Talk:Kirk Cameron

Opening Paragraph

The last sentence was removed because the supporting link was linked to the yahooo news main page and said nothing about Kirk Cameron, thereby could have just been made up by the original editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.149.60 (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral, sourced reportage of Cameron's views

Kirk Thomas Cameron (born October 12, 1969)

Currently, Cameron partners with fellow evangelist Ray Comfort?

The Way of the Master, a website that has changing the lives of internet providers for some time?

While everybody has their opinions and have the rights to do so, --guest 8:14PM CDT

If you can provide properly cited and researched evidence to back up those statements, without injecting your own opinion and point of view into the article, then by all means go ahead. --MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 18:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever happened to common sense. 70.53.111.120 02:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

One example is taking a chimpanzee to a restaurant, where he proceeds to break commandments at the table during lunch. The segment is meant to allude to a supposed inconsistency in the scientific theory that human beings evolved from other primates.

This statement seems to be very tricky to word w/o being NPOV: "a supposed inconsistency" kinda casts doubt on them, and "scientific theory" could imply that Cameron's and Comfort's point isn't scientific (and thus not right). B/W that and all the bazillion edits on that one sentence with nothing on the talk page, I've just replaced it with something completely different, and much more relevant: The whole monkey incident happened only once on of their episodes, while the on-the-street interviews happen several times an episode.

"Could imply that Cameron's and Comfort's point isn't scientific"? Could imply? You'll excuse me for saying so, but Cameron and Comfort's point ISN'T scientific. I know we shoot for NPOV, but since when is stating a bald fact considered POV? If something isn't scientific, then "implying" that it isn't scientific isn't a POV, its truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackFloridian (talk • contribs) 15:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and I'm going to edit the page accordingly now. --MessengerAtLWU 17:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"...since when is stating a bald fact considered POV?" When the statement to that effect constitutes one side in a documented conflict. It is for this reason that Wikipedia can attribute such statements to sources, but cannot make such a statement itself, since Wikipedia does not take positions on such things.

"If something isn't scientific, then "implying" that it isn't scientific isn't a POV, its truth." I agree. But remember that on Wikipedia, the standard for inclusion is not truth, but verifiability. Nightscream (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Documented conflict not synonymous with scientific debate: If I insist that the sky is really green, against all evidence that the sky is blue, and post my point of view in the editorial column of a newspaper, as well as make a web forum where fellow "Green Sky-ers" can contribute to the development of the concept, would that constitute "a documented conflict"? Strictly speaking, biologists are not generally in conflict with "creationists". Biologists simply apply the best in peer reviewed science to their understanding of life. In other words, evolution is not a reactionary theory. Creationism is reactionary, since creationists actively attempt to refute evolution. In order to refute evolution, the creationist must manufacture evidence that would otherwise not exist in nature. This is essentially the requirement of a falsehood to contrive a strawman argument in order to compete against a body of evidence obtained from empirical observation. The infamous "crocoduck" is an example of such a strawman argument. It is the proposition that "IF A, THEN C", altogether skipping "B". It appears that the criteria for making a conflict a "documented" conflict is simply a large population segment perpetuating false ideas, even to the point of deliberately ignoring the preponderance of scientific evidence to the contrary. A documented conflict, therefore is fundamentally meaningless to the scientific community, except that a documented conflict has a certain amount of social power when it comes to its proponents imposing their P.O.V. on national or regional policy. See Texas School Board... --Gregory.george.lewis 10:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Gregory. Welcome to Wikipedia. Before I answer, I request that you do not break up my posts by inserting yours in the middle of them. I like to keep my posts easy to distinguish from others at a glance.

As for your question, the conflict pertains to the conflict mentioned in the article, which only be mentioned in any detail if that conflict meets guidelines for notability. In articles that touch upon such conflicts, Wikipedia has to describe each side's point of view, but not advocate one. The only instance in which it is appropriate to present a notion as fact is when it the mainstream consensus of the historical or scientific community in an article that does not mention the conflict, because undue weight cannot be given to non-mainstream fringe views. For example, mentioning the sphericity of the earth or natural selection as fact is perfectly acceptable in articles on Earth or biology. But in articles on Flat Earth Theory or the Evolution-Creationism contoversy, neutrality must be maintained by attributing the respective points of view to the sides advocating them.

