Talk:William Lane Craig/Archive 14

Trying to link to RationalWiki webpage about Dr. Craig
The RationalWiki webpage about Dr. Craig is completely legitimate, albeit, critical of him. It is not "unreliable":

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

This is just censorship on the part of other editors. I am requesting an administrative review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehannette (talk • contribs)
 * RationalWiki is user-generated content and does not meet the requirements set out in our policy. Moreover, since this is a biography of a living person, more stringent rules apply. It is not "censorship", it's trying to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia. Kleuske (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 1., please sign your comment with four tildes (~) or click the link next to Sign your posts on talk pages. 2. new talk page discussions go at the bottom of the page not above the header. 3. I can link you to numerous discussions at WP:RSN about using RationalWiki as a source, all of them say not to ever use it. 4. Please thoroughly read through our biography of living persons policy. Disputed material in a BLP should, almost always, stay out of the article until the dispute is resolved. There are numerous reasons for this, but, at the forefront of this is liability. Lastly, please make yourself well aware of WP:3RR and WP:EW, you are close to skirting one and getting involved in the other. Now, I am happy to discuss this, but, per BLP policy; Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Please do not re-add the content until the dispute is resolved. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my ping didn't work; . Mr rnddude (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The RationalWiki article is just a link; that hardly makes it "contentious". The Wikipedia article on The Daily Stormer has the link to its website.  Are you saying, by that very fact, that the site is a "reliable" source of information?  What if I authored a Wikipedia article on the RationalWiki and provided a link to it from there?  Would that link be deleted as it is, like The Daily Stormer, just "user generated content"? Jehannette (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Jehannette
 * That one is easy to explain. It is one thing to link the site of RationalWiki to the article on RationalWiki. Indeed, the website is linked. It is a completely different thing to link an article from "The Daily Stormer" to an article about, let's say, Jews, Judaism or The Holocaust. You would never do that because a) the source is anti-semitic and b) is completely unreliable. Besides, per the guideline on linking externally to BLP articles; External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP. BLPs are the hardest area to edit in, you have to carefully review all the policies and understand that, crucially, whenever a dispute arises at such an article, you must discuss it without the disputed material being in the article. The definition of disputed material, on Wikipedia, is another editor removing it. I removed it, therefore it is disputed. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And, so, are you saying that if someone linked to an article critical of Adolf Hitler or David Duke (living), that link would be removed? Jehannette (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Jehannette
 * Not at all what I'm saying. The issue is not criticism, it's reliability. I could go to the RationalWiki article you've linked and remove all the material it has and just leave it with; "William Lane Craig is da bombastic, Mr. Fantastic, Atheists are spastic". On top of that, I don't know who has written the article, what credentials they have, or whether or not they themselves would be reliable sources. If you link to an article that is written by an expert (theology, philosophy, or any related or scientific discipline preferably) or published in a scholarly journal (or even by a reliable news site) that was criticising WLC's ideas then it would not be a problem (at least not for me). Adolf Hitler has been dead for seven decades, BLP policy does not apply to his article. That said, you'd be hard pressed to find a particularly poor, unreliable, or unpublished source used anywhere in it. David Duke has an article, it currently uses 181 sources for the article's material. Many of these sources are of poor quality (Twitter, Amazon (? for some reason), and davidduke.com for example) and probably should be removed - I won't as it's not an article that I've ever edited, not a topic I know anything about, and not a topic area I want to get involved in - and many are from reputable sources (New York Times, Bridges (Published by the University of Mississipi) and Rose (Published by the University of North Carolina). But again, I didn't see a single source in their that could compate to RationalWiki. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would encourage you to look at the Wikipedia article on Ken Ham (Ken_Ham); it has a link to talk.origins, which is a site with user content; in fact, the link is in the main body of the article. Are you saying that link should be removed?  If not, how is the RationalWiki link any different than the talk.origins one?Jehannette (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Jehannette
 * There's two questions in there to respond to. Is it UGC? Well, no, that material was written by author Mark Isaak of "The Counter-Creationist Handbook" published by the University of California. TalkOrigins collects material from numerous sources and acts as an archive. I'm not aware that it has users who write content for it themselves. Should it be removed? As I'm not familiar with it I went to the reliable sources noticeboard and found this discussion last year about using TalkOrigins as a source which resulted in a consensus that; One cannot say that it is blanket reliable or blanket unreliable, it will depend on the material, its author, and the statement it's being used to support. So this one has to be reviewed case by case. In this case, the author is published and is speaking only for TalkOrigins and not for somebody else. It's responding to Ken Ham, not writing about him. So, as it is, it's probably acceptable. I doubt it is the best source available, but, it's not directly contravening any policies. Side-note; Also, it's entirely possible that it will take several hours to a day or two before an admin gets to our AN/EW thread. I'm actually heading off soon, but, will be back later today so this may be my last immediate correspondence. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , that's a great way to explain why you think the link is inappropriate. The example you used (the difference between linking The Daily Stormer to an article about The Daily Stormer, versus to an article about Jews) was well put. Thanks for laying out the issue so clearly. Approaching (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think linking to an article in The Daily Stormer in an article about Jews is inappropriate! What a wonderful way to document modern-day anti-Antisemitism!Jehannette (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Jehannette
 * I invite you to try that, tell me when it fails spectacularly. As with everything else, you should go to a relaible secondary source and not a primary one. Rather than planting an anti-semitic article into the article about Jews, it would make sense [read:be appropriate] to plant a scholarly article about The Daily Stormer's anti-semitic propaganda onto the article for anti-semitism, or, The Daily Stormer itself. Anything The Daily Stormer has to say about the Jewish people should not be placed into the article itself. We have Jewish editors and they would not, at all, be pleased to see an article from TDS on any Jewish related article. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I confess that I have not read those articles, and so, I don't know. I suppose that an article on anti-semiticism with links to anti-semitic material may be appropriate?  I don't know?  I am not about to get into another edit war over that one!Jehannette (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Jehannette
 * , I don't want you to feel like you're not being heard here. Can you perhaps talk a little bit about why you think this particular link is relevant? Do you feel like, perhaps, it has some truth to it, which the article itself doesn't include? Approaching (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The link is, in some respects, snarky, but it is chalked full of excellent information and links. Dr. Craig, like The Daily Stormer, is an extremist who few scholars within the Academy take seriously.  The Wikipedia article has very little criticism of Dr. Craig's work, but within the RationalWiki article on him, users can find at least a half-a-dozen links to scholars who are critical of Dr. Craig's work, even though most to chose to ignore him as being a crank.Jehannette (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Jehannette

