Talk:William Lane Craig

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)

Right, I’m back. I’ve been a bit busy during the last few days (and I still am) but I should be able to respond more often. Now then:

Given the number of media outlets which have covered this I think it meets wikipedia’s notability criteria. Now since we’ve decided to mention it we ought to adhere to wikipedia’s guidelines regarding POVs and neutrality.

‘’ Opinions on the controversy aren't innately relevant unless the opinions themselves are - such as by receiving independent coverage themselves.’’

Where is the evidence for this? The Guardian and Independent pieces were not blogs. Further, wikipedia does not prevent the citation of blogs or opinion pieces in all cases. There are many cases where blog pieces were cited when they were written by notable individuals and I believe Peter Hitchens qualifies as a notable person.

‘’ There may be a way we can present "why there was a controversy" without including the bit about the Canaanites.’’

I can’t see how to do that. How about this:

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 claiming that "none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name’’

His refusal has been widely criticised. Many Christian groups launched a bus campaign 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 accused Dawkins of using ad hominem attacks to avoid engaging with a serious opponent. Dr Tim Stanley, a historian at Oxford University, has argued that Dawkins misrepresents Craig’s views of the Cannanite massacre. HyperEntity (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I don't think adding content about criticism of Dawkins is an improvement. This article is about Craig, not Dawkins, so it is only immediately relevant that he interacted with Craig by turning down the debate (if anything), not that he subsequently received criticism in the blogosphere.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The point is not to criticise Dawkins but to present a balanced account of this controversy. It is not balanced to have Dawkins describing Craig as a genocidal maniac without including a response.HyperEntity (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I'm not really a fan of the Canaanites thing at all, and I think coming up with a way to cover Dawkins' decline without criticizing the parties involved is best. However, just because we're mentioning the Canaanites to indicate why Dawkins declined, that doesn't then imply we need to spend a lot of time expanding on rebuttals to the Canaanite comment. Criticism of Dawkins' decisions to debate are not relevant to WLC, and including them (in your proposal, within two whole paragraphs) is undue weight. If you can come up with a way to avoid the Canaanites comment altogether, I would be fine with that. (Also, please indent your posts. Thanks.)   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

We’re not criticizing Dawkins for the sake of it. We are not inserting random quotes like ‘Most philosophers do not take Dawkins seriously’. We are presenting a response to criticisms of Craig Dawkins has made. This is done in the interests of balance* and not to present such responses raises issues under Wiki:NPOV information suppression.*

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#Balance

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Information_suppression

Now the dilemma facing us seems to be how we can maintain neutrality without raising issues of undue weight. How about we shorten the paragraph to the following:

Richard Dawkins and journalist Polly Toynbee have both refused to debate with William Lane Craig, with Dawkins claiming among other things that "none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name.’’ His refusal has been widely criticized. Many Christian groups launched a bus campaign 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 accused Dawkins of using ad hominem attacks to avoid engaging with a serious opponent.

Alternatively: In October 2011, 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 and in referene to evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins’s controversial refusal to debate Craig. What do you think? HyperEntity (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think both those drafts focus too much on Dawkins and too little on Craig. Does the bus campaign tell us anything about Craig? Unless he was personally involved in that campaign's design (which we would need a source for), I don't think so. The Daniel Came quote about "engaging with a serious opponent" might be worthwhile because that's actually about Craig; is there a reliable source for that quote? Huon (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It’s no different from what we currently use except that we’ve presented a response to Dawkins. The whole point is that Dawkins criticised Craig and people responded to him.

The Daniel Came quote about "engaging with a serious opponent" might be worthwhile because that's actually about Craig; is there a reliable source for that quote?

Dr Came: Given that there isn't much in the way of serious argumentation in the New Atheists' dialectical arsenal, it should perhaps come as no surprise that Dawkins and Grayling aren't exactly queuing up to enter a public forum with 'an intellectually rigorous theist like Craig to have their views dissected and the inadequacy of their arguments exposed.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/22/richard-dawkins-refusal-debate-william-lane-craig?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487HyperEntity (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Presenting a response to Dawkins is off-topic unless it tells us anything about Craig. This is not the Dawkins article. And apparently the Came quote is from an opinion piece by Came, not from a secondary source writing about what Came said. I don't think that's significant enough to add to this article. Huon (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Presenting a response to Dawkins is off-topic unless it tells us anything about Craig. This is not the Dawkins article.

I see. No doubt you also think the responses to Quentin Smith's attacks on Saul Kripke's credibility should not be mentioned since this is not the Smith article.

