Talk:William Lane Craig/Archive 9

Research Professor
Dr. Craig is first and foremost Research Professor. he is that before he is an apologists or anything else. The second sentence already states that he is a philosopher and apologist. --2601:0:B080:49C:8CC5:AAB0:B547:4E99 (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * We have sources that clearly call him a Christian apologist and analytic philosopher. You're removing sourced content. Please stop edit warring, and provide sources that show the other titles don't apply to him.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It is standard in academia to refer to people's professions by disciplines, since everyone's a professor. Just look at the lead sentences of all the articles here: Category:Analytic philosophers.  You don't say someone's a professor of philosophy or a professor of apologetics, you say they're a philosopher, you say they're an apologist.  That's just standard usage.  Professorships are always secondary to professions.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The Biola page states "William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He and his wife Jan have two grown children. " and that is the way this page will state it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:B080:49C:F0B0:5951:7559:F5CB (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Does it occur to you that perhaps Biola has different goals and standards than we do for biographical material?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Biola is a higher authority than any other. That is what this page will state.--2601:0:B080:49C:98BD:9B09:90AB:4D44 (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I doubt many people at Biola would agree with you that they're a higher authority than any other, but you're welcome to your point of view, I suppose.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Whew. IP, I'd suggest reading WP:OWN. Anyway, Biola certainly doesn't trump every other source we have. And Biola also doesn't say he's not an analytic philosopher or a christian apologist, so even if they did trump everyone else, that's still not a reason to remove other sourced content they don't discuss.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Biola's description is a higher authority than any other. To call him an apologist in the first sentence before calling him a research philosopher (his job) is insulting and implies a lack of objectivity. STOP REVERTING THESE EDITS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:B080:49C:98BD:9B09:90AB:4D44 (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought maybe this was the problem, but I didn't want to presume. What is it that you think is insulting about calling him an apologist in this context, pray tell?  Also, "Research Professor" is not his job, it's his title.  His job is that he's a philosopher, a Christian apologist, and an author.  That's how academics describe their jobs.  It's true.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's like calling a Professor of Environmental Law, first and foremost, an environmentalist... It's probably true, but it's a biased statement; and not academically reasonable. Yes, Craig is probably to himself, first and foremost, an apologist. But... in terms of academia (what we consider in Wikipedia), he's a Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology. 129.180.136.5 (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No, it's not like that, since there's not a single word name for the discipline in which a professor of environmental law specializes in, so you call them a professor of environmental law. Just like you'd call a professor of media studies a professor of media studies.  But you call a professor of mathematics a mathematician, a professor of physics a physicist, and a professor of apologetics and philosophy a philosopher and an apologist.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Wikipedia should focus on the objective facts of his job title first. Calling Craig an "apologist" first is like calling Richard Dawkins a "militant atheist" first. I certainly think Dawkins is just that, but would never write that into his Wikipedia article. Can we at least change the word order so that "analytic philosopher" or maybe "theologian" comes before "apologist." Someone with no education can be an apologist, but you need to be pretty well-educated to be a research professor at Biola. --TMDrew (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And on what faculty page is he listed as a professor of apologetics? The word "apologetics" is not listed on his Biola faculty page or his RF page, or even his Houston Baptist University faculty page , so why again is the first word to describe him "apologist"? --TMDrew (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh for God's sake. From the OED: Apologetics: 2. pl. or collect. sing. The defensive method of argument; often spec. The argumentative defence of Christianity. An apologist is one who practices apologetics: Apologist: One who apologizes for, or defends by argument; a professed literary champion. As in "defends by argument." It's nothing at all like calling Dawkins an atheist. Dawkins is a biologist, Craig is a philosopher and a professor of apologetics, which is called an apologist. If you're not going to bother to learn the meanings of the words why participate in the conversation?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

He's much better known for his apologetics than for his analytic philosophy, thus it's fitting that it be mentioned first.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * -- Here we have an actual secondary source not just stating that he's an apologist but that he considers himself an apologist.
 * -- Here we have an actual secondary source not just stating that he's an apologist but that he considers himself an apologist.
 * -- Here we have an actual secondary source not just stating that he's an apologist but that he considers himself an apologist.
 * Cowan is not stating that Craig considers himself an apologist, but that not all classical apologists will insist on a certain point. Secondly, you insist that Dr. Craig is a professor of apologetics, providing no evidence that he holds that title. --TMDrew (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

His most important research is in apologetics. Do you deny that? He is super-famous for his apologetics. The Talbot School doesn't have a department of apologetics, so in that sense no one is a professor of apologetics. However, this is commonplace. E.g. computer science can be housed in departments of electrical engineering. The professors there are still computer scientists. Ecology is often housed in biology departments. In this case the professors of it are still ecologists. Anthropology is often housed in sociology departments. The professors of it are still anthropologists. In this case he's an apologist and a philosopher and his appointment is in a philosophy department. Those three quotes, and there are literally thousands more, state directly that he's an apologist and that he's one of the finest apologists of the 20th century. Why do you want to downplay this most important aspect of his career? Previously you stated that it's not necessary to be educated to be an apologist, thus showing that you don't know the meaning of the word. Being an apologist is a learned scholarly profession, and it's what he's best known for, as the sources show. Really, read some other articles on academics. They're identified by their disciplines, not by whatever random title they happen to hold wherever they're currently teaching. And have you now dropped your false parallel with Dawkins?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So, Alf, you're saying that you think Craig's first listing should be: "Simply the finest Christian apologist of the last half century"? Am I hearing you rightly? Why not just come out and say so? (Obviously, I responded before I read the entire page. Seems you guys worked it out eventually. Sorry for not being more thorough first.)76.6.66.223 (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Other views: Canaanites
In my opinion, this section can't say so briefly about Craig's position towards the slaughter of canaanites, because that seems to be taking his opinion out of context seeming as some kind of shocking sensationalism. He clearly stated in that discourse, that his opinion is that God wanted to claim the land, and that God gave all the chances to the canaanites, also that everyone of them were sinful and therefore as a last option, God commanded that they be slaughtered in case of refusing to leave. By stating just the part of the slaughter, that paragraph is obviously tendentious to a negative view of Craig's discourse, taking just one phrase out of context and citing atheists who considered that immoral. Hardly that's anywhere near NPOV.

Plus, I don't think it should be stated as an "expressed belief", because Craig clearly said that it was a possible hypothesis, so in my opinion it should be stated as an opinion or interpretation, not as a belief.