Hi. Thanks for your input. Basically, wikipedia has a certain metric it applies for determining what sources we should use. The argument that rationalwiki is critical of Craig is a very poor argument. But as Approaching has explained here, there are other good reasons that we cannot link it. In general, we cannot link open wikis at all, regardless of their content. For another example, we cannot use wikipedia as a source within wikipedia, even though wikipedia has a lot of useful information! If you like RationalWiki's coverage, the solution is to find what sources it's using and reproduce that content and those sources (without plagiarism!) into this article. Of course, their standards for sourcing are different than ours, so things might end up looking a little different... but that's really the only way to accomplish your goal. Good luck! &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 13:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am going to try to write-up a paragraph for the main article on criticism's of Dr. Craig's work and try to link to scholarly articles; hopefully, that will pass muster!13:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Jehannette
 * On the off-chance that it doesn't get immediately accepted, I'm not likely to challenge it unless I have (or feel I have) a good reason to, then please propose it here (under a new section) and if necessary I can setup an WP:RfC to get wider consensus on it. That said, be bold and put your work into the article first. If someone reverts, than follow the guidance of WP:BRD. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Jehannette thanks for laying out your view of the issue. It helps give a sense of where you're coming from. I want to mention two things: (a) You seem to be having some trouble signing your name. Try going to the Preferences link at the top of the screen and see if you can set your signature there. I think that will make your life easier so far as signing your comments. (b) About how William Lane Craig is perceived: I know that there is a very deep and bitter rivalry between against Craig from the New Atheist camp (which, incidentally represents the view of many Wikipedians, as well as RationalWiki it seems). Part of this social/political rivalry seems to result in a lot of the criticism of Craig. I recognize this battle, and I want to be respectful of the people on both sides of this rivalry. With that in mind, I want to encourage a few boundaries on the kind of criticism we wish to include: (a) It must meet Wikipedia quality generally, (b) it must meet the more stringent standards of a BLP, (c) it must be about his views or actions, and not be merely personal attacks, (d) it must be objective, and not in service of any of the ideologies that make up this rivalry. For an objective, encyclopedic article, I'm sure you agree that these are fair boundaries to draw. I hope you will consider these criteria when making your edits. If there's anything else you want to discuss, let me know. —&#91;Approaching&#93; (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks; in fact, I will post these edits here before altering the main article. And, thanks for the tip about signatures!Jehannette (talk)
 * While the effort to be collaborative is awesome, you actually shouldn't do that, unless you think the changes will be controversial. One of the guidelines on wikipedia is WP:BOLD, which basically says to just make changes, and if another editor disagrees, they'll revert you. This allows you to save time only discussing the contentious material. If you're not sure if you're doing it right, of course feel free to post for input here first... but otherwise, just put it in, and discuss anything that gets undone. Good luck!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't believe that my edits on the Talk page are getting deleted!
This is just insane; do the other editors here want to have a "constructive dialogue" or not, per Wikipedia's TOS?
 * , they haven't been deleted, they've been moved to the discussion portion of the page. Please scroll down. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies; I was confused about the Administrator Review process, which kind of indicated that a review request needed to be placed at the top of the Talk page.Jehannette (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Jehannette
 * That's ok. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Compromise?
How about someone post a comment to the fact that the RationalWiki website has an article on Dr. Craig and simply provide the Wikipedia link, RationalWiki
 * Bad idea. By that reasoning, the RationalWiki article should link to every article on RationalWiki.
 * I agree with you that RationalWiki has useful stuff to say about Craig but linking to it from WP is just not possible within the rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine. How mentioning the fact that the RationalWiki has an article on Craig and then linking to the Wikipedia article on RationalWiki?Jehannette (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Jehannette

Reflections on Scholarly Criticisms
There's been a longstanding debate here about criticisms of William Lane Craig, between some frequent pushing by some editors to incorporate more criticism of his view, and on the other hand a good deal of pushback against the POV nature of some of these criticisms. I've always endorsed the view that criticism ought to meet a reasonably high standard, which I'm happy to say it does. Unfortunately, I find there's something iffy about having a section in the article dedicated to criticism. Notably, such a section does not feature on the BLPs of virtually any other person similar to this BLP. So I have to wonder whether this move is a bit unwarranted and needs to be mitigated somewhat. Do you guys find it common or representative to have dedicated scholarly criticism sections in other similar BLPs? Let me know.

Note I'm not arguing for the removal of these criticisms. Maybe they can be incorporated into the body of his views instead. —Approaching (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I thought it was the preferable wiki policy of incorporating criticism into the body of the article. So, if that can be done gracefully, then I think it's the way to go.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Criticism should be integrated into this article of Craig like Wikipedia integrates criticism into the pages of any other academic philosopher, such as Daniel Dennett or others, not any differently at all. A general note, the opinions of users who call Craig "hardly an analytic philosopher" or something along these lines should be strongly repudiated in almost all cases unless they have valuable sources to contribute. Craig is the author of three books that have been published to Oxford University Press to say the least, along a whole range of other academic accomplishments (just see through his CV http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig/curriculum-vitae and read through all his honors, lectureships, and professional societies he is a member of, including his professorships at various academic institutions and many degrees). Google Scholar also reveals a number of his works have a large number of citations, including a volume he co-authored into InterVarsity Press titled Philosophical foundations for a Christian worldview and his volume The problem of divine foreknowledge and future contingents from Aristotle to Suarez published in Brill (another renowned publishing press) amongst others. As this very Wikipedia page states, Quentin Smith, a renowned atheist philosopher says "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." Craig, if I'm not mistaken, is also the author of over 200 peer-reviewed papers (documented on his website ReasonableFaith). Anyone attacking his credentials should be highly suspected on terms of POV.

Poor referencing with a large number of primary sources
27 of this article's references are to his own website Reasonable Faith which is a primary source, many more reference his own books, what happened to in-depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject? The article should be reporting what others have said. Theroadislong (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear Theroadislong, I hope you are fine. I couldn't agree with you more about the need for this page to rely on reliable and authoritative third-party sources. Too much of it is Lane talking about Lane. It reads a bit like an uncritical fan page in places. Best regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Craig as a historian
In the first sentence of the Wikipedia, I think we should also mention that Craig is, apart from an analytic philosopher, theologian and Christian apologist, a historian as well. Craig's CV reveals he has a Masters in Church History with a summa cum laude, and a lot of Craig's published work (such as his books) on the historicity of the Resurrection, Craig's published material on the historicity of the empty tomb, and other aspects of the Gospel narratives, reveals he has contributed a lot of academic work to the profession of history. So I think this should also be included that he is a historian.Korvex (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "Published material on the historicity of the empty tomb and other aspects of the Gospel narratives" is essentially saying Craig is a historian of fictional events. I think a qualifier that he's a historian of alleged Biblical events would be necessary. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree.   K Sci  &#160; (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's try to remember that a Neutral Point of View is a central tenant of Wikipedia. Assertions of this manner betray a bias in our writing and shouldn't be included any more than they aren't included for any other claimed historical event. Squatch347 (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The vivacious blonde who brought Craig to Christ
The vivacious blonde Sandy Tiffan Ackerman who brought Craig to Christ should be included :) https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P90/sandy-tiffan-ackerman 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:8C86:307:1DAF:7AE (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Unless he banged her, and there are pictures, I don't see how it would improve the article. :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It's a nice anecdotal story, but not significant enough for inclusion. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre 01:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of simple edits
I am really surprised that my simple edits were reverted with a two word summary. Firstly, criticism sections are generally to be avoided see WP:CRIT. Secondly, the removal of the repeated text 'is known for' makes the text much clearer, as it focuses on what he did, and not what a group of unspecific people know him for. What he is known for is also pretty hard to verify. How does including 'is known for' improve the text? Ashmoo (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Reception addition
I wanted to talk about this addition:

The American Rationalist published an article titled "The Logical Fallacies of William Lane Craig" alleging Dr. Craig commits a profusion of circular reasoning and other fallacies.