And apparently the Came quote is from an opinion piece by Came, not from a secondary source writing about what Came said.

The Dawkins article is also an opinion piece. We have used it. If Wikipedia has guidelines preventing the use of opinion pieces I'd like to see them.HyperEntity (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

1) Please start indenting your posts. Seriously. It makes your comments hard to read when they're scattered all over the place with odd spacing and indentation. 2) That Dawkins turned down an invitation to debate is not "an attack on Craig", nor has Craig been "vindicated in Newspapers". I've pointed this out repeatedly. You are insisting that Dawkins' opinion that Craig "is an apologist for genocide" is essential to the paragraph - an opinion I disagree with - which is the only reason it's included. If you are now saying the source supporting Dawkins' refusal to debate is "only an opinion piece" and not suitable for inclusion, the correct avenue is to remove it altogether... not to add more opinion pieces talking more about Dawkins.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on the Saul Kripke article; bringing it up here is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But apparently Neale argues that Kripke did not commit plagiarism, which would indeed tell us something about Kripke. So at a cursory glance Neale's reply to Smith's criticism seems relevant.

One of Wikipedia's guidelines on opinion pieces can be found at WP:RSOPINION: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. So we could cite Came as saying that Craig is "an intellectually rigorous theist", but is Came's opinion on Craig really relevant enough for this article? I just did a search for "opinion piece" in the Wikipedia namespace, and consensus on the reliable sources noticeboard archives seems to be that it's better to avoid opinion pieces whenever possible. Thus, I just got rid of Dawkins' article in favor of a secondary source, a Christian Post article covering Dawkins' genocide claims. Huon (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That Dawkins turned down an invitation to debate is not "an attack on Craig", nor has Craig been "vindicated in Newspapers".

Stating that a professional philosopher is not a philosopher but a genocidal lunatic is not an attack?

You are insisting that Dawkins' opinion that Craig "is an apologist for genocide" is essential to the paragraph.

Actually, I’ve just drafted two alternatives eliminating the genocide slur. The only reason I haven’t used one of them yet is because Huon insists that they are somehow off topic.

If you are now saying the source supporting Dawkins' refusal to debate is "only an opinion piece" and not suitable for inclusion, the correct avenue is to remove it altogether...

You must have me confused with Huon because I ‘ve claimed nothing of the sort.

Wikipedia's guidelines on opinion pieces can be found at WP:RSOPINION...

Well, turning to WP:RSOPINION we finds nothing against the use of opinion pieces. However, we do find this: When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.

Given that Daniel Came (unlike Richard Dawkins) is a professional philosopher, his views on Craig’s creditionals and the God debate automatically carry more weight. That said, I don’t actually have a problem with replacing the opinion pieces where necessary.

But apparently Neale argues that Kripke did not commit plagiarism, which would indeed tell us something about Kripke. So at a cursory glance Neale's reply to Smith's criticism seems relevant.

Well in this case we have Dawkins saying 'I won't debate Craig because he isn't worth debating and he is morally repulsive because he supports genocide.' We have responses which say 'He is worth debating, he is not morally repulsive, you've misrepresented his views (and your argument irrelevant anyway).' Seems pretty relevant to me.HyperEntity (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

@HE, I'm going to have difficulty responding to your posts if you don't start indenting them properly. This section is turning into a jumbled mess of text. Please look at how other users do it, and copy that. As for the content of your post, I most certainly don't have you confused with Huon. You responded to the assertion that the "response to Dawkins" refs were opinion pieces by saying "The Dawkins article is also an opinion piece. We have used it." If we have a problem with including new material, and that problem is shared by existing material, the correct course of action is to remove it all... not to add more to counterbalance an existing problem. As multiple users have pointed out repeatedly, this article is about Craig, not Dawkins, so devoting multiple paragraphs to Dawkins is undue. We simply can't do it. I think it's about time to move on to a new topic.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jess. While Came says Craig is a worthy opponent, we have (for a lack of good secondary sources) gotten rid of that point of Dawkins' critique anyway. Came doesn't say that Dawkins has either misrepresented Came or that Craig's position on infanticide is defensible; quite the contrary. Do you really want us to cite Came to the effect that Craig, in order to be logically consistent, would have to commit infanticide? That's what Came actually says about Craig. Huon (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As for the content of your post, I most certainly don't have you confused with Huon. You responded to the assertion that the "response to Dawkins" refs were opinion pieces by saying "The Dawkins article is also an opinion piece. We have used it."

I also asked Huon to show me any Wikipedia guidelines prohibiting the use of opinion pieces and clarified my position in the post you just responded to by pointing out that such guidelines do not exist. As for the point about indentation…I apologise for that. I'll try to indent my posts from now on.

