond to your comments now. Theowarner (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

1. The relevant portion of The Cambridge companion to atheism is available online at Google Books. Smith says: "Nonetheless, a count of the articles in the philosophy journals shows that more articles have been published about Craig's defense of the Kalam argument than have been published about any other philosopher's contemporary formulation of an argument for God's existence." To me that's sufficient to mark Craig's KCA as "the most widely discussed argument for the existence of God in contemporary Western philosophy", and Smith seems enough of an expert that we don't need to qualify his published statement - unless there are reliable sources disputing the claim?
2. I don't have any problem with stating the number of books Craig has authored. For a notable football player we would state the number of games he has appeared in, for actors we routinely provide a filmography or, at the very least, give the number of films; why should an author's total output not be mentioned? This seems a non-controversial factual statement, and for those even primary sources would suffice if no secondary source ever bothered to count Craig's output.
3. I see no need to mention any book except Kalam in the opening paragraph. It's the only book mentioned in our secondary sources; mentioning others would raise issues of undue weight.

Regarding Theowarner's points 5 and 6, I agree with him. The lack of secondary sources on such subjects as the philosophy of time shows that those aspects of Craig's work are not notable, and a short one-sentence mention should suffice, if we need to mention them at all.

Regarding our coverage of KCA: Since the KCA article has an entire section devoted to Craig's version of the argument, we need not go into detail here. This article is about the man, not about Kalam. For comparison, Antony Flew developed the No True Scotsman fallacy, and the article provides no more than a link.

In general, I have a problem with the lack of secondary sources. This lack has been discussed here before, and consensus at that time was to trim whatever did not have third-party sources. WP:RS also states that articles should be based on third-party sources. Currently this article largely isn't, and we should remove those parts. Huon (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have no problems if you want to reduce the number of books mentioned in the first paragraph down to just Kalam. However, I would suggest that a list of his publications be included in the External links section.

Perhaps Craig's work on the philosophy of time and divine foreknowledge may not be notable among laypeople, just as Rickey Henderson is not notable to a nation that does not care for baseball. However, his works are indeed notable among fellow philosophers and theologians, as you can see for yourself from this review of one of his books on the philosophy of time and divine foreknowledge.

As I have pointed out over and over again, primary sources are allowed so long as there is no original research and the article is not entirely based on primary sources. Furthermore, WP:RS simply states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". I believe I have also cited the policy of WP:PRIMARY. Thus, the "consensus" to remove any part which does not have third-party sources is invalid as it is not according to policy. Maiorem (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for an external link to Craig's complete bibliography. I still disagree on both the primary sources and the notability issue, though. The very first sentence of WP:RS#Overview reads: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In a section above, Maiorem argues that the reason for requiring third-party sources is is mainly to avoid original research. There are at least two additional reasons: To establish notability (and the article currently does a poor job of that) and to avoid undue weight. Basically, we need third-party sources to judge which parts of Craig's work are notable enough to be mentioned and which are not in order to avoid writing a biased, non-neutral article. We need not use sources for laypeople - we have Smith pointing out the importance of Kalam. But "reliable, third-party" is a requirement.

Amazon has a vested interest in selling the book and is thus likely to provide only positive editorial reviews; I don't think those snippets are helpful. Matters might be different if we could dig up the complete reviews, but even then the parts published on Amazon deal rather narrowly with the book itself and do not actually address Craig's significance in the field of philosophy (or theology?) of time. Huon (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