Generally, reception section are limited to either broad stroke reception by audiences or specific peer critiques. I'm not sure every article written in objection is noteworthy or should be included here. I'm open to perhaps missing why this should be included though,

Squatch347 (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Protestant philosophers category
I'm wondering why Category:Protestant philosophers was removed. While his philosophy is certainly not exclusive to Protestantism, he is nonetheless a Protestant philosopher, not unlike every other philosopher in Category:Protestant philosophers whose philosophies are not exclusive to Protestants either. You have added Category:Christian philosophers in its place, but his philosophy is not exclusive to Christianity either – consider the relevance of the Kalām cosmological argument to Islam, for example. Moreover, the article is already in Category:21st-century Protestant theologians, so I'm not sure why he could be termed a Protestant theologian and a Christian philosopher but not a Protestant philosopher. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I didn't change it per se, I reverted it to the agreed upon form as I didn't see the warrant for the change. I appreciate your rationale. When I review the Protestant philosopher list vs Christian philosopher it looks like Craig better fits the latter. The philosophers and theologians of the former list spend significant energy on the theological underpinnings of Protestant theology. Craig however focuses his defense on the broader "mere christianity."


 * Your last point is a good one. Perhaps for consistency's sake we should add it as another category? Squatch347 (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * When I review the Protestant philosopher list vs Christian philosopher it looks like Craig better fits the latter. The philosophers and theologians of the former list spend significant energy on the theological underpinnings of Protestant theology. Craig however focuses his defense on the broader "mere christianity." Where was it determined that whether a given scholar delves more into theology should have any bearing on whether they would be in a particular category for philosophers? And I'm not sure how you could make that assessment of Category:Protestant philosophers when it includes figures like C. S. Lewis, Marilyn McCord Adams, Stephen R. L. Clark, George Grant, and Cornel West. (Also bear in mind that a category includes its subcategories.)


 * More importantly, how do you reconcile your position with WP:CAT? It provides: "If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second (an is-a relationship), then the first category should be made a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of the second. ... Apart from certain exceptions (i.e. non-diffusing subcategories, see below), an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category (unless the child category is non-diffusing – see below – or eponymous)."


 * I don't see how Category:Protestant philosophers would qualify as a non-diffusing subcategory, and if that were to be what you're suggesting, you would be proposing a dramatic overhaul of Category:Christian philosophers and its 1,000+ articles (including articles in subcategories).


 * Your last point is a good one. Perhaps for consistency's sake we should add it as another category? That would be in flagrant contravention of WP:CAT, as you can see from the above quotation. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you have the burden on the wrong person. If you think the page should be changed feel free to make an argument as to why he should be pushed down rather than remaining higher in the chain. Why do you think Craig is a Protestant philosopher rather than a broader philosohpher? Are you basing this on his personal ideology or work? Let's remember good faith here as well. Squatch347 (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you think Craig is a Protestant philosopher rather than a broader philosohpher? I don't – why can't he be both? Given that both apply, WP:CAT directs us to use the child category.


 * Are you basing this on his personal ideology or work? Since we're taking as a given that he is a Christian philosopher, it's only natural that his Protestantism plays a role in the perspective he brings to his work. To use one example, take the sources of authority he uses. In many instances, he takes sola scriptura as a given whereas of course he would never make similar use the Roman Catholic magisterium or Eastern Orthodox canon law.


 * We can also see him described as a "Protestant philosopher" or "evangelical philosopher" in plenty of reliable sources by authors of a variety of theo-philosophical perspectives such as: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; . But my digging up those references (and there's plenty more where those came from) really shouldn't be necessary given that we agree that Craig is both a Protestant theologian and a Christian philosopher and, ipso facto, can be deemed to be a Protestant philosopher.


 * Let's remember good faith here as well. Is there anything here that's led you to believe that I am not observing good faith? I don't believe your motives here are in any way nefarious. Rather, I just assumed you to be unfamiliar with our categorization guidelines, especially given your suggestion that we would add a parent category of one of the article's categories (Category:21st-century Christian theologians) alongside the original category. And I'm still wondering how you can reconcile your position with those guidelines. As I wrote before:


 * Perhaps you could clarify. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The argument based on how he cites sola scriptura doesn't really apply. A mere Christian philosopher would do the same for obvious reasons. It also is a bit too close to WP:OR in my opinion. Your list of secondary sources however is definitely a good reason to lost him as you state. Better that we follow the sources. Thanks for the research. Good edit.. Squatch347 (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The argument based on how he cites sola scriptura doesn't really apply. A mere Christian philosopher would do the same for obvious reasons. Uhhh, non-Protestant Christians all but uniformly reject sola scriptura, so I fail to see how such a person wouldn't qualify as a Protestant philosopher.


 * It also is a bit too close to WP:OR in my opinion. Well yeah, that would definitely qualify as original research. I was merely answering the question you insisted on, despite the fact that it wasn't particularly relevant to the matter at hand.


 * Your list of secondary sources however is definitely a good reason to lost him as you state. The secondary sourcing really wasn't required in this case because we had established that he is a Christian philosopher and that he is a Protestant which, ipso facto, makes him a Protestant philosopher.


