Talk:William Lane Craig

The first sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"He has made major contributions to the philosophy of religion and his defense of the Kalām cosmological argument is the most widely discussed argument for the existence of God in contemporary Western philosophy." - The reference cited for this statement is ONLY his paper. No reference has been cited as it being a major contribution. This needs to be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.70.66.229 (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here the Daily Telegraph describes him as a 'renowned philosopher', here Premier Christian Radio describes Craig as a philosopher (Listen to the full clip and you’ll also hear him described as such at Oxford University), here the BBC describes him as philosopher, here the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy discusses the KCA and focuses exlusively on Craig’s version of it, and here it discusses Craig’s work on relationship between God and time. In addition, the Michael Coren show introduces him as a philosophy professor here.

Finally, I should point out that the majority of Craig’s debates are not simply confined to the truth of Christian doctrines but to the general philosophical issue of whether or not God exists. Most of the arguments that Craig uses in these debates can be used by a Jew, a Mormon, a Muslim or a Deist. Now I’m not against putting ‘Christian apologist’. All I ask is that it be put after ‘philosopher and theologian’. In precisely the same manner that Chritopher Hitchens is called a journalist befiore a ‘critic of religion’, just as Noam Chomsky’s work in linguistics earns him the title ‘linguist’ before ‘political activist’ on his wiki page, in the same way that Bertrand Russell is referred to as a ‘philosopher’ before being a ‘critic of religion’ on his Wiki page, I ask that the same standard be applied to Craig.

User:HyperEntity|HyperEntity]] (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC).

Per WP:Weight, we need to place the items in order of their prominence. I've gotten stuck on this before too, trying to get an article with a short list in the first sentence reordered a way which seemed more logical, but the community consensus on the matter is that weight is essential, particularly within the lede. If Craig is primarily respected within the sources as (for instance) a Christian apologist, then that needs to come first, regardless of his other affiliations, because that is what he is most notable for (at least for our purposes). Now, as for your sources, I'm not sure "Premier Christian Radio" is a reliable source for this purpose. A podcast like this would generally fit into the same category as a blog, so we shouldn't really be using it as a source. I'm also not sure about "bethinking.org" or youtube videos posted by drcraigvideos, and veengle.com also falls into that category. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is, indeed, a good source, but we can't derive that Craig is "foremost, a philosopher" from that, as it makes no such claim. The telegraph article is the best source of the bunch, and could probably be integrated into the article somewhere. However, I'm not sure it carries enough weight to undermine the other sources we have. I suspect that Craig is most known for his evangelism, and if that is true, then it needs to be how we describe him. On the other hand, I see a lot of descriptions of craig as a "Professor of philosophy", and it may be with the complete lack of sourcing we have on Craig, that's the best we can do for now. I don't know. This would be a lot easier with good sourcing - it's a shame we don't have it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well he have a source from Cambridge describing him as a philosopher and the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy discussing his work. we have the Daily telegraph describing himn as a philosopher and he have Premier Christian Radio (and Oxford University if you listen to the full clip) describing him as a philosopher. PCR is a radio station like any other and the fact that it states Craig is a philosopher (a factual statement) and that it is Christian does not detract from its reliable. On the other side we have Fox News. I don't see the problem here.--HyperEntity (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how there was a miscommunication, but I responded to your list of sources in my reply above, and you just repeated the sources anyway. Some of those are not reliable. Others do not say he is a philosopher.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

We have three sources stating that he is a philosopher. You gave no convincing reason for the claim that PCR is not reliable. I think it would be reasonable to put philosopher/theologian before apologist based on these sources.--HyperEntity (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's an article which refers to Craig as an apologist and not a philosopher. Theowarner (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a book review which describes him as a philosopher: http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/five-views-of-apologetics/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperEntity (talk • contribs) 19:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No consensus yet... let's try again

Just edit the tables below.

Table to gather opinions

Your name and your vote

Editor	Apologist or Philosopher first
Theowarner	Apologist
your name	your vote

Table to gather evidence

evidence for either side.

Evidence for Apologist first	Evidence for Philosopher first
http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-christian-debate-does-the-judeo-christian-god-in-the-bible-exist-57030/	http://www.christianpost.com/news/science-gives-christians-upper-hand-over-atheists-23538/
cell	cell

Well, if we're gonna be using such sources, might as well include these pieces, too:

• http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-continues-to-refuse-debate-with-christian-apologist-william-craig-56780/
• http://www.christianpost.com/news/apologist-responds-to-bart-ehrmans-critique-of-historical-jesus-48532/
• http://www.christianpost.com/news/renowned-apologist-and-atheist-debate-does-god-exist-37929/

Maiorem (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed Christian apologist because the citation used does not make that claim. I've already posted five sources stating that he is a philosopher. Add Marojem's link and that makes it six. Craig's work is discussed in encyclopedias of philosophy, journals of philosopher and books by other philosophers. If no one objects I'm going to put Christian apologist after philosopher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperEntity (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Primary sources

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

• No, (October 12, 2011) Dependence on primary sources is heavy. Yet, Craig seems to be becoming more notable even as we discuss his notability. In such cases, we should seek to find secondary sources which help. Wikipedia readers will be served if we can help them know more about the intensive dialogue taking place because of this new group of Christian apologists. We will always need more evidence that shows a person to be notable. If all we have are sources with Craig listed as one of the authors, then we need to keep searching. Craig associates with other well-known Christian apologists. Their notability seems to help establish his notability. Other questions: How many people have attended a meeting where Craig has been on a debate? How many notable opponents has he debated? How many notable Christian apologists have shared the stage with Craig? If he is favorably reviewed in a non-aligned Christian journal, is that a reliable secondary source. I am thinking of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS). He has been both published and reviewed by JETS. In Evangelical circles, this seems to establish a certain notability. (responding to a random rfc.)DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd like to answer two point raised by Maiorem: Firstly, the apologetics315 blog should be considered reliable unless and until proof is offered that it is not reliable. (He argued along similar lines at other times, too.) This is wrong. WP:RS says that blogs are largely not acceptable. WP:BURDEN says that the burden of evidence rests with the editor who wants something included. If Maiorem wants to argue that the apologetics315 blog is one of the comparatively rare blogs which do count as reliable sources, it is he who would have to show some evidence to that effect. Secondly, I am to have misrepresented the WP:RSN replies. Brmull said the profile was not reliable. Nuujinn said it's not independent of the author, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz said "the self-sourcing standards" apply, which indicates he considered it the equivalent of a self-published source, and Andrew Lancaster suggested treating it like material published on the author's website - a primary, self-published source. Now it's technically possible that dozens of other editors agree with Maiorem and consider such profiles reliable third-party sources, but mysteriously none of them bothered to voice their opinion and disagree at the noticeboard. Huon (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

1. WP:RS:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then 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.