So, the published reviews by John R. Lucas, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Don Page, Quentin Smith, Robert Russell, and George Ellis are not helpful? They do not deal with Craig's significance in the field of philosophy or theology? Have you even read the reviews? Here's what Quentin Smith said in his review: "William Lane Craig is one of the leading philosophers of religion and one of the leading philosophers of time." You are free to doubt Quentin Smith and his expertise, but those are, once again, not valid grounds. Maiorem (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if the only place those reviews are published is Amazon or other bookstores, which are hardly known for fact-checking but for commerce, they are not helpful. I tried to find a reliable source for the Smith quote and failed. Huon (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, those reviews are in the book itself. That is why you can see almost every online bookstore carrying this book putting up these reviews. As the publisher is not tied to Quentin Smith in any way, the book should count as a reliable secondary source for the Quentin Smith quote. Maiorem (talk) 11:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no, sorry. You can ask the reliable sources noticeboard if you doubt me, but a sales blurb is not a reliable secondary source. Huon (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Those are not sales blurbs. Please understand the difference between sales blurbs and reviews. Maiorem (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Michael C Rea is a Professor of philosophy at Notre Dame Unversity. Here he describes Craig’s work in philosophy of time as extensive and influentional.

I decided to run some of Craig’s books on philosophy of time on Google Scholar and came up with 200+ citations in total. Not all his work obviously. Not the dozens of papers he’s published in peer reviewed journals. Just the books on philosophy of time listed in the bibliography (and I’m not sure if you’ve included the full bibliography either). After that I ran The End of Faith by Sam Harris and The Moral Landscape also by him. In total less than 130 citations.

I’d be grateful if somebody could explain to me why a professor of philosophy who is cited in academic journals is not worthy of two paragraphs expounding his work in technical philosophy while a book like The Moral Landscape which has 22 citations (almost none of which are in peer reviewed journals) is considered worthy of its own page. Why does Sam Harris have an obscenely long page dedicated to expounding his (pretty bizarre) views on religion in The End of Faith when Craig’s Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology (which turns 110+ citations on Google Scholar) is not worthy of nine different sections? HyperEntity (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC).

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I agree that the Harris article could do with some removal of stuff without secondary sources. The Moral Landscape seems to have about as many reliable secondary sources as Craig, if not more, but the article could probably also do with some shortening. If people there argue that paragraphs based only on primary sources are OK, feel free to summon me. Huon (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, how about WP:RS, which is totally fine with the use of primary sources so long as there is no original research based on those primary sources? Maiorem (talk) 04:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I also have no problem with you want reduce the list of books. With regard to the point about the KCA not needing a section because it already has its own page: We can draw an analogy between Hilary Putnam's multiple realizability argument and semantic externalism, Rorty's critique of the correspondence theory of truth, Fodor on functionalism etc.

Each of these has its own page yet there is a section of the philosopher's page providing a brief overview of his work. If you look at Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy's discussion of the KCA, it focuses almost exclusively on Craig's version of it. When we note that this the most widely discussed theistic argument I think it clearly merits own section. HyperEntity (talk)

Edit request from LikeLakers2, 27 September 2011

Null edit to purge page and remove from Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates, please. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

On what basis are you purging this page? If you do, it'll be put back. Best discuss matters before making rash decisions eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperEntity (talk • contribs) 19:49, 27 September 2011

If you read the edit request, you'd know. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, the request is likely to be done by an admin anyway. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Null edit made by Causa sui. Huon (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Primary sources

Does the article currently rely too much on primary sources? Should sections which are based only on primary sources be shortened or removed? Huon (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Maiorem and I disagree on how to apply WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY to this article. In my opinion, the article currently has just two reliable third-party sources, namely The Cambridge Companion to Atheism and a Fox News article. The other sources all fall in one of the following categories:

• Craig's website Reasonable Faith: Primary source.
• Books authored by Craig: Primary sources.
• The apologetics315 blog: No indication of fact-checking or of editorial oversight; not a reliable source.
• YouTube: User-submitted content, not a reliable source.
• A selection of Craig biographies by organizations with which Craig is affiliated, by his employers such as Biola University or the TV show Closer to Truth, or by organizations of which he is a fellow such as the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the Discovery Institute or ISCID. Since these organizations write about one of their fellows or employees, they are not independent of Craig and are not third-party sources. Also, such author profiles are not known for fact-checking and are probably not subject to editorial oversight. The reliable sources noticeboard agreed with my stance on such sources.