The crocoduck argument certainly is a Straw Man, but we cannot say that in articles pertaining to the EvC conflict. We can only say something along the lines of, "One of the arguments Cameron put forward was the crocoduck argument.[Source] The scientific community has responded by calling this a Straw Man argument, and by pointing out that natural selection does not imply such creatures.[Source]"

Note the attributive wording. Whether the notion is false is irrelevant, because Wikipedia cannot endorse one side of a public controversy or conflict. This is not relevant to the scientific community, but it is most certainly relevant to an encyclopedia that must maintain neutrality, in order to describe controversial topics, and their social permutations, with the objectivity that is required of an unbiased reference source. Nightscream (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Nightscream, and welcome to Wikipedia. My apologies for the injected discontinuity. I didn't quite realize the sections in the discussions were the propriety of single contributors, and I certainly didn't intend any personal afront. But, ok, I have read your reply and I understand the why and what for of neutrality in the main article, and the use of "controversy" in the context of the article, thank you.

I simply wanted to post my response logically within the section about documented conflict. I was trying to give an expanded level of detail to the question of documented conflict, as I think it is a term at risk of being misinterpreted to somehow legitimize what should otherwise consist of a non-polarized debate. For example, of course there might be legitimate debates on the merits of evolution (e.g.: panspermia vs. terrestrial origin). However, I tried to pose a hypothetical example of why some debates are not in and of themselves legitimate. The difference that the creationist's "documented conflict" has from the fictitious (and satirical) "Green Sky-ers" is that creationists have large numbers on their side. My argument boils down to saying that large numbers is not in and of itself evidence of their argument's validity. It really takes two sides to debate, much less make a so-called "documented controversy." If you ask a creationist, he might say, "Yes, there is a documented controversy." If you ask a biology teacher, he might say, "What controversy? If there is one, it is made up." I question whether such a controversy exists, except in as much as one side of this supposed controversy has a political interest in perpetuating it for their own unscientific reasons. I propose that the mere use of the phrase "documented controversy" is a weasel phrase that implies an endorsement that a legitimate controversy exists. I realize most people would agree that there is such a "documented controversy," but I contend that is only a numbers or popularity problem, considering the preponderance of evidence (which is mostly denied by the very people who perpetuate "the controversy"). For instance, I challenge anyone to produce a biology text that includes something like, "but the Creationist point of view is such-and-such." Long winded, I realize, but in the end it is topical to the subject of Kirk Cameron's scientific (or anti-scientific) point of view, especially since Mr. Cameron has chosen to popularize his views on this matter. --Gregory.george.lewis (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't sweat the continuity. No worries. :-)

Yes, the creationists have large numbers on their side, but that's really just another way of saying that it's a viewpoint that is notable, as is the conflict between that viewpoint and natural selection. If the Green Skyers eventually became noteworthy, which would involve significant coverage in reliable publications or media outlets (not merely mainstream scientific ones, but general media ones), then yes, they too would merit the same consideration in articles about their viewpoint, or that viewpoint's conflict with the Blue Skyers. There may be no scientific controversy between creationism and evolution, but it is indeed a social one. Wikipedia merely documents that.

Notability merely qualifies a topic for inclusion in Wikipedia as a notable phenomena, and that is the only relevant point that I was making about the documented nature of a controversy. It does not, however, confer validity upon that topic, because Wikipedia cannot make or appear to make judgments upon that question. The fact that Moon Landing Hoax theories are popular enough to warrant coverage in books, TV programs, etc., is why Wikipedia needs to cover it. But coverage of it does not have any bearing on the validity, or lack of it, of that theory. For more on this, it is useful to read policies relevant to these points, such as WP:Neutrality (in particular the WP:UNDUE section), Wikipedia:Fringe theories, etc. Nightscream (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem being that there is no controversy. Evolution is an accepted fact. That a certain group of people disbelieve that fact does not alter the fact that it is a fact. Since when are facts POV? If someone were to start a public campaign saying "the moon is made of green cheese", are we to include that "controversy" on the Moon page, just because "there's a controversy"? Where do we draw the line in letting non-factual POV determine our editorial policies? Or, to put it another way, while I agree that we need to talk about the "social" controversy, we should also crouch it in terms that make it clear which side has established scientific theory that has been confirmed and supported by 150+ years of experimentation behind it, and which side has no supporting evidence at all. JackFloridian (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no scientific controversy. There is indeed a social one, and in articles that cover that controversy, neutrality means that Wikipedia must describe that conflict by attributing each position to those who advocate them. I think my previous posts above answer your questions with respect to the policies I linked to, and the examples that I mentioned. I would suggest that you read them, as those policy pages and examples explain it clearly enough to answer your own hypothetical "green cheese theory" example. Nightscream (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You are ignoring my point. I'll apply good faith here and assume it wasn't willfully ignored, but rather that you just missed it. Yes, the "social controversy" is notable and we should discuss it. However, something that is not controversial, not disputed, and not in question is the fact that Cameron's public statements about evolution (which are notable given his celebrity and the efforts he puts into publicizing those statements) lack any sort of scientific foundation and have been repeatedly been refuted. Thus, including thet fact that his statements on evolution are "unscientific" isn't violating article neutrality because bald truth is never POV. It simply is. In point of fact, the only plausible reason for not including such information about his opinions is, in fact, to impose a pro-creationism POV on the article.JackFloridian (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not ignoring your point, as I've been responding to it directly. Rather, I get the sense that you're not understanding mine, perhaps because I'm not explaining myself clearly enough.