References used in the article from Apologetics 315:

• http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2009/11/william-lane-craig-vs-francisco-j-ayala.html
• http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2009/04/christopher-hitchens-vs-william-lane.html

Content from references: Debate audio

Claims made in sources: 0

Regarding WP:RSN replies, please refer to WP:SYNTH:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.

See also WP:Silence means nothing

Am I not being civil? Is this post lacking in etiquette? Kindly inform me if either one is true. Thank you. Maiorem (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I honestly don't understand why you refer to WP:SYNTH with respect to the reliable sources noticeboard. Do you believe that my interpretation of those users' comments is somehow a synthesis? Do you think that one or more of those replies suggest we should treat Craig's "participant profile" as a reliable third-party source independent of Craig? Which? We could just ask those users for clarification if we cannot agree on what they meant. Regarding WP:Silence means nothing, we don't have silence - we have people speaking out, they just happen to disagree with you. Huon (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Your claim(s): "Since these organizations write about one of their fellows or employees, they are not independent of Craig and are not third-party sources. Also, such author profiles are not known for fact-checking and are probably not subject to editorial oversight"

Editors	Claims	"they are not independent of Craig"	"not third-party sources"	"not known for fact-checking"	"not subject to editorial oversight"
User:Nuujinn	"No, especially not for a BLP, since the publisher is not independent of the author."	Yes	No	No	No
User:Brmull	"This wouldn't be a RS for a BLP, but ordinarily the subject's blog would be a RS for info about himself."	No	No	No	No
User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz	I think that standard BLP criteria apply, in particular the self-sourcing standards that...Applying those standards carefully, I think the profile is far from an ideal source for the material it is cited for, although it is better than similar citations to the subject's own books, which appear to be OR/synthesis from primary sources.	Yes	Yes	No	No
User:Andrew Lancaster	To me it seems possible to sometimes use such author notes, but it is not ideal. I think that it makes sense to treat it like information on an author's webpage (indeed author's webpages are often based on the same types of texts that appear on their books) and indeed the main thing to be careful of then is to avoid anything un-duly self-serving or promotional. It seems better than nothing.	No	No	No	No

"The reliable sources noticeboard agreed with my stance on such sources."

Synthesis: Yes.

WP:Silence means nothing -> "Now it's technically possible that dozens of other editors agree with Maiorem and consider such profiles reliable third-party sources, but mysteriously none of them bothered to voice their opinion and disagree at the noticeboard." Maiorem (talk) 06:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I maybe should have been a bit more fuzzy. The people at RSN agreed with my stance that such profiles are not reliable secondary sources independent of the subject: Nuujinn, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Andrew Lancaster (whom I've asked for a clarification) agreed with the "not a secondary source independent of the subject" part, and Brmull agreed with the "not reliable" part. The point is that everybody but you agreed that this is not the type of source on which to base an article or section. Regarding silence, you misinterpret the essay. Obviously it's not the case that nobody saw the RSN thread, that everybody who saw was too occupied to reply or chose not to reply. Thus, the essay is not applicable here. Huon (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

RE:"not reliable secondary sources"

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: "I think the profile is far from an ideal source for the material it is cited for,"

Far from ideal ≠ not reliable

As of this writing, User:Andrew Lancaster has yet to respond to your request for clarification. Said editor cannot be counted towards agreement with "not a secondary source independent of the subject".

WP:Silence means nothing:

But "silence" may just mean that nobody has seen the edit or proposal in question, or that they are too occupied with other matters to give it consideration.

Assertion: "Obviously it's not the case that nobody saw the RSN thread, that everybody who saw was too occupied to reply or chose not to reply."

Justification: None

Maiorem (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave it for others to decide whether Hullaballoo Wolfowitz agreed that the profile is not a secondary source independent of the subject when even you put a "yes" in the "not independent of the subject" column of your table, or whether four replies to a thread are sufficient justification to say that it's not the case that nobody replied to it. Huon (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"not independent of the subject" ≠ "not reliable"

"Now it's technically possible that dozens of other editors agree with Maiorem and consider such profiles reliable third-party sources, but mysteriously none of them bothered to voice their opinion and disagree at the noticeboard."

"none of them bothered to voice their opinion and disagree at the noticeboard" = "silence"

silence = nothing

Maiorem (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Huon asked me to clarify my posting on RSN. From what I can see above he has interpreted me about right. Hope this helps.

• I think this is a self-published source and comes under WP:SPS. So such sources can sometimes be used, especially as a source saying what that person or organization thinks about something, but not for something which is overly self-publicizing. They are not ideal though.
• Special exceptions, where such a source might be used relatively freely, would require the person wanting to use such source showing how those sources have their own reputation for fact checking. For example, is this webpage cited by well known publications which are less controversial.
• In general, the onus is upon the person proposing to use an unusual source, to convince others. Of course this "onus" should not be abused by others, and objections should be explained and clear. In other words there is an onus upon people complaining about something to make sure they do not look like they are pushing a POV.
• Another point which seems to have come up here is whether it is a problem when a WP articles relies too heavily on such sources. The answer is yes, but I am not familiar with this article here enough to know if that applies. One major issue is that the notability of the subjects being discussed should at least be able to be verified good sources. (There is not point reporting someone's opinions from his or her webpage if that person's opinions on that subject are not notable to begin with.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to clarify your posting, Andrew.

"such sources can sometimes be used, especially as a source saying what that person or organization thinks about something"

Yes. This is neither original research nor synthesis and that makes it acceptable as a source to be used in the context of this article.