Came doesn't say that 'Dawkins has either misrepresented Came' or that Craig's position…

I think you mean to say: Came doesn't say that Dawkins has either misrepresented Craig or that Craig's position…. Of course, Came is not the only source I've posted here.HyperEntity (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I did mix up Craig and Came there. And indeed you have posted quite a lot of sources; I have happily incorporated some of them in the article. Thanks for that. But I still don't see what we would add to the debate section that would both be on-topic and tell us anything about Craig. The bus campaign, for example, is utterly irrelevant to Craig. Or are we supposed to learn something about his sense of humor from it? Came's quote about Craig being an intellectually rigorous theist does not really fit into the debate section unless we turn it into a critique of Dawkins, for which this is the wrong article. Besides, considering the breadth of Craig's work, I doubt Dawkins' refusal to debate him really is significant enough to him to warrant more than the two lines we currently have. Huon (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

@HE, thanks for the indentation. According to guideline and RSN, opinion pieces are generally avoided. That doesn't mean they're excluded always, as indeed some notable pieces do receive coverage and warrant some placement in our articles. However, just because it's not forbidden to add the material, that isn't justification to add it. As of this time, there isn't consensus for the addition. I think a big part of that is the undue issue I mentioned above, and the sourcing for it really isn't great. My point before was that if you're arguing that our current sourcing is as bad as the new sourcing, then we should be discussing what material to remove, not adding more. I think we just fundamentally disagree - it happens - so I don't know there's much more to discuss. Obviously consensus can change, so we may be able to revisit the issue in the future, but for right now there doesn't appear to be much more to add. If you're really tied to this, then maybe WP:DR, but I honestly think the best thing right now is to focus our attention on other areas in need.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm just not comfortable with having Dawkins state that Craig supports genocide without any adding any responses. I feel that it's just NPOV. Now, the objections as far as I understand them, are that we can't spend multiple paragraphs on something like this and we should only add responses that are relevant. I agree. So here are some relevant sources:

• Came rebuts Dawkins's claim that Craig isn't worth debating

• The Independent rebuts Dawkins's claim that Craig isn't worth debating

• Stanley argues that Dawkins misrepresents Craig's position in the Daily Telegraph

And here's an alternative:

Evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins has refused to debate with William Lane Craig, claiming among other things that "none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name.’’ His refusal has been widely criticized. Dr Daniel Came, a philosopher and atheist at Oxford University accused Dawkins of using ad hominem attacks to avoid engaging with a serious opponent. I just can't see the problem wirth adding a few extra lines.HyperEntity (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have just tried to get rid of primary sources. The draft you present above would have to be sourced to Dawkins and Came directly, not to secondary sources, wouldn't it? That does not seem an improvement to me. Furthermore, choosing to focus on something else because we're not comfortable with what the best available sources say strikes me as the very essence of POV-pushing. Huon (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have just tried to get rid of primary sources. The draft you present above would have to be sourced to Dawkins and Came directly, not to secondary sources, wouldn't it? That does not seem an improvement to me.

If it makes you happy, we can leave it as it is and add the last two sentences. But yes, those two would probably have to be sourced by Came directly (and I've already explained why I see no problem with citing Came). Perhaps we could use this quote from Came (it is quite obvious that Dawkins is opportunistically using these remarks as a smokescreen to hide the real reasons for his refusal to debate with Craig.) found here:

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

Furthermore, choosing to focus on something else because we're not comfortable with what the best available sources say

Nope. That's not why I'm uncomfortable. I'm uncomfortable because I think that we're engaging in information suppression* by giving including Dawkins's attacks on Craig and ignoring his critics.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Information_suppression

HyperEntity (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The Algemeiner piece is another opinion piece. Including Dawkins' attacks and ignoring his critics happens to be what the secondary sources do. As long as we follow their lead, I do not see how we can violate WP:NPOV. Picking and choosing which (parts) of the primary sources to use for "balance" seems a much trickier approach. I'm tempted to prove my point by providing a draft based on primary sources which completely contradicts yours. Besides, those like Came and Averick who, basically, accuse Dawkins of being chicken speak more about Dawkins and not about Craig. Whether Dawkins is chicken or not is utterly irrelevant to Craig. Huon (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The Algemeiner piece is another opinion piece. Including Dawkins' attacks and ignoring his critics happens to be what the secondary sources do. As long as we follow their lead, I do not see how we can violate WP:NPOV.

I don’t have a problem with secondary sources. I’m sayimg that primary sources are also reliable and ought to be added for the sake of balance.