That Cameron's statements lack scientific foundation/have been refuted, and that this is "bald truth" and "fact", is indeed controversial, and disputed. If you ask someone versed in scientific skepticism, they will agree that they lack such a foundation, and have been refuted. If you ask a creationist, they will disagree. That is the controversy, or conflict in question, and in order to maintain neutrality, Wikipedia must describe that conflict, and properly attribute the positions of each of the factions in it, without appearing to exhibit value judgments as to the validity of each side, at least in articles that touch upon that controversy. Saying, "Creationists believe this, and the scientific community does not accept this" is acceptable. Saying, "Creationists believe this, and they're wrong, and here are arguments for why they're wrong..." is not. This has nothing to do with "imposing a pro-creationism POV", it's simply refraining from exhibiting any POV at all. Your position seems to predicated on the assumption that presentation of any and all material in Wikipedia is determined by its standing in the scientific community. It isn't. While this does hold for articles on topics that fall entirely under the purview of science, it does not hold for topics on social controversies.

A good analogy for how neutrality and attribution are maintained in articles on science, fringe views, and social conflicts might be this: If you go into an American public school science classroom, does creationism, alchemy, homeopathy or flat Earth theory get equal time? If the class material is properly confined to actual science, then the answer is no. But then the bell rings, and you walk into social studies class, where the lesson will be about the EvC controversy. If the teacher does his/her job properly, he/she will describe that controversy in such a way that his/her personal position are not regarded as the one and only right answer on a test. Now you may take umbrage at this because natural selection is a fact, and that this gives it a status that creationism lacks, but here's the bitter pill that even skeptics have to swallow on Wikipedia: What is and isn't fact, and what a fact is, how a hypothesis becomes a fact, etc., is not something that the typical American layman understands, and for this reason, whether it's right or wrong, non-scientific, or even pseudoscientific, non-factual positions indeed have mainstream acceptance in our society. It's unfortunate, but there it is. Because of this, any work that purports to document social conflicts objectively and neutrally, including the conflict between those who accept natural selection and those who do not, must do so in a manner that does not exhibit an endorsement of either side. Creationism will not get equal time in the Wikipedia article on natural selection. But it will be described accurately in the article on creationism, on the article on the Evolution versus Creationism social controversy, and articles related to it.

Whether you accept this or not, empirical truth as determined by the scientific method, is not the ultimate criterion by which material is included in Wikipedia. It is proper attribution to reliable sources, and in articles that cover controversial topics or fringe views, it means refraining from wording that endorses one side in a social conflict. Again, did you read the policy pages I linked to above? If you haven't then please do so, as these points are explained in detail. Nightscream (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I read those articles. Nothing in them convinces me that stating that Cameron's views on evolution are unscientific is POV, because his views on evolution are unscientific. Sources can be cited showing such. Your objection, in my opinion, is akin to saying that we shouldn't list whether Cameron is right-handed or left, because we might appear to favor members of the handedness-group to which Cameron does not belong. Posting bald facts about something is not taking a side... its simply stating facts, and the fact is, his views on Evolution lack any sort of scientific support, do not meet the criteria for being "scientific", and thus, by definition and by reality, are "unscientific". -- JackFloridian (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

categorized as a creationist

Does it make any sense? I think that a better usage of categories would be putting only relevant people on it, in this case, people with authoral works directly related with creationism, not just adding every single person of any area of endeavor who happens to be a religious fundamentalist. For that, could be something like a "list of religious fundamentalists", which could include people that just believe it, but are not more involved in some other way. --Extremophile 17:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Since an expert creationist and novice creationist pretty much have the argument, he should be listed as a creationist, no experience is needed. Aug 2008

No idea where to put this (sorry), but doesn't anyone think it would be kind of important to add something about this from the Growing Pains article, at least to help keep the article NPOV?:

In 2003, according to the article "The Rebirth of Kirk Cameron" in Christianity Today, Cameron "admits he made some mistakes common to new believers — such as distancing themselves so far from the world that they do no good for anyone ... In time, however, he realized his missteps. In 2000, he rejoined his former cast members for a Growing Pains reunion movie. With a decade of spiritual growth under his belt, he stood in front of his TV family and apologized. 'I was a 17-year-old guy trying to walk with integrity, knowing that I was walking in the opposite direction from many other people. I didn't have the kind of maturity and graceful way of putting things perhaps that I would now,' he says. Cameron's fellow actors immediately embraced him."