Reputation for fact checking: Yes

• Closer to Truth is created, hosted and produced by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and has over 100 professors of science, philosophy and theology, and many leading scientists as its participants - a total of 128 such authorities.
• Here is more information about Closer to Truth from PBS.
• Also covered here.

Maiorem (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

We're not talking about the Closer to truth show, but about their website's participants profiles. I see no indication that Kuhn or any of the professors of science, theology or philosophy are responsible for the content of those profiles, with the possible exception of the participant whose profile we're talking about. I'm also not aware that the website has a reputation for fact-checking. Could you please provide an example of a less controversial, well-known publication citing the webpage? Besides, even if we could establish the CtT website's reliability, it would still be a primary source on the show's own participants: One we may use, but not one the likes of which we may base major parts of the article on. Huon (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

In a recent video interview (http://www.closertotruth.com/videoprofile/Why-Explore-Consciousness-and-Cosmos-Andrei-Linde-/874) Linde tells that his editor suggested he remove the reference to consciousness in his book because he "might lose the respect of his friends." Linde told her that if he removed it, "I would lose my own self-respect."

Kuttner, F., & Rosenblum, B. (2011). Quantum enigma: physics encounters consciousness (p. 264). Oxford University Press.

In case anybody is wondering, the link as cited in the book is missing a hyphen; the correct link should appear thus:

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/Why-Explore-Consciousness-and-Cosmos-Andrei-Linde-/874

Maiorem (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points I’d like to raise here: If we are going to write about Craig’s work in philosophy, it would be a good idea would be to cite his books. I believe books and articles in peer reviewed count as reliable sources. With regard to the point about author profiles not being known for fact checking:

If we admit that Fox news can be used to establish notability, his frequent appearance on a PBS TV show dedicated to philosophy and science should also be sufficient. Here, he is introduced as a professor of philosophy during an interview. I’m not saying that shouldn’t cut most of the CTT citations, I’m just saying that we shouldn’t cut them all out (unless you think that introduction was written by Craig or his publishers).

Second, I believe that universities are generally known fact checking the job records of their employees. The EPS source and the ISCID are reliable sources. If we are going to say that Craig is a member of the EPS and is a philosopher/theologian, it is reasonable to link to a philosophical/theological society that states Craig is a philosopher/theologian. If we say he is a member of the ISCID we should link to the ISCID website. If we say Craig has debated such and such person, we should link to videos showing him debating these people.

Reasonable Faith has such videos. Marojem has already noted that the article does not rely on primarily on CTT or Reasonable Faith. Wiki guidelines state that such sources are acceptable where there is ‘’ there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.’’ Unless we are to believe that these videos are the product of an elaborate fabrication, I maintain that they are reliable. From what I understand, Huon prefers that RF and CTT citations be reduced. Fine. We can reduce RF and CTT citations even further:

Here is the New Statesman on the Craig/Hitchens debate.

Here is Premier Christian radio on the Craig/ Grayling debate:

Craig’s debate with Flew is discussed by Flew in this book:

There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind [Hardcover] (Author), Antony Flew (Author)Roy Abraham Varghese

Craig’s debate with Stenger is found here and here:

Here are some more books and papers we can cite in place of CTT:

Craig. The Only Wise God. 1999 William Lane Craig, Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom. New York, E.J. Brill; 1991 William Lane Craig. "The Middle Knowledge View." Divine Foreknowledge, Four Views. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001. Craig. "Middle Knowledge, Truth-Makers, and the Grounding Objection." Faith and Philosophy 18 (2001): 337-52

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

These can be used in relation to Craig’s work on divine foreknowledge and God’s relationship to time

I think Marojem has met the burden of proof with regard to 315 as a source. Unless we should remove large sections of the P Z Myers page (which largely sourced from his blog)I see no reason to change this citation.--HyperEntity (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARY, material should not be based purely on primary sources. Craig's books are obviously primary sources on Craig. So are audio recordings of Craig, or Craig's debate partners discussing their debates, or Craig's employers writing about Craig. In all those cases the source is written by Craig himself or by someone directly involved, and while some such sources may be reliable, and while such relaible sources may indeed be used to flesh out what we write, we should still not have entire sections based purely on such sources.

In contrast, the Stanford Encyclopedia articles HyperEntity linked to above are secondary sources, they look reliable to me, and they should allow us to write a paragraph on Craig's theory of the relation between God and time (and on Kalam, but we already had a secondary source on that).

Regarding PZ Myers, I haven't bothered checking the article; I wouldn't be surprised if it suffered just the same problems of over-use of primary sources as this one, but just as with Harris and The Moral Landscape, that other stuff exists is irrelevant to this article. Let me repeat what I said about Harris: If you want to shorten that article and editors over there argue that it's OK to have entire sections based on primary sources, feel free to summon me and I'll argue for shortening that article, too. I currently don't care enough about the Myers article to become active on my own, though. Huon (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Huon, it does not appear the article is based entirely on primary information from this person's own work?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have given my opinion on the current sources at the very top of this section. Besides the Cambridge Companion and Fox News, which of the sources we currently have do you consider a reliable secondary source? Huon (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I've already noted that use of primary sources is not against Wiki policy and that its use is reliable and actually encouraged. Huon's objection that it descriptions of Craig's work rely too much on Craig's books and articles should really be read as 'This article relies too much on reliable sources'. If the article does not rely too much on on such sources, there is no problem. Now, I've already tried to reduce reliance on primary sources but since we still seem to disagree over how much constitutes too much, I will attempt to reduce use of primary sources even further.