Greta Christina is primarily an "atheist blogger". Since Craig is a philosopher and theologian, is the opinion of a blogger about his discourse really notable enough to be cited? Just a doubt. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The entire Other Views section makes vague, sensational, blanket statements with no context. It sticks out like a sore thumb in an otherwise well-written article. I tried to remove it, then someone restored it.--TMD (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe it needs adding to? It is what he is most notable for in the UK.Theroadislong (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Says what reliable source? Actually, no secondary source at all is cited on that paragraph. The only sources are primary and the websites of the people involved. As something out of context giving a wrong impression of Craig's actual discourse, and not covered by any secondary source, I think it should better be removed or completely rewritten within context. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your recent removal of material just about completes the whitewash. Theroadislong (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please keep your personal judgments for yourself. Wikipedia works on the basis of reliable, secondary sources, also WP:DUE weight and WP:NPOV, not personal opinions. Just because you think something is notable or due weight doesn't make it so. Prove that any reliable source covers that single opinion, and if it is due weight to be included, it must be written in an accurate, clear and neutral tone, not as a shocking sensationalism picking one phrase out of one whole discourse to make it seem that Craig is a maniac, and using personal blogs as source. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Craig's position on the slaughter of the Canaanites has been the subject of very lengthy discussion on this page if you look at the archives. You have removed material unilaterally against previous consensus.Theroadislong (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It must have been such a serious and encyclopedic discussion that no one could even come up with a secondary source. Just because two blogs accused Craig of being defender of genocide, because of one phrase he said in a long discourse, inside a specific context, doesn't mean that should be included on a Wikipedia article, separated from its context. I'm afraid whether or not people have discussed that on the past doesn't alter the fact that the paragraph is undue, POV and lacks a secondary source. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I restored the deleted material because it appears that you were under the impression that it was not sourced with secondary sources, but actually it is sourced with six secondary sources none of which are blogs.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think it's biased, couldn't you just edit it to make it non-point-of-view instead of deleting it. As far as sourcing goes it's by far the best attested portion of this entire article.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the entire section needs to go for reasons stated above by GWO and TMD. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Craig has made so much of Dawkins' refusal to debate him, even going so far as theatrically Eastwooding Dawkins in his Dallas "debate", that the matter between them probably warrants a couple more sentences. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Greta Christina is a magazine columnist, published author, and public speaker, not just an "atheist blogger". She is a noteworthy figure in the so-called "new" atheist movement. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Dawkins refusing to debate Craig is a completely different matter than Craig's discourse on the Canaanites, and whatever are Greta's credentials do not justify the overall content. The paragraph under dispute, is as explained and agreed by two more editors, taking something Craig said out of context in a sensationalist manner, putting it together with accusations by his opponent in a way that gives the impression that Craig is a maniac. If you want to talk about Craig's discourse, it will need to be due weight compared to his other ideas and presented in a full manner, not as an illustration of his opponents' accusations. Richard Dawkins page has no criticism section, no mention to his critics, and no similar highlighting, or even mention of his controversial views, for example of defending post-birth abortion, as you can easily find on youtube. Why do you think WLC must have a different standard than other similar articles? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree; I think the paragraph gives the impression that Craig is a zealot, not a maniac. On this particular issue, more context changes neither his statement's meaning nor its moral bankruptcy. You're right that all BLPs should be held to the same standard. And you'd have a good point about the propriety of criticism sections, had Craig himself not made such a public spectacle over this particular criticism. Its due weight may seem disproportionately heavy to you, but IMO that's because Craig's own clowning magnified its importance. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * At best, this is a "he said / she said" situation. But the fact that you openly expose yourself as a radical atheist (e.g., claiming that WLC is "clowning", "a zealot") means that you are not neutral and including this information is an ad hominem attack and a violation of BLP.  I realize that characterizing WLC as a "clown" and a "zealot" makes your philosophical predilections seem emotionally justified, but it doesn't belong in a WP article.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the section is quite well cited, far more so than most of the article, and that if it is not objective then we should edit it to make it more objective, but deleting it entirely would be wrong.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * While you need not to be a "radical atheist" to think poorly of WLC's stunt of debating an empty chair, I am indeed an atheist. Though you needn't have guessed, since it says so on my User page.
 * No, that does not make any part of the paragraph you dispute an ad hominem. No part of it was ad hom. And shouldn't being an atheist make me regard his theology with more neutrality, not less?
 * WLC is more like a thespian than a clown. I think he'd be an exceptional speaker and debater if only his substance were as good as his style, but strong oratorical skills can't make his shoddy arguments and weak apologetics sound. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * All personal opinions are irrelevant on Wikipedia. Richard Dawkins and similar pages do not show any criticism at all. Why do you think this page should have a different standard than other similar pages? Also, you haven't answered the argument on why is it ok to take a phrase out of a whole speech just because it illustrates a sensationalist accusation from opposers? That is not anywhere near encyclopedic, and the only arguments you gave, whether or not you deny it, were that "it's due weight because WLC "clowned" about it, because it's "morally bankrupt", and because he is a "zealot". I'm sorry, but that's just not how Wikipedia works, you will need better arguments than that. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem not to have comprehended how any of my replies above relate to the comments I was replying to, Grey. You also apparently ignored me saying "all BLPs should be held to the same standard", since you obliviously ask me, "Why do you think this page should have a different standard?". Try clearing your mind and rereading from the beginning, paying more attention to the conversation. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think telling someone to "(pay) more attention to the conversation" will help them "(clear) their mind". If you think that "all BLPs should be held to the same standard" then why do you think this page should be different? C7S (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Because WLC's notable publicity-seeking behavior stemming from this public dispute has made this particular belief relevant to WLC's public life, hence not inappropriate to include — carefully — per BLP.
 * And you got it backwards. Clearing your mind helps you pay attention. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The entire section features short, sensational statements that can be interpreted multiple ways, and none of them touch on his main work. The section confuses the reader rather than informing the reader. Again, this section should not exist. If you want to improve the article, we certainly could use a media appearances section, and more photos of Craig speaking at high-profile events. We could also use an awards and recognitions section. It should be more like the Neil deGrasse Tyson article.--TMD (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It truly doesn't seem like anyone has yet put forward a decent reason to completely delete this sentence which is well cited and clearly notable based off the number of secondary sources mentioning it. No problem with the text has been mentioned which couldn't potentially be fixed by changing the wording of it so it doesn't make sense to insist on complete deletion.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason to remove it is because it is a he said/she said smear. WLC strongly denies he supports genocide, and others (including atheists) agree with the logic and non-genocidal nature of his explanation regarding the Canaanites.  And the smears continue with RL on this page by referring to WLC's behavior as "publicity-seeking".  Really, RL, a person with your level of antagonism that you have towards WLC shouldn't be editing this page.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as being a smear. It's related to his philosophy, as one user put it, "as a divine command theorist". It's notable because of the criticism found in secondary sources. Since others apparently "agree with the logic and non-genocidal nature of his explanation" then in that case we should add those sources as a counterpoint to the critical ones. We already have six critical secondary sources which, even if this were a smear, is still enough to demonstrate notability. As I said, just interpreting this notable and significant controversy as being a "smear" is not enough to justify deletion. All we need to do is change the wording of it to make it neutral and you could also add onto it sources from those who agree with him.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What antagonism? Never mind; my opinions of WLC's behavior are irrelevant, Bill. Every edit I've made to this article was NPOV. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "WLC's notable publicity-seeking behavior ... has made this particular belief relevant to WLC's public life, hence not inappropriate to include". According to you, your opinion of WLC's behavior is actually directly related to what you edit, thus not "irrelevant". Moreover, I don't see how you can deny any antagonism or tendentiousness when you've called WLC a "clowning" "zealot" who has "publicity-seeking behavior", "shoddy arguments", and opinions that are "morally bankrupt", admitted to being an atheist, and the only time you've chimed in on this page is to defend the sensational Canaanite sentence. Your intentions are a far cry from neutrality. -- C7S (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You've blown a couple of my statements out of proportion. I called WLC's chair-debating antics "clowning" and "publicity-seeking behavior". Your "opinions that are" should be "an opinion that is". And I never actually called WLC a "zealot".
 * You say I "admitted" to being an atheist as if that were a bad thing, implying that an atheist cannot be neutral in writing about an apologist. Seems to me being a theist should raise more question of one's neutrality toward this subject. However, both theists and atheists are equally capable of writing from a NPOV.
 * And even though I personally do not hold WLC in high regard, even GreyWinterOwl thanked me for one of my edits to make this disputed paragraph more fair to him. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I accidentally thanked one of your edits. I actually didn't mean to have done so. I completely agree with each word C7S has said. The only reasons you gave for keeping the paragraph are entirely your personal opinion. That's just not how Wikipedia works. If from this talk page there is no consensus to remove the paragraph, I think this will have to be escalated to 3O or ANI. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason I gave was that, in accordance with BLP, this particular belief is relevant to WLC's public life. Such arguments are exactly how Wikipedia works. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You say it's relevant, and we are supposed to believe. But even if it's really relevant, it's a view taken directly from strong critics of WLC which claim WLC to defend genocide. That doesn't only violate NPOV but also it's an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, that requires far more evidence than just his opposer's accusations if it were to be in the article. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not violate NPOV to specifically identify Craig's invocation of divine command theory w/r/t the slaughter of the Canaanites, and without endorsing or stating it as fact, how his statements were notably characterized. Divine command theory is not such a fringe belief to rise to the exceptional. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is not a divine command theory, or even the slaughter of canaanites. The real problem is that a single phrase is taken from that discourse with the non-neutral purpose of ilustrating WLC's opposers' view that he is a defender of genocide. This view is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, even if not stated as fact. For example, if someone claimed that WLC tortures and eats little babies, we are not going to include that in the article even if not stated as fact, because it's an exceptional claim that needs multiple reliable and non-involved sources, with no conflict of interest, as you can read on the WP:EXCEPTIONAL guideline. Everyone that accuses WLC of defending genocide are advocates of atheism with serious conflict of interest, we shouldn't base a paragraph of an article on their views, especially if it's not on a criticism section. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Reverting for reasons stated by GWO. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Though WP:EXCEPTIONAL would not apply here, amid your casting about citing policy after policy this paragraph was not violating, you seem to have stumbled over an actually germane objection: the characterization was sourced to two primary sources. We should source that part of the sentence to a secondary source. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason so many policies are being cited is because the paragraph so obviously violates every single one of them. The characterization comes from Dawkins and Greta Christina, is that what you mean by sources? They have a conflict of interest as active atheism advocates, and directly oppose WLC on the level of ideology, so I don't think they are neutral at all and therefore not eligible to support such an exceptional claim that WLC defends genocide. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good thing the section you deleted was not claiming that, then. Dawkins and Christina criticized WLC's ideology, but don't mistake atheism for an opposing ideology. Atheism has none. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The section in question is well attested by reliable secondary sources and no one has managed to explain why any alleged problems with bias could not just be edited out by changing the wording and/or adding new sources. Deletion is an extreme and reckless solution which shouldn't be applied here. I think that those who believe that this section is biased should put forward a concrete proposal to fix the bias so that we can move from vague accusations of bias to a clearer understanding of which parts of the section are the cause of the bias and how it can be edited to sort that out.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is full of primary sources written by Craig himself, which is not something I object to, but why would my edit be reverted for including primary sources when this section is actually attested to by six secondary sources. It thus has more secondary sources backing it up than any other part of the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This section does not violate WP: EXCEPTIONAL. You say it does because the sources have a conflict of interest on the basis that they have a different religion than Craig, but that's not what a conflict of interest is. After the policy notes this, there is a footnote listing examples of conflict of interests, but it does not say one word about religion. In fact, half the citations in this article cite works written by Craig himself. Certainly a work about Craig by Craig is a bigger conflict of interest than a work about Craig by someone else, but no one has tried to delete those parts of the article. Ultimately, just disagreeing with Craig on something is not a conflict of interest. WP: EXCEPTIONAL notes that one way of identifying a violation is material "supported purely by primary or self-published sources". A great deal of the article falls under this clause, but not the section in question, which includes six published, secondary sources. So many secondary sources is enough to demonstrate notability and thus I don't see total deletion as being a reasonable option here. However, we could add secondary sources supporting Craig on this issue to counterbalance the existing ones. If it's the word "genocide" that is objectionable then we could also try deleting the word "genocide", which is used by some but not all of the sources, and instead just say that they "objected to his defense of the slaughter of the Canaanite people". We need to look for a real solution to this problem and just trying to completely wipe out relevant, well sourced, and accurate information like this can not possibly be the correct action to take.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lionheart: The accusers of WLC defending genocide are all active advocates of atheism who directly oppose the position of WLC. They make strong claims about religion all the time, that religion is stupid, immoral, etc. etc. nevertheless, I don't see those claims been slapped onto the articles of religion on Wikipedia. Why? Because they are exceptional claims made from an opposing side which constitutes conflict of interest. As a clear example, if you go to the page of "theism", you won't see a paragraph saying that theists are stupid and religion is immoral, with a reference to Richard Dawkins. It's the same case here, just because WLC has been accused of defending genocide, doesn't mean it should be included in the article, in the same way we wouldn't include a claim that WLC defends serial killers. @Curtis You claim that just because the conflict is based on religion, so WP:EXCEPTIONAL doesn't count? Is that a joke or do you really defend that claim? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "As a clear example, if you go to the page of "theism", you won't see a paragraph saying that theists are stupid and religion is immoral, with a reference to Richard Dawkins." You also would not see your hyperbolic example attributed to Richard Dawkins because he has never made a public statement like that.