Thus, major parts of the article are currently based on primary sources. While Maiorem contends that we need to avoid only original research, WP:PRIMARY actually says that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. [...] [P]rimary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." Having entire sections based on nothing but primary sources is thus in conflict with WP:PRIMARY; we should shorten the articles and either condense such sections or remove them entirely. Huon (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I need to remind everyone that the reliability of YouTube videos is dependent on the user and cannot be generalized. In addition, of the two YouTube videos referenced in the article, one simply shows William Lane Craig making the statement that he does not fully endorse Intelligent Design, while the other is to simply show that he has debated Daniel Dennett. YouTube videos cannot be denied as a reliable source simply on the basis that they are user-submitted content.

Saying that the Apologetics 315 blog has "No indication of fact-checking or of editorial oversight" is not a valid argument unless proof of such allegation is given.

This is the third time I'm telling you to go and read and understand what a third-party source is. Biographies by employers or by organizations are independent of Craig and are third-party sources. Allegations that "such author profiles are not known for fact-checking and are probably not subject to editorial oversight" are unfounded. Of the contributors to the reliable sources noticeboard, only one of the editors, Nuujinn, states his opinion that the publisher is not independent of the author; a second editor, Brmull, simply states that the Closer to Truth author profile "wouldn't be a RS for BLP", while going on to say that "ordinarily the subject's blog would be a RS for info about himself", in which case the subject's blog is even more personal than the Closer to Truth author profile, though he has mistakenly referred to the Reasonable Faith website as a blog; meanwhile, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz treats Closer to Truth as "self-sourcing" and states that "the profile is far from an ideal source for the material it is cited for" yet at the same time he says that "it is better than similar citations to the subject's own books" so he does not claim that Closer to Truth is not a reliable source. Thus, Huon, you should not misrepresent the reliable sources noticeboard by making the egregious claim that they "agreed with [your] stance on such sources". And I almost forgot that one more editor, Andrew Lancaster, states the following:

To me it seems possible to sometimes use such author notes, but it is not ideal. I think that it makes sense to treat it like information on an author's webpage (indeed author's webpages are often based on the same types of texts that appear on their books) and indeed the main thing to be careful of then is to avoid anything un-duly self-serving or promotional. It seems better than nothing.

So, there you have it. Maiorem (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, remove primary source material - Yes, this article relies too much on sources that are authored by the subject of the article. The WP policies indicate that primary sources (by the subject) are discouraged ... see WP:Primary sources and WP:Secondary sources. Although primary sources are not outright prohibited, they should be used sparingly, usually as a supplement to secondary sources (e.g. a quote from an autobiography to illustrate a point made by a historian). The fact that this article is 90% heavily based on primary sources is plain fishy. It smacks of WP:SELFPROMOTE, WP:Conflict of interest, and WP:SPAM. Look at it this way: If there are more secondary sources available, remove the primary-source material, and use the 2ndary. If there are not more secondary sources, that means the material has not been commented upon by others, thus it is not encyclopedic material, and should be removed. --Noleander (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not true that the article is 90% based on primary sources. Out of the 32 references cited, only 13 of them are considered primary sources: 6 references from the Reasonable Faith website, 5 references from books that are authored by William Lane Craig, 2 references from books co-authored by William Lane Craig; that's only 40.625%, if you want to be precise. Even then, 3 of the references from the Reasonable Faith website are redundant for their purpose, i.e. to list the debates that William Lane Craig had been involved in, so once we remove those three redundant references we are left with 10 references from primary sources out of a total of 29 references, which makes it less than 34.5%. Mathematics, ladies and gentlemen. Also, by your reasoning in your last two sentences, primary sources would never be used at all, which is not WP:PRIMARY. Maiorem (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your latest edit, Noleander, what makes the article "heavily" based on primary sources when the primary sources only constitute about 40% of the total number of references? In case you do not know, 40% is less than half. Also, regarding your citation of WP:PRIMARY, it says in the policy section "Do not base articles and material entirely on primary sources." Even if the article is "heavily" based on primary sources it is not policy to remove primary sources. Directing us to WP:Primary sources and WP:Secondary sources suggests that you have not understood them yourself, because they both redirect to the same policy. Meanwhile, primary sources are not necessarily required to act as a "supplement" to secondary sources; nowhere in the letter or the spirit of WP:PRIMARY indicates this. In addition, we have already arrived at a consensus about the notability of William Lane Craig, so citing WP:SELFPROMOTE at this point is rather counter-productive. Citing WP:CONFLICT is also too vague and unhelpful. Accusing this article of WP:SPAM is unfounded. Maiorem (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