 * Better that we follow the sources. Thanks for the research. Good edit.. That being the case, I'm not sure why you haven't reverted yourself, . 142.160.89.97 (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

 



Four problems with the "Reception" section
Hi folks. So a number of people (myself included) pointed out that the MOS doesn't favor a distinct criticism section in the body of the article. There's been a bit of feet-dragging on the issue of incorporating criticisms into the body of the article. In addition, someone has renamed the criticism section to "reception". While no doubt a good-faith edit, I suspect it only meets the letter and not the spirit of the view against a criticism section. You'd likewise find it a bit fishy if a burglar proclaims his innocence because he was simply "borrowing without permission." So I don't think simply renaming works. Third, the criticism is not a criticism of the subject of the BLP, but it is about some of the views he holds. So properly, this criticism would belong to a topic dedicated to the views, and not to the BLP. And finally, the criticisms aren't particularly substantive. It's trivial to state that a number of views have been challenged in academia: Turns out every view is challenged in academia, and it doesn't need to be announced on Wikipedia. Likewise for the responses to these views. How do we feel about removing the section? —Approaching (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * His views are in this article. So criticism of those views should be in this article. The current section is abysmal, and without a substantial rewrite ought to be removed, however, until somebody decides they care enough to write a proper one. What part of MOS is against a criticism section? This is the first I've heard of this and I can't find it in MOS. I found WP:Manual_of_Style/Philosophy which anticipates that criticism sections will be needed in philosophy articles, and gives guidance on how to write them appropriately. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying. Part of the complication is that this article is a hybrid of a BLP and an article on philosophical views. While dedicated criticism sections are encouraged for articles on philosophical positions (per WP:CRIT), they are discouraged for BLP articles (see WP:CSECTION). How do you feel about an article dedicated to his views, as well as refutations of his views? —Approaching (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it should be removed. My $0.02.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I just removed the following sentence from the reception section: "Craig has responded to these various criticisms and challenges to his views, including the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Moral Argument, the alleged genocide of the Canaanites, Arguments against Actual Infinities,  the Fine-tuning Argument,  and the Resurrection Argument."

I wanted to preserve these citations on the talk page in case someone should find them useful in the future. However, the sentence – merely pointing out that Craig has responded to those who have criticized him – does not in itself add anything to the article. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Suffering from Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease
Mentioned in A Severe Diagnosis podcast on Nov 19 2018 on reasonable faith. Include it? 120.29.51.76 (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Dawkin's Opinion
Dawkins' accusation that WLC supports genocide is inappropriate for a BLP. Person A accusing person B of being an asshole is not relevant. I think that this emotional attack by Dawkins is not suitable to a Wiki BLP. How about we just remove the second paragraph completely? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * There's an ongoing discussion, above. Why don't you use it instead of creating a new section? Guettarda (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It was getting too long. But, whatever.  Moving to the above.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins refusing a debate
Something should be on here about Richard Dawkins chickening out of a debate with Prof Craig. It was put on billboards right throughout the UK! 132.234.228.173 (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Dawkins never agreed to debate Craig in the first place. And this article does mention his refusal, under "Other views". However, it doesn't mention Craig's theatrical spectacle of Eastwooding Dawkins in Dallas, and IMO managing the singular feat of debating an empty chair and losing. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Dawkins gave his usual response to such debate requests from crackpots, which is "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine". . That one is on spot.
 * Who cares about what some guy called Came said about Dawkins? The article is about neither of those two. I will remove that.--Hob Gadling (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I did, but it was reverted without good reason.
 * This article is about Craig.
 * Dawkins refusing to debate Craig is relevant, and we have sources for it (Dawkins and Came).
 * Daniel Came attacking Dawkins is not relevant. It has nothing to do with Craig, Came is nobody special, and we only have a primary source (Came himself).
 * The only reason I can think of why anybody would want to mention it in this article is to protect one's hero Craig from mean old Dawkins - that is, to poison the well.
 * I changed the title of this section to a more neutral one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Upon reviewing this, I too find it a bit bizarre that Came is being block quoted here in the Craig BLP specifically attacking Dawkins; there is only a single sentence in the entire article mentioning Dawkins, so why is there multiple sentences plus a block quote from Came like this? I'm going pair the Came content down to a single sentence on my next edit.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit implemented here; comments welcome. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely better. I think we can definitely agree that the second paragraph is completely unnecessary.  The first paragraph though at least has some relevancy in that it highlights Craig's perceived standing within this community.  It would have some relevancy to Craig's bio in that sense I think. Squatch347 (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "Craig's perceived standing within this community"? What community?
 * Do we really need three sources attacking Dawkins? BTW, independently of Dawkins' general stance on not debating crackpots, I can fully understand anybody who avoids contact with an open proponent of deadly violence as an answer to disobedience. That gives the phrase "chickening out" a completely different meaning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * His perception within the Atheist community as a prominent apologist. The point isn't to pile on criticism of Dawkins, but to point out how Craig is viewed when compared to other apologists by Dawkins' fellow travelers.  Your second paragraph is somewhat irrelevant to this point.  I get that your pov is that you don't like Craig and somehow think he advocates violence against his opponents, but that isn't the relevant point to the first paragraph.


 * Maybe a slight addition like: "Fellow atheist Daniel Came criticized Dawnkins' refusal in 2011 by noting that; "The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV...by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters..." }}


 * Squatch347 (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I can't see any reason whatsoever to mention the non notable Daniel Came in this article. Theroadislong (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Except, of course, if one's pov is that one likes Craig and needs to add everything one can find that supports him and detracts from his detractors, however irrelevant. In that case, the non-notable Daniel Came is urgently needed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it could be because such observations are common on the pages of people associated with this question? It doesn't take long to find similar quotes and references on any number of prominent atheist or theist pages.  Taking it in context, it is odd that it wouldn't appear here as well.  Squatch347 (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It only appears odd to people who are not aware that Wikipedia has higher standards than "the pages of people associated with this question". --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So Wikipedia doesn't have some sort of system for grouping pages that are related to similar issues, topics, or areas? There isn't some kind of grouping or set associated with pages that allow users to understand the categorization of a page? Odd that we have all these bots, users, and policies dedicated to updating and conveying standards for something that doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards.  That is certainly a novel approach to avoiding consistency.  Squatch347 (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are now obviously talking about something totally different from what you appeared to be talking about. This is not about "reasons to mention the non notable Daniel Came in this article" anymore but, somehow, about categories. When you said, "the pages of people associated with this question", you were not talking about home pages of people like Craig or Dawkins, but about Wikipedia pages about people like Craig or Dawkins?
 * Are you still talking about improving the article? If no, please stop. If yes, you should try to be clearer. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I took your recommendation for clarity seriously and spent some time re-reading my responses. I'm not sure clarity is the issue so much as presumptions you are bringing to reading my responses.  Notice, for example, that you assumed I was talking about Craig and Dawkins' homepages though I made no such comment.  Clearly, given the context we are talking about (consistency within Wiki) I was referring to their pages here rather than some external source.  Clearly, given the context, of arguing for consistency I was referring to Wiki's categorization standards and policies.  So, rather than addressing your opponent and your assumptions about my motivations, perhaps we can address the points I laid out supporting the text.
 * 1) It is consistent with other pages in similar categories which contain not only similarly structured references, but this exact reference. That we would include it only on pages for one side of a debate when it is about that debate is not only inconsistent, but confusing.  2) That the quote references Craig's notability and is therefore germane to his biography.  3) It fits well, and materially adds to, the narrative of the reception section which details both his professional reception, and broader social reception. It was certainly noteworthy enough for the first source of that section to discuss the same topic and make the same point. Squatch347 (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So you think "the pages of people associated with this question", or, "their pages", clearly means "the Wikipedia articles about them". Well, it was not clear to me, so it did not make sense to me. Clarity does not mean you should write texts that are clear to you yourself, it means you should write texts that are clear to other people.
 * What are those "other pages in similar categories" that contain "similarly structured references, but this exact reference"? Am I supposed to look at every Wikipedia article that is in a category you deem "similar" in order to find which articles you could mean? Even if you explained which categories those are, that would not make sense. Please stop trying to make other people do humongous amounts of work when you could easily give a direct link to one such article. Generally, providing links is a far, far better idea than mumbling and handwaving and complaining afterwards that people have "presumptions". We both together have now spent six contributions on trying to communicate one single thing from your brain to mine, and I have no confidence that you will manage it in the seventh. If you do not, I will just stop responding. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed the section entirely. The section isn't about Dawkins, it's about Craig's views (in that paragraph, his views about genocide. The Dawkins mention there is only relevant as a response to Craig's views. The comments of a third party, which don't even appear to address the genocide issue, don't belong.