 * This particular aspect of William Lane Craig's theology actually is immoral, but it is not for Wikipedia to say so in Wikipedia's voice, and no one has suggested otherwise. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * RD did say that all religions lead to immorality, and certainly associated the belief in God with lack of intelligence, and other atheists like him have been more aggressive than that, and still it's not on the page of theism and specific religions that have received the accusations, because they are WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims. This paragraph accusing WLC of defending genocide shouldn't be in this article for the same reason. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "RD did say that all religions lead to immorality, and certainly associated the belief in God with lack of intelligence...". Again, the paragraph you deleted was not accusing WLC of defending genocide. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * How can you have missed "has led to him being characterized as a defender of genocide by Richard Dawkins[104] and Greta Christina" from a paragraph? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I saw this on the NPOV noticeboard. I would suggest changing the sentence under dispute to "As a Divine Command Theorist, William Lane Craig's expressed belief that God had the moral right to command the slaughter of the Canaanites if they refused to leave their land, as depicted in the book of Deuteronomy,[103] has led to controversy" with a cite to Dawkins and maybe one or two others. I don't think Greta Christina belongs in this article at all, she is just a blogger as far as I can see, insults directed at notable persons by bloggers should not be included on WP articles. I am going to boldly take the reference to her out. The "genocide" debate between Craig and Dawkins could be noted on a more suitable page such as Divine command theory or Book of Deuteronomy or Book of Joshua.Smeat75 (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I endorse Smeat75's proposal regarding the wording. The only difference is that I say we might as well include four or five sources after the word "controversy". All the citations are to reliable, secondary sources so there's no particular reason to exclude half of them, and furthermore this section could be deleted on the basis that it lacks notability unless there are enough sources cited to prove the notability of the controversy in secondary source literature.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I also endorse Smeat75's proposal regarding the wording and agree with CurtisNaito about the references. Theroadislong (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * A good secondary source for the controversy: Tim Stanley's blog (the Telegraph): "Richard Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for refusing to debate William Lane Craig". Thucyd (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If the paragraph remains, which I don't think it should, not only the word genocide will have to go, but also more content will have to be added, accurately representing what WLC really said fully, not a phrase taken out of a 30 minutes (or whatever was the duration). One doubt I also have is, why Richard Dawkins' page on Wikipedia, since he has a lot of controversial and criticism, has none of it at all? And why this page must follow a different standard, featuring sensationalist claims of atheists who directly oppose WLC? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If you read the Richard Dawkins article you will note there is plenty of criticism of him included, Wikipedia does not encourage separate sections for criticism. I agree with you that more should be added to the paragraph, but that is difficult when you are edit warring to remove it.Theroadislong (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If the section is not removed, it will need to grow to a disproportionate size in order to accurately reflect RD & WLC's positions. However, if it's kept short, it's an exceptional/sensationalist claim as GWO pointed out above.  Therefore, I think it's best just to delete it.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems odd to call something sensationalized as an argument against its notability. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * What notability? The notability you claim to exist and that everyone else is obligated to believe? Your arguments constitute personal opinion or claims that it's notable because atheists with a direct conflict of interest said so. And even if it was notable, it is very relevant whether or not it's sensationalist. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, not a platform for propaganda. A sensationalist phrase is not neutral, because it's trying to imply a claim that has not been established by RS. The WLC discourse about the Canaanites, whether or not it's notable, doesn't matter because the paragraph is using it to imply that WLC defends genocide, that's the point.