Again, sorry for not having any clue where this is supposed to go. I know this is really the wrong section. Maybe you could point me to the right place?

Hi! First off, welcome to Wikipedia! Second, sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~. And we did in fact referenced and linked to the article; it's the third paragraph down in the "Career" section (the article begins "When he was 'about 17 years old'..."). However, it may indeed require a fleshing out, so go for it! MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 13:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Back to the Future?

I know that Kirk was in the BttF Trilogy DVD set (Disc 3) as the FaQ answer guy, originally made in 1990, after BttF III came out. However, there's no mention of it anywhere on his page.

Should I add it? Jorrel Fraajic 22:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No he wasn't. You're mixing him up with Michael J. Fox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.82.9 (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Kirk Cameron was on the BTTF DVDs special features. Maybe you should watch them before saying he wasn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.96.19 (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

66.131.96.19, please don't call others offensive names; I've removed it. Cameron may indeed be shown on the Back to the Future special features, but (a) it is unsourced, and (b) it is generally too trivia of a fact for inclusion on Wikipedia. Unless a reliable source is shown, this shouldn't be added to the article. American Eagle (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Minister

I do not think that Mr. Cameron is a Protestant minister in the conventional sense. In my opinion, he should not be included in that category, unless there is evidence that he was actually ordained.--Anglius 05:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am uncertain. For one thing, I have never observed that television-show.--Anglius 05:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a picture of Kirk preaching in a Baptist church for the last Transformed conference on the Way of the Master Radio website, [1]. I don't think Baptist ministers even need to necessarily be ordained, much less a non-denominational one, but I think it really depends on your definition of minister. Wikipedia's seems like its inclusive enough for Kirk to count, at Minister of religion. Homestarmy 06:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your information, sir.--Anglius 02:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Top Image

That is a horrible photograph of Mr. Cameron. It causes him look like an unkempt man who is ageing rapidly. Please replace it with one of better quality(no offence to the photographer.) Anglius 21:38, 3 June 2007

The first one was removed for fair use reasons, since conceivably a free image can and has been created, even if it may seem a bit off.... Homestarmy 21:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sir, but there are probably free images of him that are of better quality. I appreciate your explanation, though.--Anglius 21:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say he looked more attractive in his Teen Idol days. Cbsteffen 03:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Cbsteffen

Agreed. Why not use the picture of him from further down the article (the one with Ray Comfort). It would fit fair use, it's also recent, and it illustrates their Way of the Master partnership. WAVY 10 17:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Because a fair use photo cannot be used when a free one is available. -- -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 17:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, anyone know where we can find a better free picture? WAVY 10 16:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture was removed as copyright infringement. WAVY 10 23:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"no offence to the photographer." None taken. Though I don't see what his aging has to do with it, since he is getting older, after all. As for unkempt, he doesn't look particularly unkempt to me, but maybe that's just me. Most of the pics I took of the RRS and TWOTM that night were candids, and are not much better than the one currently in the article, although I did ask them to pose for a couple. The only one in which his hair looks a bit better groomed than the article's pic, and in which his facial expression seems appropriate for the article is this one. What do you think? Is that one better? Nightscream (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Vegetarian

I think this source proves he isn't. Old McCameron Had a Farm article (scroll toward the end) WAVY 10 Fan 12:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Birthdate change - link to E-News

I have reverted the recent edit changing Cameron's birthdate to 1969, for the following reasons:

• There are published sources indicating his birth year is 1970 (here for example);
• There are no published sources for it being 1969 (the alleged link to E-News is dead)
• The evidence for 1969 is extremely tenuous - E-News allegedly reported that Cameron was 9 when he appeared in an advertisement, the advertisement is copyrighted in 1979, so he must have been born in 1969? Isn't it just as possible that he was born in 1970, recorded the ad when he was 8 and it appeared on TV when he was 9? Or that he appeared in the ad in 1979 after his 9th birthday but before the end of the year? Or that E-News got it mildly wrong?