The sources are also a bit weak for criticism of a living person - we have Came's primary source, and an opinion article talking about it. Not strong BLP sources by any stretch. Guettarda (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * There's a discussion here. Please engage instead of edit-warring. Guettarda (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, per your comment below
 * You accused me of accusing [Craig] of supporting genocide in this edit summary, which is false and a personal attack.
 * You simply edit-warred to reinstate Came's criticism of Dawkins. I'm not sure how using this article to report third-party criticisms of Dawkins has anything bearing at all on the issue. So your stated reason for engaging in edit-warring and personal attacks is at odds with your actions here.
 * I have no idea what you're trying to achieve here. But discussion is always the better option. Guettarda (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Hob Gadling, 1)Apologies then. I thought the contextual clues of what we are talking about would have provided the clarity you were seeking.  I usually try to avoid sounding pedantic out of politeness. I'll work to be a bit more detailed to ensure we have a clear line of communication.
 * 2) I, of course, don't expect you to look at every single wiki page, but a basic familiarity with the other persons referenced on this page would seem warranted if you are going to consider editing here. Not having at least cursory reviewed the subject of this edit discussion wikipedia biography page seems the minimum level of due diligence to understand how to create a consistent level of information across a category. Moreover, a simple review of the sources on this page itself would be warranted to see how often this specific topic has been referenced by them. I am not attempting to shift the homework on this topic to someone else. I think your portrait to that effect is both inaccurate and unfair. I have already done that homework which is why I'm objecting to the proposed edit.  But we should be clear, the burden is on you to show why this edit is warranted and how it complies with wiki policies.  You are, after all, the one supporting the change.
 * @Guettarda, I think you raise a good point about the section being misplaced. That this section is about Craig's views specifically, not about the reception of his views.  I would bump my recommendation above to be placed in the reception section. Squatch347 (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Although I said I would stop responding if you continued to not say what you are talking about, I will just note that this is what happened. You have not given a reason for including Came, and there is no reason to expect that will change, so the Came quote stays out. Also, you should try to keep discussions separate (not this discussion, because it is finished). --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Guettarda,

First, I'm not edit warring. I reverted twice and then stopped there. Per BRD, this should be discussed before moving forward. Apparently, others seem to want to edit war.

Second, I'm not accusing you of anything and certainly not a personal attack. I thought it was clear what I meant by "you", but I guess not. In any case, my apologies that it came across that way.

Third, that Dawkins accused WLC of supporting genocide is as irrelevant as him (Dawkins) calling WLC an asshole. Actually, calling him an asshole is not as bad as calling him (WLC) a genocide supporter.

Fourth, the sentence is somewhat misleading (i.e., Dawkins says that he HAS debated WLC, in Mexico) and should either be removed or expanded to include WLC's response to that accusation. It would be somewhat long so it would probably be best just to move "WLC vs Dawkins" to a different article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're edit-warring - you were revert-warring. You refused to address the reasons for the edit, and used false rationales for your reverts.
 * You reverted me, and said "you", so yeah, it definitely looked like your personal attack was aimed at me. Regardless of who your PA was aimed at, it was a personal attack - it was an accusation against your fellow editors ("you") rather than the subject matter. Just stop.
 * I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Craig himself discusses the genocide issue (the article references him on it). Deserved or not, it's one of the main things that people know about him. Replacing a sourced criticism (deserved or not) with an unsourced and non-notable insult makes absolutely no sense.
 * A non-debate between Dawkins and Craig does not deserve a stand-alone article. Guettarda (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's remember how this discussion started. An editor made an edit to the main page with what they thought was a constructive edit by removing material (no foul there). It was reverted because there was disagreement as to what parts of that edit were warranted and a talk page discussion opened. That discussion has, as of yet, not reached consensus. Thus continuing to push an edit is a violation of the principle of WP:CON. Let's work through those issues and get to something we can all agree upon rather than inevitably getting an arbitration team involved.

There is obviously disagreement on the subject of the Came quote. We can start with what there does appear to be consensus on: the second paragraph of the quote is unwarranted and should be removed. The disagreement comes in two forms; should Came be referenced at all, and if so what should be offered?

I've given three reasons why the Came reference should be included though I think the reception section is more logical place to mention it along with the other issues being discussed here. There also seems to be a new discussion related to genocide that arose as part of Dawkins' statement on why he wouldn't debate Craig. Taking that into account, here is what I recommend the first paragraph of the Reception section should say (happy to hear feedback and edits):


 * According to Nathan Schneider, "[many] professional philosophers know about him only vaguely, but in the field of philosophy of religion, [Craig's] books and articles are among the most cited". Sam Harris has described Craig as "the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists." Prominent atheist Richard Dawkins has declined to debate Craig on several occasions, citing is "crack-pot policy" and pointing to Dawkins' assertion that Craig has supported genocide. Dawkins has received criticism for this position, including from fellow atheist Daniel Came who noted that; "The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV...by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters..."

Squatch347 (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not want to continue trying to talk to you, because you consistently failed to make yourself clear, but that sort of thing obviously only leads to you thinking you are winning. As long as nobody understands you, there is "no consensus".


 * I have looked for those "reasons", and I found a threesome I suspect of being the ones. Do you mean those three sentences?
 * It is consistent with other pages in similar categories which contain not only similarly structured references, but this exact reference. That we would include it only on pages for one side of a debate when it is about that debate is not only inconsistent, but confusing.
 * This one is just handwaving. Without giving a single example, you claim that "other pages" (which ones are those?) in "similar categories" (which ones are those?) contain "similarly structured references" (which ones are those?) You have failed to answer these questions before ( "Am I supposed to look at every Wikipedia article that is in a category you deem "similar" in order to find which articles you could mean?" ), and I expect you to ignore them again. Prove me wrong. So, bad reason until you cough up those pages. Probably still bad after that, since WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
 * That the quote references Craig's notability and is therefore germane to his biography.
 * Somebody nobody heard of (Came) believes Craig is notable. Duh. Of course Craig is notable, otherwise this article would be deleted. We do not need Came. Bad reason.
 * It fits well, and materially adds to, the narrative of the reception section which details both his professional reception, and broader social reception.
 * This is just your opinion. Others do not see that supposed good fit or material addition. Not a reason at all.