 * Someone on this discussion said that they couldn't add more information to balance the paragraph because I was reverting, which is ridiculous because they could restore the paragraph with added information and the disputed paragraph would be another one. Now I have not reverted it for more than 3 months and guess what? No one added anything. The paragraph has improved but the fact that it's there just to illustrate the view that WLC defends genocide is still obvious. I do think that paragraph should be removed based on its current state. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it would be inappropriate to delete this material without a clearer consensus to do so. The material is reliably sourced and I still don't see any valid policy-based reason to delete it.


 * The argument has been made that the material is not notable, but if that was the case why is it discussed in so many secondary sources? In fact, much of this article is based largely or entirely off Craig's own writings, primary sources in other words, which don't prove notability at all. This section is one of the few areas of the entire article which has indisputably demonstrated its notability through extensive secondary source attestation.


 * The argument has also been brought up that the material is not neutral, but just several months ago in June the sentences in question were presented at the NPOV noticeboard and it was not determined that the material was NPOV. Changes were recommended to the wording to improve neutrality and those changes were already made, but the issue of whether the material is inherently NPOV was already settled and it was decided that the material should be kept. GreyWinterOwl says that Craig's critics are in "conflict of interest" but I think he misunderstands what a conflict of interest is. Just disagreeing with Craig is not a conflict of interest, but rather a conflict of viewpoints. Different viewpoints are not the same thing as different "interests". Again, much of this article is based off Craig's own writings. Naturally neutrality issues are much more pertinent when Craig gives his views on Craig as opposed to when other people give their views on Craig, but no one has tried to delete the sections of the article which cite his own writings.


 * Ultimately, the big problem with the arguments in favor of deletion are that they apply much more so to the rest of the article than to the sentence being deleted. Its ironic that neutrality and notability arguments are being used to delete one of the few parts of the article to which these criticisms clearly do not apply.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Too technical Comment
The maintenance template "Too technical" has been removed. I consider large swathes of the article are too technical and incomprehensible. For instance what on earth do these statements mean? Can anyone make the article more readable and comprehensible? Or are we all pretending that it makes perfect sense, because we're afraid to look unintelligent for not understanding it? Theroadislong (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Tensed sentences, which can neither be translated into synonymous tenseless sentences nor be given tenseless, token-reflexive truth conditions, correspond, if true, to tensed facts."
 * "The experience of temporal becoming, like our experience of the external world, is properly regarded as veridical."
 * "In the absence of objective distinctions between past, present, and future, the relations ordering events on the tenseless theory are only gratuitously regarded as genuinely temporal relations of earlier/later than."
 * "The claim that temporal becoming is mind-dependent is self-defeating, since the subjective illusion of becoming involves itself an objective becoming in the contents of consciousness."
 * "Time as it plays a role in physics is a pale abstraction of a richer metaphysical reality, omitting indexical elements such as the "here" and the "now" in the interest of universalizing the formulations of natural laws."


 * The main reason I removed the template was because although some of the language is indeed technical, it's not overly so given the nature of the subject. That's my personal opinion, however, so I won't object if someone would like to put the template back in.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have removed some content that was copied and pasted from his book. Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that improved the article. Nice edit.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 November 2014
Please add to the page so that others can see that it is protected. As well, please fix the accessdates in some of the cites.-- Auric    talk  19:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Protection icon added. I didn't fix the accessdates, because I'm not sure whether they meant September 10th or October 9th when they said "10/09". Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * When will you unprotect the article? There is obviously critisism of Craig and I have reliable sources, which means that this article is not neutral. You can't protect the article forever.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 November 2014 a
Per the above discussion, please place the {npov} template in the "Thought" section. Lexikon-Duff has made the claim that there are views of the subject's work that aren't being covered and has provided a source.

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Padlock-bronze-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction concerning Richard Dawkins
I just came across this article, and I see a contradiction. In the Life and career section, it reads "Thus commenced a series of debates on philosophical and theological questions that has pitted Craig against philosophers, scientists, and biblical scholars including Antony Flew, E. M. Curley, Richard Taylor, Quentin Smith, Michael Tooley, Paul Draper, Shelly Kagan, Peter Millican, Paul Kurtz, Peter Atkins, Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Francisco Ayala, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Ray Hoover, Bart Ehrman, Gerd Lüdemann, Christopher Hitchens, Ray Bradley, and Sean Carroll."

However, in the Controversy and criticism section, we find, "Due to some of his views being so controversial, some academics, such as Richard Dawkins have simply refused to debate him."