-adopting a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity Craig demonstrates that the A-theory is compatible with Relativity theory:

Presentism and Relativity, Yuri Balashov1 and Michel, Janssen British Jnl. for the Philosophy of Sci. Volume 54, Issue 2 Pp. 327-346

-possible worlds semantics based on the A-theory:

A Theory of Presentism, Craig Bourne, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 36.1 (2006) 1-23

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/canadian_journal_of_philosophy/v036/36.1bourne.html

p.121, Q Smith-Time, Reality & Experience edited by Craig Callender

-constructing a positive case for the A-theory/ criticism of B-theory of time:

Tense, Timely Action and Self-Ascription, STEPHAN TORRE, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Volume 80, Issue 1, pages 112–132, January 2010

p.73, L.Nathan Oaklander-Time, Reality & Experience edited by Craig Callender

-Craig defends Molinism:

Stanford EP: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/#2.4

Zygon papers: http://www.zygoncenter.org/studentsymposium/pdfs/papers01/symposium01_Kim.pdf

Humana.Mente – Issue 8 – January 2009: http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Paper_In%20Defence%20of%20the%20Thin%20Red%20Line_issue%208.pdf

-and rejects fatalism: Does Omniscience Imply Foreknowledge? Craig on Hartshorneby Donald Wayne Viney

-Also a critic of naturalism: Prof Graham Oppy reviews Naturalism: A Critical analysis --HyperEntity (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, HyperEntity, great job! I wonder how we have missed all these C.C Maiorem (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have quoted the relevant policy.Primary sources may (or may not) be reliable, and they may be used with caution, but we should avoid basing material entirely on primary sources. Right now, the entire "work" section is based on Craig's books, Craig's website, and Craig's profiles by organizations he's affiliated with. Thus, I too would like to thank HyperEntity for finding secondary sources which discuss Craig's ideas. Below, I have written a first draft based on the Stanford Encyclopedia; the articles should allow us to write a more thorough summary of Craig's position regarding philosophy of time and divine foreknowledge. Huon (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

POV issues in the first paragraph

I'm sorry to keep coming back to this, but every time I read the first paragraph, I'm struck with out how obviously biased it is. Here are the specifics:

• "He is known for his work on the philosophy of time and philosophy of religion, specifically the existence of God and defense of Christian theism."
  • We seem to be using two sense of the word "known." In the first, "known" means "famous for." And the second refers to something more like "has been noted for." In this regard, Craig is certain been noted by some people for his work in the philosophy of time. But, he is famous for his work in the philosophy of religion. In either case, he is known for his debates more than either his philosophy of time or religion.
• "He has made major contributions to the philosophy of religion..."
  • Major? I question this word.
• "...his defense of the Kalām cosmological argument is the most widely discussed argument for the existence of God in contemporary Western philosophy."
  • Again, I don't think that this claim from Quentin Smith should be represented as a fact in this article.
• The selection of books is strange. It contains The Kalam Cosmological Argument, which it should. And it includes three relatively insignificant books. And it excludes 'Reasonable Faith'. 'Reasonable Faith' is Craig's text book on apologetics and can't possibly be omitted.

• And finally, it feels like this opening paragraph simply doesn't describe Craig's place in the world. It makes no mention of his conservatism or evangelicalism, both of which seem important. It makes no mention of his reasonable faith ministry. It feels the portrait being drawn here is one of a philosopher who dabbles in apologetics and not an apologists working within philosophy. And I don't mean to suggest that Craig isn't a talented philosophy, but that we seem to be entirely depreciated his work in apologetics, which is tremendous, frankly. Theowarner (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no such distinction between the "two" senses of the word "known". In fact, "famous" is itself a synonym for "noted", and I do not see your argument as based on any existing definition of the word from any reliable dictionary. Furthermore, you do not provide any references to back your claim that "he is known for his debates more than either his philosophy of time or religion." Or are you unaware that his debates are mostly about the philosophy of time and religion anyway?

On what basis do you question the word "major"? On the basis of your unfamiliarity with the volume of his works? On the basis of your unfamiliarity with the number of times he has been referenced by philosophers of religion as well as theologians on related works?

Your opinion regarding what should or should not be represented as fact needs to be backed by additional references for any sort of consideration. Citation needed. Why do you think that the claim from Quentin Smith, an academician highly qualified in his field, on the prominence of William Lane Craig in his academic field, philosophy, shouldn't be represented as fact in this article, apart from your bias?

Please cite the "three relatively insignificant books" that you have mentioned. What appears to be "insignificant" to you may be due to your own unfamiliarity with the books themselves or their relative significance. In addition, the significance of books is not an issue, since the Bibliography section should detail most, if not all, the books that have been authored, co-authored or edited by William Lane Craig. You are right in pointing out that Reasonable Faith should also be included.

Why do the mention of conservatism or evangelicalism seem important to you? In fact, based on the definitions of conservatism and evangelicalism, William Lane Craig is neither in the strictest sense. And no, it would be fairly inaccurate to portray him as "an apologists working within philosophy" because he is both philosopher and theologian at the same time. His work in apologetics is always tied to his work in philosophy. Maiorem (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to think about better responses to many of your points. But, let me say that I would certainly appreciate both a change in your tone towards me and an explanation why 'Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology' (co-authored with Quentin Smith) (1993), 'Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time' (2001), and 'Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity' (co-edited with Quentin Smith) are referenced in the first paragraph. 'The Kalam Cosmological Argument' and 'Reasonable Faith' should be included as we agree. But, those three books aren't especially noteworthy. I would describe them as fairly middle of the road works. They are interesting, competent, and certainly part of the conversation, but to suggest that they should be specifically mentioned apart from his other books and alone with The Kalam Cosmological Argument is simply unsubstantiated. I'll wait for you Maiorem for that substantiation. Theowarner (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sold by your, Mairoem's, response to my objection to the word 'major.' Your response was actually sort of non-responsive. So, let me put more language to my initial thought. That is: "major" is clearly an evaluation about relative importance. If you look at the "philosophy of religion" as an entire discipline, Dr. Craig is certainly one of many scholars who contributes but, I have difficulty accepting that he has made "major contributions." If you look at the wikipedia page on "philosophy of religion," he isn't even mentioned, let along his supposed "major contributions." How can that page omit his "major contributions"? Theowarner (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion that they are "fairly middle of the road works" is not based on any objective criteria. There is simply no reason to not mention these books as part of his works. Your contention about the word "major" is not with me, but with Quentin Smith. You are not in this field of philosophy of religion to make such an evaluation, whereas Quentin Smith is. This is why we accept Quentin Smith's evaluation and reject yours. Maiorem (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