 * Here are three reasons against it:
 * Came as a person is not notable. His opinion is not notable.
 * This article is about Craig, not about Dawkins. Also not about Came. To an article about one person, it is not relevant what another person says about yet another person.
 * Even if there were no reason against including it, we would need a reason for including it. We don't have one.
 * My reasons are better than your reasons. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Came is not notable (in Wikipedia terms) so his opinion is of no interest to us. Theroadislong (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hob Gadling, your responses seem to trend towards the personal. None of how you feel about me or the subject helps promote a resolution or a consensus on this subject.  Perhaps we can focus on the discussion at hand?


 * 1) Consistency. I noted in an earlier response that it was consistent with many pages within the categories on wikipedia that this page is associated with.  I did give a specific example, the subject of the discussion here, Richard Dawkins.  If you would like additional examples I would point you to peruse any of the associated categories.  For example, 20th-century American philosophers 6 of the 9 surveyed pages had references either from non-professionals in a popular press publication or criticisms from individuals without established Wikipedia pages (Allen, Elshtain, Errol Harris, Sam Harris [A subject of this discussion btw], Walter J. Ong, Ludwig von Mises). In American Christian Theologians, 4 of the 7 contained the same (Grant, Sweis, Littell, Warren). In Christian Apologists, 3 of the 7 (Hügel, Lennox, White). In Critics of Atheism, 5 of 8 (Hart, Ham, Paley, Inwagen, Donohue). In Philosophers of Relgion, 5 of 10 (Grayling, Hitchens, Pereira, Dennett, Martin).  We can at least see from this list that there is no specific prohibition of the sort attempting to be applied here. References by third parties to specific incidents in a person's life that are covered in reputable secondary sources are warranted for inclusion and are, in fact, included generally in biographies on Wikipedia.


 * 2) Notability. Because you have not heard of an Oxford professor who is a published philosopher of religion does not mean that "no one" has heard of him.  That a major publication chose to publish his letter would seem to counter your opinion.   That it is also referenced on Dawkins' page (as I've mentioned several times now) would also seem to indicate it was worthy of inclusion as a notable incident in both of their careers.


 * 3) By others you mean 1 other. And it isn't just my opinion as it was originally included and there is a section on reception.  It would seem odd to whitewash the reception section and not include a relatively prominent incident in his public reception by a fellow professor.


 * Related to your arguments:


 * ~1) Non-notability, I deal with this a bit below, but because someone does not have a built out page does not mean they aren't notable. Obviously the Guardian felt he was notable enough to publish his open letter.  Further, we have no such wiki policy.  Unless you can show where it is wiki policy that only those who have a built out wiki page should be included on biographies this objection doesn't stand.


 * ~2) I agree that this page is about Craig. And a notable incident in his professional career was the challenging of Richard Dawkins to a debate at Oxford, his subsequent refusal, and criticism by fellow atheist and Oxford professor.  You are attempting to make an argument that no other persons outside the biographical person should be referenced at all.  That is clearly not a sustainable standard, and materially detracts from the article.  The topic being discussed is Dawkins' refusal to debate Craig, thus it is relevant to Craig's biography.


 * ~3) I've offered three. An open letter by an Oxford philosopher of religion and fellow atheist published in a major newspaper addressing a notable incident in Craig's professional career warrants inclusion.


 * On Came's notability. There is no policy within Wiki that says we do not include a quote unless there is an established page within Wikipedia.  That there is a reliable secondary source for the quote that was considered notable by a The Guardian would indicate that there is at least some impact to his having said so.  It isn't as if he is some joe with a blog, he is a published professor from Oxford University (where the initial proposed debate was to take place) with a specialty in the philosophy of religion (the topic of that debate).


 * Squatch347 (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:NNC states, except for certain list articles, "[t]he notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles..." If we're going to cover that controversy, I don't see why we shouldn't include reactions to it that appeared in reputable newspaper, especially if the controversy doesn't have more complete coverage elsewhere on Wikipedia. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Although you are still not providing the actual links and references, you typed words that may help me find the links and references: You seem to say that Category:20th-century American philosophers contains someone called Allen (I start at the beginning).
 * Now that I wrote that Category:20th-century American philosophers link, I have to click "Show preview" so I can click on it and find that the category has two Allens: Anita L. Allen and William B. Allen. Both have references, but I do not know which ones you mean. Or maybe "Allen" is not one of the "6 of the 9 surveyed pages" but one of the "non-professionals in a popular press publication" or one of the "individuals without established Wikipedia pages" quoted by "6 of the 9 surveyed pages", which you are not naming? No, probably not, since you gave six names (Allen, Elshtain, Errol Harris, Sam Harris, Walter J. Ong, Ludwig von Mises). So, according to you (probably), one of the two Allen articles contains "references either from non-professionals in a popular press publication or criticisms from individuals without established Wikipedia pages". After reading both Allen articles, I could not find any criticism of the Allens, so it must be "references [..] from non-professionals in a popular press publication".
 * Maybe you are talking about this sentence:
 * "She was featured in Carlin Romano's 2007 article, "A Challenge for Philosophy." Of her, he writes, "Penn's Anita Allen is at the top of her field, but she has serious concerns about its lack of openness and diversity."[2]"
 * This case is completely different from the Came thing. Romano has a Wikipedia article, and he is talking about Allen, not about someone who said something about Allen.
 * So I tried the William Allen article, which has three sentences sourced to newspapers. One of them says "Allen is the father of classicist and political scientist Danielle Allen.[5]" and quotes a newspaper article that says she is his daughter. The others say "He was promoted to Associate Professor in 1976 and served as full Professor from 1983–94." and "Under his guidance the agency developed major strategic planning, funding formula, program assessment, and general education recommendations. He successfully put questions like making colleges more accountable for the state money they get on the agenda in Virginia." Those are simple facts that can be sourced to newspapers without a problem. So, this case is also completely different from the Came thing.
 * So those are not great examples for what you want to show. And I do not know which Allen you meant, nor which quote from which source you meant. Maybe you meant some different text in one of the Allen articles, one which I did not consider. There may even be another article about someone named Allen, which has been removed from the category since you wrote it. All this insecurity I have is caused by you not providing a link but just the second name and tha name of a category, after I explicitly asked ""other pages" (which ones are those?) [..] contain "similarly structured references" (which ones are those?) ".
 * Next. Jean Bethke Elshtain. After looking at the article, I have no idea which reference you could be talking about. Am I supposed to spend hours trying to find out? Fuck it. You are still fucking delegating your fucking tiny workload of providing a link and saying which reference you are fucking talking about to someone for whom it is far more fucking work to fucking guess what you may fucking mean.
 * Deep breath. Inner peace, inner peace. I will forget this one, since it is bound to end with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS anyway, even if you ever manage to provide your examples, which I expect to happen around the year 2023. Next.
 * Daniel Came is an "Oxford professor who is a published philosopher of religion"? Well that is news. Should we have an article about him? In that case, his opinion may be relevant for the Dawkins article - though not for the Craig article, since he is not talking about Craig. And why is he called "fellow atheist Daniel Came" and not "philosopher of religion Daniel Came"?
 * It is still just an opinion, even if you are not the only one who holds it. And you conveniently overlooked that I am not the only one who contradicts you. I am just the most patient one.
 * Now, about my own reasoning.
 * "Obviously the Guardian felt he was notable enough to publish his open letter." Wow. You really think we should use a newspaper's criterion for publishing letters for determining criteria for what to include in biographical articles? The mind boggles. But indeed Came as a "philosopher of religion" is a bit more notable than Came as a "fellow atheist".
 * "You are attempting to make an argument that no other persons outside the biographical person should be referenced at all." Bullshit. I am not saying that, and you know it. Liar. And if Person A saying that Person B should not refuse to debate me is "a notable incident in my professional career", then my professional career must be so boring and uneventful that I do not deserve a Wikipedia article about me.
 * No. You have not three. You have a bit of vague handwaving, an opinion, and one single reason, namely that Came is slightly notable. I also have one, namely that Came's opinion about Dawkins is not relevant for Craig's biography, however notable Came may be. My reasons are still better than your reasons. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you GretLomborg for the WP:NNC information. Given those guidelines, Hob Gadling, your objections to points 1 and 2 essentially are moot. Your objection to this section was two fold.  A) That Came was not notable, which I pointed out wasn't a requirement and WP:NNC confirms.  B) That the quote wasn't about Dr. Craig.  However, given that the quote itself is about Dawkins refusal to debate Craig, I'm not sure how you can maintain that claim.