I'd be happy to discuss this further if anyone has some verifiable evidence for 1969. However in the absence of evidence to support this claim, the sources supporting 1970 seem sufficient to have this date remain in the article. Euryalus (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It would seem kind of weird for Kirk to lie about his age, especially considering his ministry work now with Way of the Master; where the commandment not to lie is one of the major emphasis points for the ministry. That's why I'd say dubious...at best. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

All right, if that's the way you want it, leave Kirk's year of birth as 1970, but the evidence is in the picture. The one detail that made it clear to me that Kirk was INDEED born on October 12, 1969 is the fact that Kirk graduated high school in 1988.

One of the first things that Lyndon Baines Johnson, our nation's 36th president, did right after the Kennedy assassination was effective the Fall 1965 American Public School curriculum, if you were born after September 1 of a given year, you'd cut off into the next grade; one of those kids affected by that is Kirk Cameron--and his younger sister Candace too. Before that, it depended on where you live, but the birthdate change I made IS 100% correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.240.36 (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The real reason Kirk's parents changed it to 1970, as E! News reported, was that Kirk's character was supposed to be born in 1970, but like I said earlier, the real truth is that Kirk WAS indeed born on October 12, 1969. Take my word for it--E! News would NEVER make this stuff up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.240.36 (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Before we move forward, I think we'd be best served as possibly having a working link, and who knows, maybe E! News got some faulty information or made an error of some sort. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

All right, then--here's a working link: grundoonsconnecttv.com/pains.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.34.45 (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Director?

When was that? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a little bit of bias...

...but I corrected that. The picture's caption said "Kirk Cameron refutes evolution with the croco-duck arguement." although it's quite obvious he has not.

Bahaha... yeah. Man, I missed that. Leave it to the Liars For Jesus.... — NRen2k5^(TALK), 12:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fundamentalist?

Quit labeling everybody who owns a Bible as a fundamentalist. The word has a very specific definition and application that has been well known since the 1920s and does not apply to every body who simply holds strongly to their faith. Fundamentalists will "separate" from compromising Christians. Will Cameron? Evangelicals in general are not fundamentalists, regardless of how often the media labels them as such. The reference cited to show Cameron as a fundamentalist does not show any such thing. Either come up with a statement from Cameron himself decribing himself as a fundamentalist, or come up with someone generally known as a fundamentalist describing him as such, or quit calling him one. I am a lifelong fundamental Baptist and a pastor and I have never seen anything from Cameron that would make me believe he is one. 65.28.102.100 (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Victor

Cameron is a creationist, a dispensationist, a Biblical literalist, and a member of the Religious Right. Not all Bible owners are fundamentalists (indeed, many Bible owners are atheists), but Cameron certainly is a fundamentalist, since he subscribes to fundamentalist beliefs. Bubbha (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss ideas about the label, unless they pertain to the subject of the article. The lable "fundamentalist" may be applied to someone by themselves, or it may be used in a derogatory manner by a critic. For this reason, it can be a controversial label, and should not be used unless a reliable source can be cited that the subject has used it himself. Instead, more neutral descriptions should be used, and even then, only in context. Nightscream (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Debate on the existence of God

A bit down the article is a picture of Kirk holding a picture of the infamous crocoduck, which is generally a part of his argument against evolution and has nothing to do with his argument for the existence of God as far as I know. Is the caption innaccurate, or does he subscribe to the (logically erroneous) idea that belief in God and acceptance of evolution are mutually exclusive? If it's incorrect, then it obviously ought to be fixed, hence this comment. Farsight001 (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The caption merely says that the debate was on the existence of God, which it was. Since many believers in God who are creationists do not feel that there is a natural process by which life or speciation could have occurred, it eventually touched upon natural selection, as such debates tend to do. Nightscream (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What does "No official winner was declared by the event producers due to business practices held by ABC" mean? Does it mean that ABC refuses to adjudicate the existence of God? Business practices may belong to a company but aren't usually "held", and it's hard to see how they relate to declaring the outcome of a debate. --82.41.11.134 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I checked out the cited source, and there's no mention that a winner was or was not declared, or of any business practices that pertained to this one way or the other. I removed that material. Thanks for pointing it out. Nightscream (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that in the Nightline debate, Kirk and Ray agreed to the term that they would prove the existence of God without referring to faith or referencing the bible. They did so right from the get-go, so in an official debate forum, they would have been declared the losers of the debate due to breaching the mutually agreed terms. -Chip Cherry, Feb 9 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip Cherry (talk • contribs) 03:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Brian Sapient mentioned that himself when he spoke at the podium, and it is mentioned in the Rational Response Squad article. Nightscream (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I could swear, but I won't, that I just read in this article that Ray and Kirk promised to not use the Bible as evidence during the debate and they did use the ten commandments. That sentence (I paraphrased) is not there now. I am just now watching the debate and they did use the ten commandments to prove their scientific point. I think that part of the debate should definitely be a part of the paragraph.Mylittlezach (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The Big Joke