Picking and choosing which (parts) of the primary sources to use for "balance" seems a much trickier approach. I'm tempted to prove my point by providing a draft based on primary sources which completely contradicts yours.

If you can draft a short piece (using reliable sources) which critiques Craig and presents responses to those criticism, you have my blessing.HyperEntity (talk) 18:00, 21 November 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)

No, we can't. That's called original research. When I try to check your link, I just get a blank page with a sidebar of links. I can't judge the article content, but I will note that whatever it is, it's from Peter Hitchens' Blog. Without the content, it's hard to say, but blogs are not typically reliable sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I can read that blog entry, and it does say Craig intended to debate Dawkins about his book. But is the proposed subject of a debate which didn't happen really significant enough for our article? I doubt that, especially given the absence of reliable secondary sources covering that detail. We're suffering an attack of recentism; we don't mention the subject of any of Craig's other debates (rightly so). Huon (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Jess, please refer to WP:NEWSBLOG. Maiorem (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, note especially the part about opinion pieces and editorial control. Also note RSN's general opinion on the daily mail, particularly regarding the opinion pieces it publishes. I still can't comment on the article content, but regardless of that, this doesn't seem to be a particularly high quality source, even as a primary one. I also agree with Huon that it isn't relevant.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Dawkins says: “This Christian ‘philosopher’ is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him” .
N.B. Dawkins says "share a platform with him" and not "debate with him". That is a little puzzling as we can see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6tIee8FwX8.
And Dawkins admits: "Actually I HAVE debated against Craig, at a large, televised event in Mexico.": http://richarddawkins.net/comments/613905

Out of place sentence

Craig has debated with prominent intellectuals such as Antony Flew, A. C. Grayling, Daniel Dennett, Lawrence Krauss,Victor Stenger,Peter Atkins, and Christopher Hitchens. Craig maintains that science and faith are connected and that the physical sciences are more open to the idea of a creator than they have been in recent history. Popular New Atheist author Sam Harris described Craig at their Notre Dame University debate as "the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists." Evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins has refused to debate with William Lane Craig, accusing him of being an apologist for genocide with reference to Craig's comments defending the Old Testament account of the slaughter of the Canaanites.

I think that the second sentence (Craig maintains that science and faith are connected and that the physical sciences are more open to the idea of a creator than they have been in recent history.) is out of place. Doesn't that seem to be about his views rather than his debates? Perhaps someone can change the sentence to make it relevant. Or it should be deleted. The other sentences list who Dr. Craig has debated, a comment made at a debate about Dr. Craig's debate performances, and a reason why Dr. Dawkins won't debate Dr. Craig. So, I'm questioning the second sentence's relevance. Thanks! Theowarner (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Dawkins and the Canaanites, part 2

We seem to have the next war about our coverage of Dawkins and Craig's Canaanites remarks. I believe Damiens.rf's preferred version is better, for the following reasons: Firstly, the "debates" section is hardly the right place to discuss Craig's position on the Canaanites. We only mention it there because Dawkins used it to justify his refusal to debate Craig. Whether Dawkins is right or not is irrelevant to that issue. Secondly, we should avoid primary sources in favor of secondary sources, especially when matters are contentious. This includes Dawkins and Craig themselves. I don't see how we can argue that Dawkins is either right or wrong about the genocide apology claims without violating WP:OR, especially WP:SYNTH. Huon (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying? The content is referenced to reliable secondary sources NOT primary soources? It's verifiable that Dawkins said what he said, it's not for us to decide whether this is right or wrong...THAT would be WP:ORTheroadislong (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

By definition, Dawkins is a primary source on what Dawkins says, and Craig is a primary source on what Craig says. Of course we can say that Dawkins accused Craig of genocide apologetics - we do so, and the Christian Post is a secondary source which shows that Dawkins not only did so, but that it's relevant to Craig. What we cannot say - and I believe you and I agree here - is either that Dawkins' accusations are well-founded or that they are wrong. Huon (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that Damiens.rf's version I prefer is not actually his latest, but rather this one which does not contain the Craig quote. That quote is off-topic in the section on debates, and there is no reason to put it there except to argue that Dawkins is right, which we should not do (per WP:SYNTH). Huon (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

In general, we need to say that Dawkins refused to debate Craig because of X. We do not need to evaluate whether X is coherent or not and frankly, aside from a single situation, we don't need to substantiate with quotes or evidence or anything more than a single link to a single article. The Guardian oped piece is fine. Let's remember that this is a very small bio page and we don't need to belabor any point beyond a brief sentence. Theowarner (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)