 * What's more, this debate has already been had on at least three separate occasions with consensus arising in each one essentially in line with my points above.  Dr. Came's quote is relevant, the incident is notable in relation to Dr. Craig, and it mirrors discussion on Prof. Dawkins' page.  We are essentially, just trying to rehash existing consensus with no new information; the quote should be included.


 * I'll remind you that the burden is on you Hob Gadling, not me. It is you who wants to make the change to a long standing inclusion in this article, so it is up to you to make the coherent argument, citing wiki policy, as to why.  So far, you've offered nothing from existing policy or style guides that defends this removal. Further your objections rely on a distinction without a difference. Until you can form a coherent argument as to why this shouldn't be included or what policy you are relying on, it is impossible to answer your questions.  It would be particularly helpful if you argument could differ from those already discussed in the archives.  Your three points are moot given existing policy and sourcing.  And you've resorted to (well you started this discussion with) personal attacks and calling me a "liar."  This is not constructive for editing here, WP:NPA.  If you can't refrain from attacking fellow editors, perhaps you are too emotionally involved in the discussion.


 * Squatch347 (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You restored the disputed content ("Dawkins [sic] refusal was criticized by fellow atheist Daniel Came in 2011") with the comment, "the quote specifically references Craig's standing in the field of apologetics, and matches a reference on Dawkins' page about Craig." Your comment was senseless. That Daniel Came criticized Dawkins in 2011 is not a reference to "Craig's standing in the field of apologetics". How ridiculous of you to suggest that it is. That the reference "matches a reference on Dawkins' page about Craig" is inconsequential. The content of one article is not based on something that appears in another article. Do stop making senseless claims, please. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the edit history, the actual quote was "The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV..." It clearly criticized Dawkins while simultaneously making a statement about Craig's standing.  Your comment is almost entirely incorrect, as far as I can tell, though it is rather heated.  It might be good to take a step back and cool down. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The disputed material reads, "Dawkins refusal was criticized by fellow atheist Daniel Came in 2011." As written, of course it isn't a comment about Craig's "standing in the field of apologetics". So it is your comment that is incorrect, as well as patronizing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Good Morning FreeKnowledgeCraetor, sorry we've been talking past each other on the edit log, hopefully we can clear this up rather quickly. The quote from Prof. Came at play is: ""The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV...by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters..."  The "foremost apologist" being referenced in that quote is Dr. Craig.  The point of Prof. Came's letter was to address Prof. Dawkins' refusal to debate Dr. Craig, it was sent on an occasion following a direct invitation by Craig to debate and Dawkins' subsequent refusal.  I think, given the context, it is hard to argue that Prof. Came's letter, and more specifically the quote offered, were not related to Dr. Craig.


 * I think one thing that might help provide a bit of context for you FreeKnowledgeCreator and the difference in your perception on what is being discussed from myself and GretLomborg, is that you were and I were parsing it on the actual page while this discussion was underway. This discussion was referencing the quoted material and why it is germane to the article.  It had been removed and a talk page section opened.  The section you and I were discussing was the preamble.


 * I hope this helps. Again, sorry we were talking past each other in the edit summaries.  Squatch347 (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A letter to Dawkins referring to the subject of this article is possible fodder for text about Richard Dawkins. It is tangentially related to this page, so should only be included if it advances the biography in some fashion. As it is, the only justification I can understand for why anyone would want to include the Came quote is as a coatracked attack of Dawkins akin to why there is a Conservapedia article on Daniel Came, for example. Note that the refusal by Dawkins to debate Craig is already in the article. jps (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the open letter to Dawkins should be discussed on Dawkins' page. It is, in fact, discussed on Dawkins' page.  But the content and subject of the letter cannot be simply ignored.  The point is that this particular incident is a notable one in the life of Craig and thus should be included.  That Craig is referenced by an Oxford Professor of the Philosophy of Religion relates to Craig's notability and reception in that field.  I'm open to an alternative text that would include this reception information, but doesn't appear to be 'attacking' Dawkins.  No one however, so far has proposed edits aside from whole slate removal.  Squatch347 (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Nope. The content is not about Craig. You cannot use a different page to attack Dawkins, no matter what your ideology. jps (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting that the editors over at Richard Dawkins disagree with you, suggesting that that exact reference is notable to Craig's biography. A more relevant question is, when Prof Came says; "the foremost apologist for Christian theism..." who is he referring to? Squatch347 (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. It's a letter to Dawkins. It doesn't belong here. Go talk to people over there if you care. Stop wasting our time. jps (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It does matter because a) It was an open letter published in a newspaper, not a private letter to Dawkins (even if it were a private letter to Dawkins there is no reason to not include it here). b) it directly contradicts your claim that the quote isn't about Craig and thus relevant to his biography. The entire point of this letter is to discuss Craig's notability and failure to debate him. Squatch347 (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You clearly have missed the point and it is simply not necessary to document some third party's letter to Dawkins. This is non-negotiable. See WP:BLP. jps (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
Given the tone and recent lack of constructive discussion towards consensus, I've opened up a request for mediation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:William_Lane_Craig

Squatch347 (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should have tried to write a summary of the dispute in a neutral manner instead of your snooty fashion? I don't think you are helping at this page. jps (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Removal of primary sourced content
I removed some content which used primary sources [[User:GretLomborg}} has reverted this with the edit summary..."The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the person says about himself or herself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person...)