Is he really serious? I know that there are a few people who are truly out there, but I'd like to think that it's a vast minority. Kirk Cameron's "crocoduck" argument seems to be done with a high level of glee that makes it seem like it's a tongue-in-cheek gesture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.163.106 (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It did not appear thus when he made that argument at the 5.5.07 debate in Manhattan, as it illustrates an actual perception that creationists seem to have about natural selection: Namely, that it causes one type of animal to turn into, or to give birth to, a completely different type of animal. Nightscream (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You missed his newest movie

I just wanted to suggest that the creator of this page add Kirk Cameron's newest movie Fireproof to his list of works. 69.207.201.237 (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Anonyms 11:46 AM November 18, 2008

 Done -- American Eagle (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Cameron's Birthdate

This is probably the most controversial part of this article, and I don't think we have it correct. Our current article says, born October 12, 1970, and it should remain that way until we prove otherwise. However, this article states that he was born on December 12, 1970. And also, an anonymous user changed his birthdate to October 12, 1969, referencing this webpage. Does anyone know of a podcast or something that he states it? Or does anyone have any comments or ideas with this? Thank you. -- American Eagle (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I don't know how much it's worth around here, but I have just about the most definitive source we're going to get on this question: an email directly from Barbara Cameron stating that the correct birthdate is indeed October 12, 1970. I realize that some people won't see that as good evidence but, short of digging up a birth certificate, I don't know how we're going to do any better for a source to cite. So I need to ask those of you who know more than I do about citing sources here at WP... is there a provision for citing emails? Surely there is, since they can be used in scholarly publications. But how is it done here? I'll happily add the information if someone can tell me how to do it. Thanks in advance for your help. -- edi(talk) 18:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... good work, that is useful. I was considering asking for him to say it on his radio show or something. As you said, unless we get his birth certificate or statement from a hospatal he was born at, we aren't going to get a better source than their word. Is there a way you could prove that you received the email? Saying you received an email is shaky. God bless, TheAE talk/sign 20:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's my concern exactly: how to prove it?? I could... I dunno... take a screen shot or something... but surely there's a better way. Anyone know? In the meantime, the radio show is a pretty good idea. The other option I thought of was asking them to put it on the WotM website, but I don't know whether they would want to bother with it for a purpose as (relatively) trivial as this. In my email I asked if they knew of a publicly accessible source of the information, but she just gave the date and nothing more. I don't want to give the impression that I'm harassing them about it, but if you'd like to contact the ministry and ask them to post it online, that'd be another avenue to pursue. And, if any interested parties live in or near Los Angeles County, birth certificates are a matter of public record; the only drawbacks are (1) it'd cost maybe $15 or so to get a copy, and (2) there's still the question of proving it, though I guess a scanned and posted copy would come pretty close. I'd do it if I lived there, but I don't. In any case, let me know if there's anything else I can do. -- edi(talk) 20:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Another option, what about Kirk Cameron's book, Still Growing: An Autobiography : ISBN 0830744517? If anyone owns it, he most likely states his early childhood in the book, and probably his birthdate. That is better than an email – a published work. Just a thought. TheAE talk/sign 21:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Duh! I should have thought of that! I don't own it but I know lots of people who follow his ministry pretty closely so I'll ask around. Thanks for the tip! -- edi(talk) 21:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Based on the email and some new sources I've found, I'll be adding his birthdate back shortly. Thanks for helping out. :) TheAE talk/sign 05:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Cameron's birthdate is October 12, 1969, and here's proof: according to legend, one of the first things that Lyndon B. Johnson did when he was President was, effective the Fall 1965 American public school curriculum, you'd cut off into the next grade.