My evaluation that they are "fairly middle of the road works is based on my perspective, of course, and so is your opinion of the same books. Right now, the burden to explain why those books are placed alongside Reasonable Faith and The Kalam Cosmological Argument. You say there in reason not to mention these books, but you've selected them from a list of many. That act of selection is comment and you need to justify it. Once again, when it comes to the word major, you aren't representing it as Dr. Smith evaluation, but as fact. Dr. Smith can no more establish fact than I or you can. Theowarner (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion whatsoever on these books. The burden is on you to explain why these books should not be mentioned alongside Reasonable Faith and The Kalam Cosmological Argument. I never said anything about not to mention these books so I would appreciate it if you do not put words into my mouth. In case you do not know already, I am not the one who put those books there. I am not the one who wrote that paragraph. In fact, I did not write a single paragraph in the article, as I only made minor edits and reverts. Dr Smith's evaluation is fact, and yes, actually Dr Smith has the qualifications to establish facts relating to his field more than you and me. Maiorem (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

1) Distinction without a difference. ‘Known’ here refers to his ‘fame’ within the academic world. That he is known more for his work in philosophy of religion does not change the fact that many philosophers have praised his work in philosophy of time. Marojem mentiomed those philosophers earlier in the discussion.

2)Fine. We’ll change it to ‘made contributions’ if the others agree.

3) I responded to this point already. See my reply here if you missed it.

4) We stated that he works in philosophy of religion and time. The selection of books reflects this. If you wish to shorten it and include Reasonable Faith, I don’t have a problem as long as the others agree. We can work something out.

5) The Reasonable Faith ministry is linked to. However, if you wish to include it, I don’t see why not as long as Marojem and the rest are willing to. --HyperEntity (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Should we add the BHA controversy?

It’s pretty notable in the UK. Members of the British Humanist Association (Dawkins, Grayling, Toynbee) have all refused to debate Craig despite dozens of invitations to do so. There’ll even be adverts on buses around Oxford stating ‘’There’s probably no Richard Dawkins. Now stop worrying and enjoy the Sheldonian theatre) : http://www.bethinking.org/what-is-apologetics/introductory/theres-probably-no-dawkins.htm

Toynbee was going to but got cold feet when she saw his previous debates. We already have sources for this from PCR, Newstatesman, Daily Telegraph, and Christian News. Shouldn’t we mention it in the debate section?--HyperEntity (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not especially important in my opinion. Theowarner (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me add... it may be interesting right now, but that's because there are lot of people spilling a lot of ink on it. In January, it won't be worth mentioning here on Wikipedia. There's no reason to mention it now. Theowarner (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with theo. It's another case of something interesting, relevant and sourced, where there is no good reason not to put it in. Joycey17 (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I, too, disagree with Theowarner. The noteworthiness of an event is determined by its coverage at the time of its occurrence, not coverage at a future date. The fact alone that "there are lot of people spilling a lot of ink on it", especially by multiple reliable third-party secondary sources, means that it is definitely worth mentioning. Maiorem (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The noteworthiness of an event is determined by its coverage at the time of its occurrence, not coverage at a future date? See WP:EFFECT, WP:NOTSCANDAL, and WP:INDEPTH. I disagree with your reasoning, Maiorem. That it is being discussed 'now' is not enough to justify its mention. While Joycey17 is right that these declined debates are "interesting, relevant and sourced," I disagree that they are noteworthy or important. They are trivial, sensation and fleeting. (I'm reversing my opinion below.) Theowarner (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

None of those you cited even mentions anything about coverage at a future date. I will cite back to you WP:EFFECT and WP:INDEPTH:

With regards to WP:EFFECT, "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."

With regards to WP:INDEPTH, "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK)."

For source, here's one. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Maiorem (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That article isn't going to establish that the coverage is significant. But, we still need to weigh the amount of coverage against some thought about how much that coverage is about trying to create coverage. Theowarner (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do not understand what you are saying. Can you or someone else please rephrase your sentence, e.g. "coverage trying to create coverage"? Maiorem (talk) 08:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I am referring to deliberate attempts to create controversy. With Dawkins not debating Craig, for example, some people took out an advertisement on buses. Then, that advertisement became the source of news coverage. It seems to me like an attempt to create controversy or to compound the news cycle. My point is only that we need to make sure that we buying into hype. Our job should be see through hype. Theowarner (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware of the Atheist Bus Campaign that ran two years ago? This is a parody of it, and it is not a deliberate attempt to create controversy, as you suggested. Advertisements do not become the source of news coverage for no reason other than being advertisements, especially not for reliable sources. Maiorem (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I am indeed aware of the Atheist Bus Campaign. I recognize that it is a parody of it. I'm not sure why you think it's not an attempt to create controversy. The original Atheist Bus Campaign was an attempt to create controversy and this advertisement seems in the same spirit. I'm not sure what you are trying to say in your last sentence. Theowarner (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why you think it is an attempt to create controversy; what's the controversy? Yes, the original campaign was indeed an attempt at generating controversy, but how is this recent campaign an attempt at generating controversy? How is it "in the same spirit"? What I said in the last sentence basically means that nobody, especially not for reliable news sources, writes news about advertisements unless those advertisements are linked to something more notable. Thus, these advertisements are not being reported about simply by virtue of them being advertisements as you have suggested by saying "that advertisement became the source of news coverage" which is untrue and misleading. Maiorem (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You ask a great many questions. Are you sure you're following the coverage closely? If you don't know what the controversy is, I doubt you're following it at all. Theowarner (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please explain to us what the controversy is. Assume that I am not following the coverage. How are you going to explain the controversy? Do you think every reader of this article would have followed such coverage? I doubt even you are following, nor do you know what the controversy is. Maiorem (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If you scroll up, there are fairly straightforward descriptions of the controversy. You can google the terms fairly easily. Theowarner (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

In other words, the "controversy" is non-existent. I said to explain the controversy, not redirect us to Google. Telling us to Google something isn't an explanation; that's avoidance. I can also tell you to Google why there's no "controversy" either. Oh, and be sure to differentiate between the 2009 Christian bus campaign and the recent one too. Maiorem (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I just saw Huon's complaint that bethinking was the only source we had for this story. Here are more the sources we have available to us on this story:

Daily Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html

Oxford Times: http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/9294923.Christians____bus_challenge_to_atheist

New Statesman: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/05/god-dawkins-atheist-craig

Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/11/hugh-muir-diary-liam-fox?newsfeed=true

Daily Mail: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2011/10/so-there-is-a-plan-b-after-all-saving-the-reckless-at-the-expense-of-the-thrifty-.html

Christian News: http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/9901617876.html

Christian Post: http://global.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-continues-to-refuse-debate-with-christian-apologist-william-craig-56780/

PCR: Unbelievable? 10 Sep 2011 - William Lane Craig Q&A

http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/unbelievable/id267142101

Now Marojem has already pointed out that the Atheist Bus Campaign met the criteria for notability and I have yet to see Theo give a convincing response. So I think we should add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperEntity (talk • contribs) 21:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've decided to add the BHA issue. We currently have three people who favour adding it. Four if we count Huon. I've already responded to his question regarding sourcing and Marojem has responded to Theo's objections. If no one has a problem I'll add it within the next few days.--HyperEntity (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

While notability is not just determined by coverage at the time of the occurrence (per WP:NOTNEWS), I don't think mentioning those who refused to debate Craig is out of line. What's the best source? The New Statesman article we already cite is an opinion piece, not a news item; the bethinking link HyperEntity gave above is just a reprint of a press release. Huon (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well if you're just going to list them with the others he has debated, I'm okay with that. Many of the sources, by the way, are actually just versions of Craig's press release on the same issue. He put out releases on Dawkins and Toynbee. So, make sure you aren't simply point back to something Craig's people wrote.Theowarner (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@Jess: I felt that we should give Craig a chance to respond (or show what others who have responded on his behalf have said) rather than simply saying that he is an apologist for genocide. I see your point about weight and I agree that it can be shortened. We can work something out.--HyperEntity (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not we "give Craig a chance to respond", 4 paragraphs covering how Dawkins turned down a debate is way too much. This article isn't about Dawkins. If this gets integrated at all, it needs to be within a few short sentences, and no more. I'd be happy to discuss alternatives to the current version, but please don't edit war over the current proposal. Per WP:BRD, it needs to be discussed here before it's reintroduced. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok then. I sggest we change it to the following:

Evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins has refused to debate with William Lane Craig, accusing him of being a "deplorable apologist for genocide", referring to Craig's comments on the Old Testament account of the slaughter of the Canaanites, and claimed that "none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name’’.

In response, a Christian bus campaign was launched around Oxford with buses bearing the slogan 'There’s probably no Dawkins' in parody of the Atheist Bus Campaign. Dr Daniel Came, a philosopher and atheist at Oxford University has commented: ‘’Dawkins's refusal to debate is cynical and anti-intellectualist...Using William Lane Craig's remarks as an excuse not to engage in reasoned debate is typical of New Atheist polemic.’’ Dr Tim Stanley, a historian at Oxford University, has argued that Dawkins misrepresents Craig’s views of the Cannanite massacre and has stated that "Dawkins has gotten away with his illiterate, angry schtick for so many years because his opponents have been so woolly."

The Christian bus campaign is important, well sourced and deserves to be mentioned. Obviously we need to include the comments by Came and Stanley in the interests of neutrality. Thoughts?--HyperEntity (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Even that is quite long. Perhaps this trimmed version would suffice, which includes the bus campaign alongside wording similar to the current version:

“ Richard Dawkins and AC Grayling have turned down invitations to debate with William Lane Craig, with Dawkins accusing him of being a "deplorable apologist for genocide", referring to Craig's comments on the Old Testament account of the slaughter of the Canaanites, and accusing him of "self-promotion". In response, a Christian bus campaign was launched around Oxford with buses bearing the slogan "There's probably no Dawkins" in parody of the Atheist Bus Campaign. ”

Let me know what you'd think. I'd be happy to explain the reasons for my changes if you'd like to discuss it further.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This is OK (though I'd prefer to see Polly Toynbee replace Grayling-we've already said he debated Grayling). However, I feel that we need to mention Came's and Stanley's comments or at least this article in the Independent. Dawkins states that none of the philosophers he spoke to had heard of Craig (This is clearly a lie-Came sent Dawkins a letter encouraging him to debate Craig and I can't take seriously the idea that Dawkins was not aware of Craig's debates with Grayling, Dennett and Flew) and that he was apologist for genocide.

Came notes that the second statement is irrelevant and the first is false. Stanley notes that Dawkins has misrepresented Craig's position. These rebuttals deserve to be mentioned. We can't simply allow Dawkins to talk nonsense without giving Craig a chance to respond (or someone to respond on his behalf).--HyperEntity (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably okay with using Toynbee instead of Grayling (or in addition to Grayling), but I don't recall him in the sources. Do we have a good source indicating he's notably turned down a debate? Regarding 'rebuttals', all the sources presented thus far are opinion pieces in blogs (or similar), and I'm not sure they deserve any weight in the article. Frankly, I don't think Dawkins' opinion that Craig is "an apologist for genocide" is worthy of attention either, given that it has received little traction elsewhere, but it's currently serving the purpose of indicating why Dawkins has turned down the invitations. Basically, this section isn't out to make a statement about Craig (or Dawkins, or anyone else); the section is intended to cover a public controversy which received some small amount of coverage. Therefore, we need to present: that there was a controversy regarding the debates; why there was a controversy (Dawkins turned down the debates due to X, and Craig responded with the Bus campaign which received coverage). Opinions on the controversy aren't innately relevant unless the opinions themselves are - such as by receiving independent coverage themselves. There may be a way we can present "why there was a controversy" without including the bit about the Canaanites. I don't know how to do that while still presenting that Dawkins turned down the invitations due to his negative opinion about Craig, but perhaps you have a suggestion. Would that work?   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible worlds semantics

The section on philosophy of time contained this half-sentence:

He develops a possible worlds semantics based on the A-theory

The first source mentions A-theory only in connection with Ludlow, not with Craig, and while it talks about possible worlds, it again does not do so in connection with Craig. The second source is malformed because it contains two different page numbers; the "pp. 338" must be wrong because the book doesn't have 338 pages. All Smith says on p. 121 is that "Craig holds that future tense sentence-tokens corresponds [sic] to presently existing, abstract states of affairs." I don't see how either source supported our statement; thus I removed it. Huon (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that part is actually helpful to lay readers anyway, so I don't have an issue with the removal of that sentence. Maiorem (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

How editors should make evaluations....