It can't be both ways, right? The source I examined seems to indicate that Dawkins indeed refuses to debate him. Dontreader (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you're correct, somehow Dawkins was added into the list even though the two have never debated. It may be partly due to the way the introduction sentence was worded.  On my next edit, I will rephrase the "thus commenced a series... that has pitted Craig against" to directly state "participation" and remove Dawkins from the group.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, AzureCitizen, for the prompt reply and for the edit. I think you did a great job with that part to improve clarity. Thanks again, and have a nice day! Dontreader (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @Dontreader, good catch! I think this contradiction stems from the fact that Craig and Dawkins participated in a group debate in Mexico a few years ago. Craig has since asked Dawkins to debate one-on-one on multiple occasions and this is where Dawkins has turned him down. Bobby (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutly NO critisism of William Lane Craig, for example debate style and opinions of other philosophers
I have the feeling that some specific person is changing this article in favour of Craig's arguments. He gets a lot of critisism from many philosophers. Would be good to add that, otherwise I will add a note on top which states issues with neutrality.--85.181.196.107 (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This section should be included, it's directly from Stephen Laws blog: The philosopher Stephen Law debated William Lane Craig in 2011 and was suggesting that one can use parallel versions of Craig's arguments to prove the existence of an evil God. In a follow up debate, Law alleges that Craig repeatedly misrepresented Law's position by suggesting that Law's objection relies on a presumption that Christians conclude God's perfect goodness is obvious from evidence in the world when Law's argument only relies on the theist accepting that God is good, not necessarily perfectly good, and that theists conclude God's goodness from facts about the world, not that they conclude his perfect goodness from those facts. Law states that Craig has repeatedly misrepresented numerous parts of his argument.[106]http://stephenlaw.blogspot.kr/2011/11/craigs-website-response-re-our-debate.html This was repeatly reverted, I think I'm going to report is as vandalism.And it is a reliable source according to Wikipedia:Blogs as sources

--85.181.196.107 (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You will need to find reliably published third party sources - not blogs for godsake. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't believe this ignorance. Did you read the page yourself? "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—ARE LARGELY not acceptable. ". In this case it makes sense to cite it as source, it's Stephen Laws own freaking blog. This is just ridiculous, because that would mean that one never can get any critisism if it is expressed in a blog and it would never be displayed in a wikipedia article, which would make it not neutral, this is just stupid. And stop spamming with your strange accounts. If this get's thrown under the carpet one can actually get real critisism of Craig on this page: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig Just for the record.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * this isnt steven laws page hence the absolute NO for use of his blog here. see WP:BLP . And you need to stop making assertions about other editor's motives. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC) --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Man, yes of course that can't be Law's blog because there is only his picture, workplace, email and many articles written by him, the newest entry is 25 October 2014. Did you even visit the blog? You just state arguments without a rational reason, go work on Stupidedia or stop beeing ignorant. Even in the article of Stephen Law himself there is reference in the link section to his blog.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * When The Red Pen of Doom said "this isnt steven laws page" he was referring to the William Lane Craig article NOT Law's blog! Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok that's even more absurd. --Lexikon-Duff (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What Steven Law says on Steven Law's blog solely about Steven Law might be appropriate for the Steven Law article, but it is not appropriate for any other article. what William Lane Craig says on William Lane Craig's blog about William Lane Craig might be appropriate for this article. But what Steven Law says on on Steven Law's blog about William Craig is not going to be appropriate anywhere. see WP:SPS. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Have actually ever read what I wrote? You keep repeating the same arguments over and over again. No wounder you are using many accounts like one guy said on your talking page. --Lexikon-Duff (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You can keep yelping about the very basic and non-negotiable attempt to use a blog in an article about a living person, or you can look for appropriately published sources. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've protected the article due to the edit warring; I strongly recommend taking the BLP issues to WP:BLP/N and finding consensus before attempting to add the material to the article again. Dreadstar  ☥   23:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you should undo the protecting, I found more "appropriate" sources for critisism: http://infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/craig.html, there are some published article.(Let me guee pen of death will not accept it?)--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, i still object - that does not appear to be any better than a blog. it is not a reliably published source with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. anyone can put anything on  the web. we use the highest quality sources, particularly for content about living people. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * and that link itself may fall under WP:ELNEVER - it looks like it is hosting lots of copyright materials without the permission of the copyright holders. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Then you should add a notification into the article which says that the article is not neutral, because there is absolutly no critisism of him in the article. Thx. Ok wait, there is an article published in RELIGIOUS STUDIES in 1992 (Volume 28, pp. 347-350), any objection? And that everything is without the permission is not true for example look at the artcile from Graham Oppy. --Lexikon-Duff (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * it is only "not neutral" if there are legitimately published perspectives that we are not covering in the article. see WP:UNDUE and its subsections. Do you have any legitimate critiques? The source looks legit at first glance, but it is 20 years out of date and so any use needs to be properly framed and not applied to anything after the publication. (and it should be compared against anything since that has refuted the analysis/commentary made back in the day. ) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Lex, why are you under the impression that if there is no criticism of WLC, then that means the article is not neutral? Many, if not most, BLP articles don't have criticisms of its subject.  Does WLC in some way anger/annoy you?  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * While "criticism" for the sake of "criticism" and particularly sections dedicated to "criticism" are bad ideas, we do want to place a person's work into context and if a major part of the context is "negative", that should be included as well.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * For some reason, WLC attracts the ire of radical atheists with the desire to misrepresent his positions and to basically call him "stupid" (or other hateful things; e.g. as Dawkins has done). Typical atheists/agnostics who WLC has debated, on the other hand, simply disagree with some of his positions/conclusions.  These kinds of "criticisms" I have no problem with.  It's the "defender of genocide" kind of statements that are slanderous and don't belong in the article.  And that's what I'm concerned about.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can attest from personal conversation at the American Philosophical Association that many atheist philosophers, such as Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, admire and respect Craig even though they fervently disagree with his conclusions. Also, criticisms of his work should source peer-reviewed journals, not popular material such as blogs, and should mention his response to this criticism, if indeed he did respond to it.-- TMD   Talk Page.  15:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not critisim for the sake of critisism, it's just because THERE IS A LOT of critisism, and this is not reflected in this article. And articles shouldn't be poster boy representations of the people they are about. This just shows your igorance sry, if someone expressed critisism of Craig because he defends genocide, then that should be made clear in his article. Image that every information you had about a single topic was cooincidently only found in blogs (which is important today because of the rise of social media and the associated, and will get even important in the future), then, following the rules, this topic would never make it into an Wikipedia article. That's just irrational, one should think about altering the rules on that. And this discussion page is pervaded with "article owners" who are "concerned" about the legitimacy and critics free content of this article and who are trying to maintain the immunity to critisism as far as they can. --Lexikon-Duff (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is another source which was published: http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/empty.html in Journal of Higher Criticism 8:2 (Fall 2001), pp. 251-93. Here is another source http://infidels.org/library/modern/arnold_guminski/kalam.html published in the Fall-Winter 2002 issue of Philo (Vol. 5, pp. 196-215) Here is one: http://infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/reply.html Published in "Reply To Professor Craig", Sophia 34, 2, December 1995, pp.15-29] I bet there are others, I will gather them.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to seperate this from the other comments I gathered all the critical and published sources that were referred to on this infidel site:

(Revised 2014), Arnold T. Guminski, Philo (Vol. 5, pp. 196-215)[6 ] These are all critical papers. --Lexikon-Duff (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why I Am Not a Christian (2000), Keith M. Parsons, Atlanta Freethought Society in 2000. [1 ]
 * Two Ways to Prove Atheism (1996), Quentin Smith, Atheist Alliance convention in Minneapolis, MN on April 6, 1996[2 ]
 * Review of Reasonable Faith (2007), Chris Hallquist, Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books. 350 pp[3 ]
 * Reply To Professor Craig (1995), Graham Oppy, Sophia 34, 2, December 1995, pp.15-29[4 ]
 * Quantum Cosmology's Implication of Atheism (1997), Quentin Smith, Analysis 57.4, October 1997, pp. 295-304[5 ]
 * The Kalam Cosmological Argument: The Question of the Metaphysical Possibility of an Infinite Set of Real Entities (2002)
 * Inverse Operations With Transfinite Numbers And The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1995), Graham Oppy, International Philosophical Quarterly, 35, 2, pp.219-221[7 ]
 * Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story, A Reply to William Lane Craig, Jeffery Jay Lowder, Journal of Higher Criticism 8:2 (Fall 2001), pp. 251-93[8 ]
 * God (1997), Jan Narveson, Reason Papers, #22 - Fall 97, pp. 109-118[9 ]
 * The Anthropic Coincidences, Evil and the Disconfirmation of Theism (1992), Quentin Smith, RELIGIOUS STUDIES in 1992 (Volume 28, pp. 347-350)[10 ]


 * Ah that's interesting, no one cares anymore, so don't be suprised when I write a whole critical section with all the sources.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't be surprised if you get reverted if you insert the claim that WLC defends genocide, or any other ad hominem statements. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And don't be surprised if we add a response to the criticism section and revert any attempt to delete it.-- TMD   Talk Page.  22:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This just shows very obivously and clearly your own agenda, now your masks have fallen. This has nothing to do with how Wikipedia works, you should be ashemed of yourself and stop editing on Wikipedia for the sake of the project. I was right with everything I said about the article and it's "owners". And as you can read from the sources there is obviously critisism. And IF one of the sources said that Craig defended genocide in a reliable source, then I WILL PUT IT IN, doesn't matter if it's ad hominem or not, you don't understand how Wikipedia works at all. Now that these sources are available the article became not neutral, which is a violation of the principles of Wikipedia.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