The content I removed was NOT "information about what the person says about himself or herself." The content was about "discoveries about the expansion of the universe and relativity theory" and we need secondary sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The rest of this stuff is just idle speculation sourced to an unreliable source (Craig has no training in science). jps (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but he is an authority on what he says he thinks. It would be preferable to have secondary sources describe that (so we should try to find some), but a primary source is acceptable on his bio page. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The sections referenced are not specifically about those discoveries. If they were talking in depth about those issues the associated secondary sources would be a good idea.  Rather, those quotes are about how Craig has applied that information to his particular argument.  We could include both those primary and associated secondary sources if that would help re-mediate this issue. Squatch347 (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * These aren't "discoveries". These are mental masturbatory gymnastics. In order to be relevant, there needs to be a independent source that doesn't believe in magic saying they're relevant. jps (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:ජපස has made some very useful edits, removing unsourced trumpery, User:Squatch347 has tendentiously reverted them all. Theroadislong (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

These reversion are so outrageous as they violate a huge number of Wikipedia policies. As such, I've documented the lot of them. This article is at the point of WP:TNT. I recommend starting completely over. jps (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I think calling them "mental masturbatory gymnastics" is a pretty clear indication that there is some POV pushing going on here. It also indicates you didn't bother to read the content you edited.  It didn't state that Craig's arguments were "discoveries," rather that there were underlying scientific discoveries that Craig was citing for his arguments.  That you missed that distinction calls into question the validity of your edit.  I am open to your suggestion of this page "starting over."  The first step would be for you to post a suggested template and content list of what you think should be included.  Then we can get consensus on that and move forward.


 * @Theroadislong The edits are disputed by at least two editors active on this page (see reversion history). Thus we are required to follow WP:CON.  Upholding that policy might appear tendentious if one is approaching this from a POV, but it is still the policy.


 * Squatch347 (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The "underlying scientific discoveries" are described not only poorly, they are only sourced to the ludicrous machinations of Craig himself. We need third-party sources. I have suggested gutted the article below. We have to start over. jps (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the the Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers in America: From 1600 to the Present both meet your criteria of being third-party sources that are not the "ludicrous machinations of Craig himself" and "do[n't] believe in magic." They both cover his philosophical work in some depth.  The relevant entries are online and have been part of the sourcing of this article for a long time, though as WP:GENREFs and not inline cites.  It's fine and proper to prefer inline citations, and it's also fine and proper to want to condense the treatment of some of his ideas, however it's too much of a leap to go from the current state to WP:TNT. - GretLomborg (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The mention of Craig's distracting idiocies in SEP are not surprising. Many American students come to these subjects from the perspective of the pseudo-academic apologias that Craig produces. SEP goes through some loving detail in debunking his points rather slyly, but that's not our job here at this WP:BLP. jps (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

TNT
WP:TNT

The biographical data in this article seems more-or-less okay. But the academic content is atrocious. The vast majority of it is sourced only to Craig and, as such, is a violation of our policies. It's also written with a kind of puffery that I haven't seen at Wikipedia for the better part of a decade.

My suggestions is to completely gut the apologetics section and build it up from scratch.

jps (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As such, I suggest starting from this point: . That is still problematic, but it is much closer to an article that sticks to sources and what is prominently notable about Craig rather than coatracking. jps (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I invite people to comment here on the new starting point. jps (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Copying my assessment from DRN: Apologetics are currently presented unduly like if they were mainstream scientific breakthroughs. There is no need to expand on what the Kalam argument is, for instance, to say that the author is a notable proponent. Another obvious problem is that most is editor commentary on the author's primary sources, rather than summaries of third party reviews of his work. Adding (was not at DRN): the result of the undue expansion appears like proselytism.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 15:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I find it absolutely astonishing that this article continues to survive in it's present entirely promotional form. Out of the 124 sources, 71 are primary sources to his own book or website. I have edited Wikipedia daily for 12 years and have 68,639 articles on my watch list, none of them are as bad as this one. The article needs to be dramatically hacked back to what can be sourced from the reliable secondary sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's not gut it entirely just yet, and instead try to improve the sourcing first. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia works by reporting on what the secondary sources say about a subject, it doesn't work by reporting what the subject wants to say about himself and then trying to find secondary sources to back it up later! TNT would be preferable. Theroadislong (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you taken a look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's page on the Cosmological Argument? It's been in the bibliography since this dispute started, and as far as I know inline cites are preferred but not required. (By the way, I was working on adding refs from it while you were making your redactions.) - GretLomborg (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:GENREF - GretLomborg (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * His entry in the Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers in America: From 1600 to the Present extensively covers the content of his writings on Kalam, Divine omniscience, and Divine eternity. Not quite to the depth I'd like, but given that's an encyclopedia entry, academic book reviews probably go deeper. This source was also in the bibliography since forever. - GretLomborg (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The article looked worse today when I got here than it did when I had left. Let's start at a place that is simpler and build up. Many of the secondary sources were worse than primary sources. jps (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No, let's not. It's in much better shape now, I've added dozens and dozens of inline cites to secondary sources. - GretLomborg (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You just reverted all of the secondary sourcing I've added. If you're going to pare everything down, keep the sources.  Please revert or I will. - GretLomborg (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources you added were nothing short of ridiculous. I'm happy to look for good souring, but this was not it. And the sources you did add did not support the text. So perhaps start to source what we currently have in the article because it is still pretty awful. jps (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * If that's true, then lets discuss the deficiencies on the talk page, in detail. It would also be helpful if you could provide/identify some sources that you're happy with, so maybe we can reach some middle ground. - GretLomborg (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Let's do that. I will start by identifying some sources below. jps (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Starting at Kalam
I think the section on Kalam at this point is greatly improved from the one that was before, but the sourcing is still highly skewed and the presentation assumes a lot of facts not in evidence. I don't expect the SEP to be a good source to opine on eternal cosmological models (and Craig gets this very wrong as seen in the paper above), so how to handle Craig's arguments in favor of initial singularities (which are very old fashioned -- something out of the 1960s/70s in relativist circles) is difficult to know. I think incorporating some of the above sources may help. jps (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)