Craig's primary contribution to philosophy of religion is his revival of the kalam cosmological argument.

This sentence appears in the article now. And, it is not supported with sources. However, what's interesting about it is that we all, as editors, agree on it. And I suppose that our agreement comes from the fact that we're merely sensitive enough to the topic to know that it's true. We can't seem to use that sensitivity elsewhere, though. Theowarner (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My view concerning it is neutral. I neither agree nor disagree with it, as I do not see any references for either view. This idea of being "sensitive enough" to determine the status of a statement as fact is false. Maiorem (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This idea of being "sensitive enough" to determine the status of a statement as fact is false? What are you trying to say? Theowarner (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your statement, "And I suppose that our agreement comes from the fact that we're merely sensitive enough to the topic to know that it's true." is false. Maiorem (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think that? Theowarner (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Because the statement is factually untrue. It is not based on objective facts. The claim has been disproved by my lack of agreement. The statement relies on false assumptions that all editors agreed upon it because of being "sensitive enough to the topic to know that it's true", which is not a factual claim per se. Shall I provide more reasons? Maiorem (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you certainly have demonstrated that the claim is untrue. Does this mean that we should delete the sentence in question? Without any references, it should certainly not be included, right? Theowarner (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Rather than delete it, why not rephrase it? Maiorem (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. I think the sentence is true as it is. I know you don't care that I do, but I do. Theowarner (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not bothering with it because, as I have stated, my view concerning it is neutral. Maiorem (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

let's debate commas

In The Kalam Cosmological Argument he formulates the argument in the following manner...

In this sentence, should there be a comma after "Argument"? I think there should be, and I edited the page to that effect. Maiorem reverted the edit. I argue that commas offset introductory prepositional phrases (with longer prepositional phrases, it's necessary; with shorter prepositional phrases,it's optional). It's purely a judgement call, but my feeling is that it simply lends a little order to the sentence. I can't believe that Maiorem thinks this is worth reverting and frankly, the revert seems petty. But let's all talk about it. (I'd like to point out that I used a comma in my first sentence ("In this sentence, should there...") and if it didn't pain you as you read it, you should probably agree with me.) Theowarner (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your use of a comma in your first sentence is warranted due to your sentence structure, i.e. your question should have been structured thus: "Should there be a comma after "Argument" in this sentence?" The prepositional phrase here is actually quite short, since you only have a preposition (In) and the noun phrase (The Kalam Cosmological Argument, which counts as one noun phrase, not four separate nouns), so two items in the parse tree do not constitute a long phrase. For more information about how to properly utilize commas in introductory phrases, (that introductory phrase was composed of 12 individual lexical items, thus it warrants the comma), please refer to this link. Maiorem (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You probably mean three separate nouns. The is not a noun. Anyway... Why should my sentence have been structured thus: "Should there be a comma after "Argument" in this sentence?" You're right that the prepositional phrase is not long, but it is cumbersome (in my opinion... I know, you hate opinions). That makes the comma optional. I think that a stylistic judgment should be made and I happen to think that it improves the readability of the sentence. Theowarner (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Maiorem here. Let me demonstrate: "In your first sentence you were correct to use a comma." That's the completely analogous construction, and "In your first sentence, you were..." looks very, very strange to me. Admittedly I'm not a native speaker, so don't rely on my feelings overly much. Maiorem's link gives the usual "use a comma after more than three words" rule, though it doesn't say whether a noun phrase counts as one word. Huon (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, in that sentence ("In you sentence you were correct....") I agree... no comma was necessary and it doesn't really improve the readability. Theowarner (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it's better to separate a relative dependent clause from an independent clause using a comma. (Take a look at the first sentence of dependent clause for an example, after "information". :) The discussion of "non-essential" (a term I've not heard before) relative clauses seems to capture it. If that all seems too complicated, the short answer is that in formal English the comma should be included. causa sui (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

More edit warring over youtube. Again.

Please note the recent reverts, which have reintroduced an edit made by User:79.75.217.115. Maiorem, this has been discussed ad-nauseum. I'm tired of it. BLPN and RSN have both, repeatedly, indicated that youtube is not reliable for these claims. Consensus here has been that youtube is not reliable as well. Please stop edit warring, and actually discuss your proposal, per WP:BRD. As an aside, 79.75.217.115 is edit warring too (ironically, to include content you - Maiorem - wish to exclude). That needs to end as well, or the article will have to be protected.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please quote where BLPN and RSN have both indicated that YouTube is not reliable for such "claims". What was the "claim"? It was a quotation of Sam Harris, and the YouTube video showed the source of the claim, i.e. the Craig-Harris debate. Tell me exactly how is the video uploaded by the University of Notre Dame is not a reliable source for direct quotations? Maiorem (talk) 06:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I've linked to a few already, including this one. We already have a source for the statement anyway, so additional refs aren't necessary to begin with, much less youtube links. I'm happy to discuss this further if you'd like, but I'm not sure what all this battling is doing for the article. I'd encourage you, if you have additional reservations, to raise the issue again on RSN. As the archives show, however, they've been pretty adamant in the past that youtube should be avoided for these sorts of matters.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jess. At the very best, the YouTube video would have to be considered as self-published by Notre Dame and should not be used in this article. If no one else had written about that statement, we could conclude that it's not all that notable to begin with. But since there actually is a better source, I see no reason whatsoever to use the bad one. Huon (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Rebuttals

So, how come there are no rebuttals or critique against Craig's ideas posted here, or are they just supposed to be posted on the specific pages for the ideas themselves? DukeTwicep (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There is some critique of Craig's ideas, for example Helm's critique in the last paragraph of the Philosophy of time section. But this article is mainly about Craig and his ideas, only indirectly about what other people think of them. Unless they arey rejected in a notable way (which would probably require more than a single disagreeing philosopher), we don't need a rebuttal for each of his positions; we only need to report that he holds them. A more detailed discussion on the ideas, their supporters and critics would probably indeed be better suited for the article on the ideas themselves. Huon (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any rebuttals are appropriate. This is not a debate page.Theowarner (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

References

I recently tidied up the references. I added links to Google Books or to the text of philosophical papers wherever I found them, added author information to those books which lacked it, fixed the misuse of the "last=" and "first=" parameters of the citation templates (no, that source was not written by "Tube, You"), added a few author links and links to publishers, and changed a few titles to more appropriate ones. That took quite a while, and I would really, really appreciate it if those edit warring would try not to revert those improvements.