WP is a tertiary source, thus good WP articles summarize secondary sources, not primary sources. Relying on autobiographical information is unprofessional and unencyclopedic. When an editor picks-and-chooses material from primary sources, they are synthesizing (see WP:SYNTH) and the product of their editing is, invariably WP:Original research. See also Cherry picking, which is what happens when primary sources are used. This article appears to be self-serving per WP:SELFPROMOTE. The fact that you are spending lots of time typing-in detailed replies on the Talk page, when you could be researching 2ndary sources on this topic, and improving the article, is telling. --Noleander (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Kindly refer back to WP:PRIMARY, under the Policy of Tertiary sources:

Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other.

You are in no position to speak of what a "good" WP article should or should not contain if you are not following WP:POLICY. Unless WP:POLICY or WP:PRIMARY or WP:BLPPRIMARY states it, your opinion that "Relying on autobiographical information is unprofessional and unencyclopedic" is good for nothing and does not refer to anything under WP:POLICY.

I suggest you go and read up on WP:SYNTH yourself to know what is and isn't synthesizing. Based on WP:SYNTH, synthesis is combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Do not introduce your own definition of synthesis which is not supported by WP:SYNTH and then cite it; you are ironically undermining your own exhortation and in fact what you are doing is synthesis of WP:SYNTH. Understand what original research means, which, as defined by WP:OR:

The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.

Again, ironically, you are guilty of cherry picking yourself when you attempt to hand-pick "facts" to drown other information, giving a false impression that your particular bias is well-supported. Cherry picking can happen with any source, not just primary sources, and the use of primary sources does not entail cherry picking. Refer to what is not a coatrack.

That last sentence of yours does not deal with anything about WP:POLICY (in fact, your arguments are totally devoid and ignorant of WP:POLICY thus I will not respond to that in detail. Maiorem (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Maiorem, I'd just like to point out that you are combatively arguing with every editor who's weighed in on this issue, on this talk page, BLPN, RSN, and now this RfC. You may wish to reflect on whether that approach is likely to result in support of your views. Instead, you may find that taking a short break and letting others comment on this RfC, then returning later to reflect on the discussion as a whole, might be more productive. That's all I'll say on the matter. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that I am arguing on the basis of WP:POLICY of which almost none of you adhered to. Don't even bring up BLPN. While it is not of my concern if my arguments are an effective rhetoric in making others support my views, let it be known that I am working from WP:POLICY, as it is the duty of WP editors, and having any number of people, you included, comment on the matter in blatant disregard of actual policies is not productive at all, if not counter-productive. Now, either argue from the letter or the spirit of WP:POLICY and prove my objections and arguments invalid, or else you are not contributing anything meaningful. I also want to point out to anybody wishing to comment that being able to include WP:THIS or WP:THAT in your comments does not mean that you understood those policies; display your understanding by citing the relevant parts and relate it to how it affects the subject. I will not hesitate to point out failure or ignorance of such policies, and I expect others to do the same for me if I do make such mistakes. This is for the betterment of the editing of WP articles and I trust each one of you to be honest enough with yourselves. Maiorem (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Jess is right. Wikipedia's collegial atmosphere of cooperation and mutual respect is essential to building the encyclopedia, and so conducting yourself toward other editors in a respectful and civil manner is not optional. Your input and opinions are welcome, but your belligerent behavior on this talk page and elsewhere absolutely is not. I suggest you review Wikipedia's core policies, especially civility and etiquette - policies which your behavior here makes clear that you are in no position to lecture others on. I strongly urge you step away from this dispute and allow others to weigh in and discuss the matter without your response to every thread and comment. Regards, causa sui (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)