2.0: Discussion continued
Generally speaking, Lexikon-Duff is correct in that there should really be a criticism section on this page, for two reasons. The first is that there is widespread criticism of Craig and his views to the extent that this is a part of his life, secondly that no only does it mean the article is incomplete, but it suggest an un-neutral POV. I am unsure why Lexikon-Duff did not pursue this, someone needs to. Doc H e u h (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Because you can't just charge in and make drastic changes, and then edit war when they don't stick. You need to build consensus on the talk page beforehand.-- TMD   Talk Page.  00:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, lets build a consensus. I see no reason why you would oppose the above proposal. The specifics of which is of course up for debate. Doc H e u h (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Most BLPs don't have criticism sections, so there needs to be a good reason why this article needs one. I don't see any good reason.-- TMD   Talk Page.  01:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I oppose it simply because there are a lot of radical atheists out there who want to indirectly challenge WLC through Wikipedia since their idols (e.g. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris) have either refused to do so or have failed in their attempts. At the very best, an inline quotation is all it deserves.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not a reasonable argument. Obviously there is critisism of WLC, just look at all the sources I gave. But I already said what I think about this article in my above comments. I don't think it is about writing a neutral article at all. I wanted to write something in the far future, but if someone wants to do it now, just use the sources I gave. And to always assume that any critical argument is from radical dawkins atheists is just...silly. But anyway, I don't think you can reach a consensus with the users that were part of the discussion here, which is anyway not necessary if you have good sources I think. And btw, there are many sources used in the article what would otherwise not be accepted, for example Craig's own blog, youtube videos and other blogs.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 10:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It should be done because 'there is widespread criticism of Craig and his views to the extent that this is a part of his life' just as there is for Richard Dawkins and just as there is a controversy paragraph on the Richard Dawkins page. Craig makes contervisial statements and has highly contrevsial beliefs. It can be easily argued, that there is even more need for such a section given that 'thinking creationism is a viable alternative for evolution and being against homosexulaity' are much, much more controversial views than that of new atheism. Looking at the page, it looks like this has been started commenting on particular beliefs in the 'other views' section. I've created a small section below this, explaining this in more detail, commenting on the Richard Dawkins turn down etc. I also saw he has been listed as analytical philosopher? I have no idea why, he just isn't, I mean it's like calling Einstein a biologist, it's just wrong, so changed this to just 'philosopher', he covers a wide range from religion to metaphysics to time. We can discuss, with an official dispute if needed what from the Lexikon-Duff sources we should include. Doc H e u h (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, WLC is an analytical philosopher. Not sure where you got the idea that he wasn't but if you have a source saying that he isn't, please provide it.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * From the wikipedia page "characterized by an emphasis on clarity and argument (often achieved via modern formal logic and analysis of language) and a respect for the natural sciences." This is untrue of Craig. The fact that he thinks that intelligent design is a viable alternative for evolution is proof of this. The rest of the edits (criticism and controversy) still hold. Doc H e u h (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Analytic philosophy is a school to which virtually all philosophy departments in the U.S. subscribe to. Your comments above simply reflect your own philosophical disagreements with WLC, and thus have no place in a BLP any more than mine.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Analytic philosophy is just what it sounds like. It focuses on analysis of concepts and putting them into a deductive format. This can be contrasted to the school of Continental Philosophy, which expresses ideas through through prose. Friedrich Nietzsche is an example of the latter. Certainly, you aren't arguing that Craig is a continental philosopher?-- TMD   Talk Page.  22:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'm acting as a WP:3O here between User:Heuh0 and User:TMDrew as there seems to be some history between you two, I have just made comments on another page of dispute between the two of you. After reading Heuh0's recent edit, while correctly written and appropriate to make such a paragraph/distinction in this article, you SHOULD NOT have made this edit without letting another editor reply. As a third opinion I can tell you that the content was correct and also that the section is needed to serve an optimal WP:NPOV, and in this case, also due to my appearance as a WP:3O, the edit can be kept, to other editors therefore, please do not revert this edit. However, where TMDrew was correct was that you must talk in the talk page first. DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT edit in the future before your discussion reaches a consensus. This applies to all other editors in the discussion. Dirac (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Bill the Cat: You can't prove a negative. Don't be silly. According to you, one should provide source where people said what attributes don't belong to Craig? That doesn't make sense. I think one should provide a source which says that Craig is a analytical philosopher. And thx @Dirac, I approve your comment.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added two citations regarding his status as an analytic philosopher, and can find more if needed.-- TMD   Talk Page.  20:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * @LD: Yes, you can prove a negative. I think we can all agree that we can prove that WLC is not a Muslim.  At any rate, TMD provided a reference.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No you have no clue at all. Ok then let's see. Could you please cite a source where he explicitly states that he is not a muslim? Ok and what about Buddhism? Ok then we have to find a source for every possible attribute. For example, he clearly didn't state that he is not a vegan. So could someone please put that in, if not you have to provide a source which says he is not a vegan. Then since no one has provided a source that said the opposite he also thinks that scientology is partly right. You need to provide an infinite amount of sources that deny every possible attribute, otherwise this has to be put into the article ! But maybe Bill the Cat can prove that the invisible man exists and that invisible unicorns exist. And since no one has prove that the devils doesn't exist, he must exist lol besides an infinite number of unobservable creatures, because there is no prove that they don't exist. This is a hopeless fight. And since when is the website closertotruth.com a reliable source? Shouldn't some academic source say that he is? How silly, let's see what would happen if I would use such a website to source some critisism hm. --Lexikon-Duff (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's both the Closer to Truth program and the Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology that specify that he is an analytic philosopher.-- TMD   Talk Page.  03:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming that Bill the Cat reverted the Heuh edit due to the 'analytical' section. In an attempt to build a bridge I shall re-edit the other edits of that edit, that obviously meet general consensus, and need to be kept in. Dirac (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, stop throwing the criticism section back on the page before we can discuss it. Most BLP pages don't have criticism sections, and I don't see how Craig's views on homosexuality, for example, are even relevant. He is not known for his views on this area, any more than his views on popular music. I don't even see how Other Views contributes to the article, let alone the section on controversy and criticism.-- TMD   Talk Page.  23:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I would agree with that if there were no clear and numerous criticisms of Craig, but there are. To reflect that, it would make sense to add a critical section where some or all of the critical sources I gave above could be expressed. Otherwise it would violate Neutral point of view as other users have already mentioned.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In addition to that, I think large portions of the article should be placed in other articles. For example the section on his arguments is super large and longer than the stuff about him as a person (remember this is an article ABOUT a person, it's not necessary to list every details of the person's work). I also don't think one has to list every single debate or discussions he had. Only the notables should be listed. Same goes with the list of his publications. Usually one chooses some of the most important, and not almost every single publication. Also I'm skeptical about the sources from his own website (Reasonable Faith), that should be checked.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No one is saying that there shouldn't be any criticisms of WLC. But, let's see here...1) You want to remove, or significantly cut down, the Thoughts section; 2) You want to focus upon his person; and 3) You want to devote an entire criticism section to his person.  It sure seems to me that you want to transform this BLP into an ad hominem article.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Bill the Cat. Please explain to me why my suggestions would make this into an ad hominem article. I gave good reasons for all my proposals. And don't forget that the article in it's current state is in conflict with the Wikipedia standards on neutrality Neutral point of view. I also don't see why it is ad hominem if the details of his arguments are placed in the other relevant articles, that would actually improve these articles. And actually Wikipedis is not about not making ad hominem arguments. If a notable person makes ad hominem comments about Craig, and if that is well sourced and had an impact, then it should be in the articles. Wikipedia is not a philosophical platform.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Bill the Cat 7,
 * "1) You want to remove, or significantly cut down, the Thoughts section" - Not at all. If you read the additional section to be added, it only moved information from particular sections to a section on its own, along with other information on Craig's criticism, rather that simply saying, 'this view is very controversial' or 'this view has been criticised' after almost every 'thought'.
 * "2) You want to focus upon his person;" - What?
 * "3) You want to devote an entire criticism section to his person." - Yes. This is the correct course of action concerning wikipedia's rules and keeping NPOV. You'll see such sections on BLP pages of people who attract similar amounts of controversy or criticism like Richard Dawkins. It is needed because controversy and criticism is a major part of WLCs life.
 * It simply needs to be there. Doc H e u h (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Archive Bot time
Hi, I found it unreasonable that the discussion page gets archived after only ONE month (30 days). This will prohibit important and lengthy discussions. You can't assume that everyone works every night and day to get an issue resolved, some things take time. It also can be abused if some people are just sitting out an issue. And further to that, new people who want to contribute to the article won't see the recent discussions about the article. The archiving time should be raised to like six months. --Lexikon-Duff (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality
Wikipedia reports on what reliable sources say about a subject and preferably what reliable third party sources say. This article includes 108 references of which 59 are primary sources and mostly his own website Reasonable Faith. This doesn't help with the neutrality of the article which reads as if he wrote it himself. Theroadislong (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Even more reason for a 'criticism' section (see above) Doc H e u h (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources about his life are secondary sources. As far as an academic's work, you generally have to use primary sources to determine what position they take on an issue.-- TMD   Talk Page.  03:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "you generally have to use primary sources to determine what position they take on an issue" I strongly disagree, Wikipedia relies on what third party sources have reported, NOT what WLC says about himself and his work. Any criticism can be added to the appropriate sections, I'm not sure that it needs it's own section. Theroadislong (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite right. It is right that Wikipedia cites an individual when stating their own views or position. Wikipedia then relies on third party sources to critique the person's view or position where necessary. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * AND to determine which portions of a person's positions are the ones that are of note. WP:OR / WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  10:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC suggestion
Since we don't seem to be getting anywhere with discussion I would suggest that we open a "Request for Comment" ("RfC") process to help clarify things. Afterwriting (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Debates and dialogues section
At some point this section has become a gigantic list of EVERY debate Craig has ever had. It's not very informative, I suggest it could be hacked back to the 10 or so most notable ones or peeled off into it's own article List of every debate William Lane Craig has had Theroadislong (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I was just thinking the same thing. A common theme on this article is to turn it into Craig's portfolio. That's not the purpose of wikipedia. If you have ideas to cut back on that section, go for it. I don't know what's notable and what's not.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Curiously none of the debates mentioned in the article seemed to be sourced at all let alone have reliable third party sourcing? Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. Hence my inability to determine what should be kept. My recollection is that a lot of it is sourced to craig's site (which is his actual portfolio), but that's a primary source, so isn't too helpful in making decisions about weight.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Apart from his own websites and a few blog mentions they don't seem to have been given much coverage! Why are we mentioning them at all? Theroadislong (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved from article space as entirely unreferenced
 * How about just adding references, since these are pretty easy to find?--207.86.226.210 (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have found any please list them here.Theroadislong (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't know if this would be admissible. It is a blog, but not Craig's or a Craig apologist's. Also not particularly hostile to him either, claiming he just admires his debating ability. It claims to list every debate. http://www.stafforini.com/blog/william-lane-craig-a-complete-list-of-debates/    Pleonic (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A blog isn't considered a reliable source we need significant coverage in reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason we need a source isn't so much to verify these events happened, it's to determine what's significant enough to cover. As such, it's hard not to insist on a reliable secondary source; a blog doesn't tell us much about weight.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding back the list referenced with youtube links is NOT sufficient, we need sources that discuss the debates in order to show any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