Case in point: Kirk Cameron. He graduated high school in 1988. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.165.186.75 (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That could just as easily be taken as proof he was born in 1970. When I graduated from high school, I had some classmates that were born the same year I was (1987) yet didn't turn 18 until the school year ended and still graduated with me. I take it that the previous user thinks that 18 is the standard age of graduation and that the entire class must have reached that age before graduation. Maybe it's a state-by-state issue. (This also fails to take into consideration that Kirk might have had on-set tutoring.) WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he was tutored on-set. Regardless, this idea (true in many cases, but not standard education/required) has less weight than the published, reliable books sources included in the article, and Cameron's mother's statement above. His birthdate should be kept as is unless sources are provided to show otherwise. TheAE talk/sign 18:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kirk Cameron/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. Check back soon for my comments! CarpetCrawler (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Great! I'll be willing to fix anything you think needs to be fixed before GA quality, so don't hesitate to mention problems. :) TheAE talk/sign 01:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

GA on hold

The article looks good! However, I have some concerns. They are:

- References #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6. While all of those references are very good and reliable sources, a lead usually shouldn't contain so many footnotes. A lead should be an adequate summary of the article as a whole, and it certainly looks like one. However, might I suggest taking those references and moving them into other places in the article?

Okay, I've moved the sources to more correct places. That is, except for the last one, which is a quote by Cameron, and isn't used in any other part of the article. I may rotate it around a bit (like have other mentions about his faith in the lead), and move the quote to the body somewhere. We'll see. TheAE talk/sign 02:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's better now. :) You can leave that last cite in the lead, one citation is definitely OK. CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

- This won't hurt if the article passes or fails, but I am just wondering, is there any additional info available for Cameron's personal life? For example, where he went to school, or something like that. Just wondering. Because that would be a good thing to add to the "Birth and family" section. Maybe you could make a section called "Early life", and then a section called "Personal life" that discusses his marriage and children? But then again, that may flesh the article out too much, as if there's not much information available, it wlll make it look like a tiny section. In which case, if there's not much info available, just leave the section alone as it is, it looks fine. :)

- In general, this article would not pass at the Featured Articles criteria, as there isn't as much information presented in this article as the criteria calls for, but it looks good enough to do fine in the GA criteria. :) Just a few nitpicky complaints about the body:

1. The "Early acting career" section is a little short. I realize that any good information about his time on Growing Pains rightfully belongs in the "Christianity and evangelism ministry" section, but has Cameron ever mentioned anything about his time at the show, other than the info that is present in the "Christianity and evangelism ministry" section? If so, it would be great additions.

   Hmm... Maybe something could be found. I look through Google News Archive to see if anything could be added, especially if anything can be found with Growing Pains (which probably will bring up something at least). TheAE talk/sign 04:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

2. Is any information available about his roles in commercials? This will certainly be harder to find, so if you find no luck, don't worry. As long as the reference says he was in them, then you shouldn't have a problem.
3. Same as with Growing Pains, is any information available about his sitcom Kirk?

   I'll check, but he wasn't really known for that. I'll look. TheAE talk/sign 04:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Then don't worry about it. :) Focus on his more notable television show. CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

- The "Recent acting work" section looks fine, great work!

- "It also formerly featured a radio show known as The Way of the Master Radio with talk show host Todd Friel. The radio show was canceled, and a new radio show, Wretched Radio, was created with Friel as the main host.[32]" My computer can't read PDF files as of right now, are both sentences covered by that citation/reference?

It actually sourced the first sentence, but not the second. I have moved it to the first. In my opinion, the second sentence doesn't need a source (see WP:When to cite), it's generally known. TheAE talk/sign 00:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know. Don't worry. I was just saying that I couldn't read a PDF file at the time so I couldn't see if the source was accurate. :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

- "Near the end of the debate, Cameron referred to Albert Einstein as a theist, provoking a stir from audience members." This definitely needs a citation.

Removed – I thought it was included in the ABC News source, but I see now it's not. TheAE talk/sign 22:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

- In the "Film" section of the "Filmography", do you have citations for the box office numbers?

Sources added – it seems a bit much, but added. TheAE talk/sign 03:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Until all of my concerns are met, I will place this article on hold. You have seven days to address the above concerns, but I can certainly give you extra time if circumstances come up. :) Thank you and good luck! CarpetCrawler (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, I need eight days! :P I'll do my best. TheAE talk/sign 04:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

And just one more thing. I knew I'd forget this... but when you complete the requirements, OR if you have any questions, feel free to send me a message on my talkpage. :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. :) Hopefully I will be able to improve the article to these standards. TheAE talk/sign 04:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work so far! CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Things to do

The section above is getting a little confusing. So, I'm making this simple, here's what needs to be done: (by TheAE talk/sign)