With some references I didn't quite know what to do. This includes the two remaining YouTube videos and the link to "The Great Debate" - those are primary sources we should better avoid completely, and I was tempted to remove "The Great Debate" which was just one of two sources for the same statement. I did get rid of this source:

Biola, University. "Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom: The Coherence of Theism: Omniscience". Retrieved 5 October 2011.

In its stead I added a link to the book itself. If we did indeed intend to use that sales blurb as a source and not the book, that would have to be undone - but a sales blurb is not a reliable secondary source, and we might just as well cite Craig's book. A truly independent review of the book may be preferable if available, of course. Huon (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Dawkins and the Canaanites

There's a slow-moving edit war involving Dawkins and the Canaanites. For all I can tell, the relevant sentence is supposed to bei either:

Evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins has refused to debate with William Lane Craig, accusing him of being a "deplorable apologist for genocide", with reference to Craig's comments defending the Old Testament account of the slaughter of the Canaanites, and of "efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him".

or:

Evolutionary ethologist and anti-theistic author of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, has refused to debate William Lane Craig, accusing him of being a "deplorable apologist for genocide," with reference to Craig's comments defending the Old Testament account of the Israelites killing the Canaanites who refused to leave the Promised Land, and of "efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him."

I prefer the first version. Firstly, while (evolutionary) ethology seems to be Dawkins' specialty, that seems overly specialized. None of the sources mentioning Dawkins and Craig describe Dawkins as an ethologist. Similarly, none of them describe him as an antitheist, and neither does our own article. The Guardian's author profile says he's a "scientist and writer", Fox describes him as "one of the Four Horseman [sic] of the new Atheist movement", and the New Statesman describes him as a "new atheist" and a "biologist". Secondly, the details of the slaughter of the Canaanites are utterly off-topic for this part of the article. If we were to explain in detail Craig's position, it might be reasonable to include the fact that the Canaanites refused to leave the "Promised Land" (though, unless I'm missing something, Craig actually argues that they had to be killed for their sins, not for their reluctance to leave). But in the context of Dawkins' refusal to debate Craig, it suffices to note that Craig has defended the killing of the Canaanites and Dawkins strongly disapproves. A link to the Biblical Canaanites may be helpful, but then again, that article does not discuss the genocide in any depth anyway. Thirdly, as I wrote above, I'd greatly appreciate if 98.91.44.60 wouldn't break unrelated references while reverting that sentence to his preferred version. Huon (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

@Huon, agreed. Unnecessary details are unnecessary. Joycey17 (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The second version is inappropriate. There were other discussion elsewhere on this page about this sentence, but most have trailed off. I'm not 100% sold on what label to use for Dawkins (is "atheist" properly summing up the reliable sources, or is it attempting to discredit his opinions?), but until we have a strong reason for or against it, there's no reason for a change. If another editor wants to make a change to the second version, they need to come to the talk page and discuss it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say Dawkins' atheism is highly relevant; that's why Craig wants to debate him in the first place, isn't it? It's mentioned in two of our sources, and I'd say it's adequately describing his opinions, not discrediting them. Huon (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have already posted a number sources where Richard's excuses were examined. Let me repeat a few of those:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/paul-vallely-god-knows-why-dawkins-wont-show-2374659.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/22/richard-dawkins-refusal-debate-william-lane-craig

http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/10/27/lets-face-it-dawkins-is-chicken/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100112626/richard-dawkins-is-either-a-fool-or-a-coward-for-refusing-to-debate-william-lane-craig/

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2011/10/an-evening-without-richard-dawkins.html

So are we to believe none of none of the responses I've posted so far deserve to be mentioned? That Dawkins should be allowed to get away with declaring Craig a genocidal maniac?--HyperEntity (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

@HyperEntity, I responded to that criticism above about a week ago, but you never got back to me. Feel free to read my response there.

@Huon, That's not necessarily why Craig wants to debate. He debates theists too. In academic literature, I'm not sure Dawkins is simply referred to as "an atheist". Then again, as I said above, I'm okay with it for now, so there's no real need for discussion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

However, the specific reason why Craig wanted to debate Dawkins is related to Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, which outlines Dawkins' atheistic views. That and also because Dawkins is one of the vice-presidents of the British Humanist Association. Surely you know who Richard Dawkins is and what his views are? Maiorem (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable secondary source to that effect? If we ignore the wide selection of primary sources and opinion pieces (including all of HyperEntity's new links), the Fox News piece is the only secondary source we currently use to cover that episode. It certainly describes Dawkins as an atheist, so we should probably follow its lead. Another secondary source for the entire affair, including Dawkins' refusal, is this Christian Post article, and I'd suggest using it instead of Dawkins himself. Let us remember, this is the Craig article and not the Dawkins article, and we need not engage in any discussion as to whether Dawkins was right or wrong in his criticism. Craig asked Dawkins to debate him, Dawkins refused. More seems unnecessary and irrelevant to Craig. Huon (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the title of Craig's lecture (in light of the absence of Dawkins) speaks for itself: Is God a Delusion? A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion. Maiorem (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not a source. That's OR. Quite obviously, we can't make decisions about Craig's mindset based on observations of event titles.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

We can't make decisions about a person's mindset based on observations of event titles? Well, Huon, I've got a source here:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2011/10/an-evening-without-richard-dawkins.html

Maiorem (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)