YouTube and Podcasts ARE sufficient, especially to establish that the debates took place.-- TMD   Talk Page.  15:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody doubts they took place but unless they have been reported on by multiple reliable sources why on earth would they be notable enough to mention? Theroadislong (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I despair, the article is nothing more than a promotional CV. Theroadislong (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And I say that the article is accurate and not nearly as promotional as many other heavily edited articles, such as Neil Degrasse Tyson and James Randi.-- TMD   Talk Page.  17:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning the accuracy of the article? I'm questioning whether a GIGANTIC list of non notable debates, primarily sourced to Youtube, belongs in the article at all. Theroadislong (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It certainly does not belong in the article. This is an encyclopedia article ~ not a repository of links to stuff which is not in any context to the information in the article.  A few of these links might be appropriate as proper references in the article but not a whole section of nothing but what are really external links and not references.  This is a complete misuse of referencing principles and a "section" such as this has no place in this or any other article. Afterwriting (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct. Craig is a public figure, so recording every public event he takes part in overwhelms our goal to write encyclopedicly about him as a subject. If any of these events are significant to the subject, we should include them, but we determine what is significant by secondary sources, not primary youtube clips. Again, an encyclopedia article serves a different purpose than a resume.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly User:Bill the Cat 7 is not interested in discussing anything and is still edit warring to include the content. Theroadislong (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly Theroadislong is not aware of the BRD policy.  I provided you a link.  It would be to your benefit to familiarize yourself with this policy.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's concerning that we've edit warred poorly sourced content into the article when the only discussion has so far yielded consensus to keep it out until better sources are found to demonstrate significance. The only arguments in favor so far have been "it's sourced" and "other articles are worse".  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bill, in fact, you may wish to have a refresher on BRD. WP:BRD says very clearly that it is not a reason to revert. You're applying the essay poorly, and this is coming from someone who has done nothing but discuss, without reverting. Coming to the talkpage to say "I provided a link to BRD, read it" is not helping discussion... ya know... the whole point of BRD.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And more precisely this section BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * (Edit Conflict) Ok, fair enough. Let's discuss.  I don't particularly care if the section is reduced, even drastically, but to remove it entirely is robbing the readers of really good debates.  Now, I think these debates were very informative: Hitchens, Harris, Peter Millican, Stephen Law, and Peter Atkins.  What does everyone else think?  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * These debates are already mentioned in the article though. Theroadislong (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem covering significant events, but looking through that list, I have no idea what's significant and what's not. We cover some of the debates in prose already, and we list several more in "Life and career" - I imagine those are probably significant. What is this list adding to what we already have? Keep in mind, our goal is not to provide debates to readers... it's to cover the significant aspects of Craig as a topic, and full-page list of entries including "Klemens Kappel in Denmark" is not adding to that goal. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Compromise Suggestion: Perhaps a line like, "Craig has participated in at least 70 debates (I counted) with people such as Christopher Hitchens... (3 or 4 of the best known names)" and references for those specific debates. Pleonic (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that suggestion. In fact, we already have it in "Life and Career". Quoting: "Craig has participated in debates on philosophical and theological questions with philosophers, scientists, and biblical scholars including Antony Flew, E. M. Curley, Richard Taylor, Quentin Smith, Michael Tooley, Paul Draper, Shelly Kagan, Peter Millican, Paul Kurtz, Peter Atkins, Lawrence Krauss, Francisco Ayala, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Ray Hoover, Bart Ehrman, Gerd Lüdemann, Christopher Hitchens, Ray Bradley, and Sean Carroll.[citation needed] He has also engaged in debates on Islam, having engaged academic and Islamic scholar Shabir Ally, Jamal Badawi and South African Muslim apologist, Yusuf Ismail on the divinity of Christ."  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, changing the names in that section to "the most notable", or adding the number 70, are both fine by me. The section does need references, though.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * His books are listed in their entirety, and he is known for his debates at least as much as he is for his books. Leave the entire debate list.-- TMD   Talk Page.  01:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the section should stay on the page. A large part of what makes Craig notable is his debates. It seems entirely appropriate to provide a full list (with references) instead of a mere comment in his career section about the number of debates he's had. Bobby (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It cannot be included in its present form as it violates MoS principles. The sooner you realise this the sooner we might find an appropriate MoS way to include some of the material. Afterwriting (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to be much more specific than that to justify ridding the article of this particular section. Craig's popularity is largely due to the number of debates he's been involved in and the quality (or popularity) of his opponents. This section is good; let's keep it.--C7S (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep the section. Not a violation of the manual of style.--184.81.169.26 (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you just don't understand the MoS if you think this. It also seems obvious that some sockpuppetry has been going on with recent IP and new account edits defending the inclusion of the section. Afterwriting (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to be more specific in your accusations. Exactly which parts of the manual of style is this violating? What justifies listing an author's complete works but not a debater's list of debates?-- TMD   Talk Page.  21:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable third party references to indicate that the debates have any notability? 21:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Among other policies, the gist of WP:IINFO is that we list significant and notable works with a summary and relevant information; we do not generally list large swaths of content without summary. In this case, a list of 70 debates, many of which are in no way significant, is excessive; we cannot discuss them in any depth due to a lack of significance, and their being listed in this format is overwhelming to the rest of the article. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It is clear from WP:IINFO that this policy is sufficient reason on its own to not include the section in the article. Afterwriting (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't see how it is indiscriminate information any more than listing an author's works violates it. It's a short section of the article, not overwhelming.-- TMD   Talk Page.  03:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about some other article. We're talking about this article. See also WP:NOTDIRECTORY: "mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists... may be acceptable." The emphasis in every one of our policy pages which concern this topic is to urge discretion in listing only significant items. A 70-item list is not short. This is not List of William Lane Craig's debates; we need to cover significant parts of the topic - ideally with a summary - not insignificant details intended to span the man's entire portfolio. We can link to such a list as an EL, however.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * How about a short section listing his major debates and then a new article called List of William Lane Craig's debates? What do you all think?  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine in theory but are there enough reliable sources to support an article? Why are they notable? Theroadislong (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by "enough reliable sources", nor by "notable" in the context of a list article. I mean, it's just a list (e.g.,  like this) that provides additional information about a well-known person, the purpose of which is not to clog up the main article.  Please elaborate.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't add lists of "random stuff" to Wikipedia it needs to be notable, ie mentioned in depth in multiple reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a better idea Bill the Cat 7. Let's just put the most prominent debates in the article. That should be 5 or 6 or so.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They are already mentioned in the article. Theroadislong (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography section
Shouldn't bibliography section look more like part of article than as a reference section (compare for example with F._Scott_Fitzgerald)? 94.142.238.245 (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)