1. Try to find any info on his childhood, schooling, or family to add to the "Birth and family" section.  Done Schooling added.
2. Look for any specific notable things that happened while on Growing Pains.  Not done Can't seem to find much of note.
3. Expand on his commercial work (especially the Pepsi reports on Google News).  Done

LOL, good idea! You're doing great work so far, it'll pass in no time flat! CarpetCrawler (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Do you have any other suggestions, or things I missed? Thanks! TheAE talk/sign 07:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the article looks good now. Don't worry about if you didn't find anything about Growing Pains, as the article looks great as it is. Congratulations, the article has passed! You did a wonderful job! It's a great read, nicely sourced, and is very neutral in opinion, which is a breath of fresh air when it comes to articles involving aspects of religion. Great job and congratulations! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Image caption

In regards to this image, the caption stated "Cameron at the 41st Emmy Awards." I have changed this to "Cameron as a young adult", as this is for sure when he was a young adult and is him. I cannot find (a) any source that he was ever an Emmy Award ceremony, and (b) the "41st Emmy Awards" were held on August 30, 1992, but the description page says it was taken on September 17, 1989. This is entirely incorrect, and should not be added back until some type of source can be added. Thank you. TheAE talk/sign 08:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

How Do We Know That Cameron Is A Member Of The U.S. Republican Party?

Under Categories, Cameron is listed as being a "California Republican." How do we know that he is a Republican? Is this just assumed because he is an evangelical Christian? There should probably be some proof of this, and, if not, it should be removed. I have never heard Cameron discuss his politics one way or another. And, remember, just because he is "pro-life" does not necessarily mean he is a Republican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopm (talk • contribs) 22:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Award-winning television show?

The awards were given by National Religious Broadcasters, which is far, far less notable than, say, an Emmy Award or Academy Award. When the award is not a well-known one, the article should say what award, not just "award winnng." In particular, the title of the link referenced in the article implies that it won one of the People's Choice Awards which air on CBS every year, when it actually won the far less notable National Religious Broadcasters People's Choice Award. Finally, Needs More CrocoDuck :) 67.150.7.25 (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I clarified the passage, but I did not change the title in the citation, since that's the actual title of the article. But the passage itself makes it more clear now. Nightscream (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Cameron-spawned slang

The commonly-used term 'Kirk Camerooned' should be included as evidence of Cameron's pervasive influence. To be 'Kirk Camerooned' has come to mean, according to Urbandictionary.com "left behind; abandoned and forlorn while others--friends who originally made plans with you--go off and have fun without you; left behind in the Rapture;" the increasing use of this coinage, while usually with negative connatation, speaks to Cameron's importance in daily life. Marygaston (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2009 (edit) (undo)

A reliable source (or perhaps several?) would be needed. American Eagle (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Urban Dictionary is user-generated, and lacks any editorial controls; anyone can make an entry there. Hell, someone who objected to my edits even created one of me because of it. So an entry there pertaining to Cameron does not establish such an influence. Also, remember to sign your posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

1980s and 1980s

"In the 1980s and 1980s, Cameron appeared in dozens of television shows and in the films Like Father Like Son and Listen to Me." A typo, I assume. (: I'd fix it, but I stumbled on this article entirely by accident and know nothing about the subject. Good day! 212.143.227.231 (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Good catch! Another user (Aunt Entropy) has fixed the wording. Thanks for the heads-up! :) American Eagle (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 108.70.40.140, 24 May 2011

You may also find current information about Kirk's speaking engagements and schedule by visiting www.feedyourfaith.org. Kirk is currently in the midst of a multi-state, multi-city tour for 2011 with plans to continue this tour into 2012 & 2013. Kirk is partnering with Feed Your Faith, a ministry from Knoxville, TN and Warren Barfield. The tour is called "Love Worth Fighting For" and has been running since 2009.

sources: www.feedyourfaith.org

Newer pictures are also available from this ministry if needed to update the Wiki page.

108.70.40.140 (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

 Note: This request seems bit prmotional as regards to the website to me, but maybe I'm reading it wrong. --Wintonian (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Would tend to agree. I'd suggest we wait and see if this tour receives any substantive third party coverage before adding it to the article. I would suspect that evangelists such as Cameron do this sort of thing all the time, but that such tours are only infrequently noteworthy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: per reasons above, if substantial third party sources arise then it can be added. --Wintonian (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Some have complained in the past about the photo I took of Kirk in 2007; I have no problem with that criticism at all; if you or Kirk want to upload your own public domain or free-licensed pics to Wikimedia Commons, so they can be used in this article, feel free to do so. :-) Nightscream (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)