Talk:William Lane Craig

Research Professor

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

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

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

The Biola page states "William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He and his wife Jan have two grown children. " and that is the way this page will state it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:B080:49C:F0B0:5951:7559:F5CB (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Does it occur to you that perhaps Biola has different goals and standards than we do for biographical material?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Biola is a higher authority than any other. That is what this page will state.--2601:0:B080:49C:98BD:9B09:90AB:4D44 (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I doubt many people at Biola would agree with you that they're a higher authority than any other, but you're welcome to your point of view, I suppose.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

And on what faculty page is he listed as a professor of apologetics? The word "apologetics" is not listed on his Biola faculty page [1] or his RF page [2], or even his Houston Baptist University faculty page [3], so why again is the first word to describe him "apologist"? --TMDrew (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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

• William Lane Craig (2008). Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Crossway Books. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-4335-0115-9. He is simply the finest Christian apologist of the last half century
• William Lane Craig (2008). Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Crossway Books. ISBN 978-1-4335-0115-9. (blurb) One of the world's foremost apologists
• Steven B. Cowan (1 June 2010). Five Views on Apologetics. Zondervan. p. 16. ISBN 978-0-310-87226-9. not everyone who considers himself a classical apologist will insist on this point, as William Lane Craig makes clear... -- Here we have an actual secondary source not just stating that he's an apologist but that he considers himself an apologist.

He's much better known for his apologetics than for his analytic philosophy, thus it's fitting that it be mentioned first.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Cowan is not stating that Craig considers himself an apologist, but that not all classical apologists will insist on a certain point. Secondly, you insist that Dr. Craig is a professor of apologetics, providing no evidence that he holds that title. --TMDrew (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

His most important research is in apologetics. Do you deny that? He is super-famous for his apologetics. The Talbot School doesn't have a department of apologetics, so in that sense no one is a professor of apologetics. However, this is commonplace. E.g. computer science can be housed in departments of electrical engineering. The professors there are still computer scientists. Ecology is often housed in biology departments. In this case the professors of it are still ecologists. Anthropology is often housed in sociology departments. The professors of it are still anthropologists. In this case he's an apologist and a philosopher and his appointment is in a philosophy department. Those three quotes, and there are literally thousands more, state directly that he's an apologist and that he's one of the finest apologists of the 20th century. Why do you want to downplay this most important aspect of his career? Previously you stated that it's not necessary to be educated to be an apologist, thus showing that you don't know the meaning of the word. Being an apologist is a learned scholarly profession, and it's what he's best known for, as the sources show. Really, read some other articles on academics. They're identified by their disciplines, not by whatever random title they happen to hold wherever they're currently teaching. And have you now dropped your false parallel with Dawkins?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So, Alf, you're saying that you think Craig's first listing should be: "Simply the finest Christian apologist of the last half century"? Am I hearing you rightly? Why not just come out and say so? (Obviously, I responded before I read the entire page. Seems you guys worked it out eventually. Sorry for not being more thorough first.)76.6.66.223 (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

WLC, analytic philosopher

He does work in analytic philosophy, and it does get cited:

• [4] 14 citations per gscholar
• [5] 20 citations per gscholar
• [6] 26 citations
• [7] 18 citations
• [8] 33 citations

It doesn't seem unreasonable to call him an analytic philosopher based on this material. And see the articles he's cited in in the SEP, esp. regarding his critique of McTaggart.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Not only that but his degrees are in philosophy and theology (two separate PhD's). Being a christian apologist, therefore, should not be his primary description. That he DOES do apologetics, is obvious and should be mentioned in the lead. So, I think a more accurate way of stating the first two lines is,

William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an American analytic philosopher and theologian from Peoria, Illinois. He works in the philosophy of religion, philosophy of time, philosophical theology, and Christian Apologetics.

If I remember correctly, the article used to be phrased in a similar way, until someone made edits to paint WLC as primarily a christian apologist, which clearly he is not. What do you all think? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that apologetics is a subfield of theology, not of philosophy, and therefore your proposed sentence is blurring the issue. I also think that it privileges his philosophical work over his theological work to list three separate subfields of philosophy that he's worked on and then put apologetics, which requires expertise in an entirely different field, as if it were on a par with those three. Also, I think that listing out the kinds of philosophy he does in the very second sentence, when they're described in the lead section anyway, gives undue weight to his work in philosophy which, while influential (e.g. per SEP citations), is not the work for which he's most widely known. Also I think it's unreasonable to make "analytic philosopher" (a subfield) and "theologian" (a broad discipline with many subfields) parallel as you do in your proposed first sentence.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm...this is the way he describes himself on his Website.

Reasonable Faith features the work of philosopher and theologian Dr. William Lane Craig in order to carry out its three-fold mission:

• to provide an articulate, intelligent voice for biblical Christianity in the public arena.
• to challenge unbelievers with the truth of biblical Christianity.
• to train Christians to state and defend Christian truth claims with greater effectiveness.

In light of this, how about this for a first sentence in the lead?

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

This has the benefit of ordering the first sentence in the way that he describes himself. Thoughts? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds excellent. We should put this edit into place. --TMD (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No, because saying he's a theologian and an apologist is like saying he's a philosopher and an analytic philosopher. Choose one or the other. If all you really care about is putting philosopher before apologist I suppose I have no objection.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't consider theologian = Christian apologist, since WLC has a PhD in theology (in addition to philosophy) and not apologetics. In other words, Christian apologetics is what WLC does with his training (PhD's). However, if it's one or the other, how about this?

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

Thoughts? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that theologian = Christian apologist, I said that theologian <= Christian apologist in exactly the same way as philosopher <= analytic philosopher. If you say theologian rather than apologist, which is a subspecialty of theology, you're breaking the parallelism with analytic philosopher. It should say either "analytic philosopher and apologist" or "philosopher and theologian" (in either order). I personally prefer the first because as an apologist he's super well known and lauded, whereas as a theologian he's not so highly ranked since, theology being a superset of apologetics, there are more people involved to compare him to. Plus it's better to identify academics by their subspecialties. It's usually how it's done. The fact that his Ph.D. is in theology and he does apologetics is a red herring. His other Ph.D. is in philosophy and he does analytic philosophy. Ph.D.'s are not given in subspecialties even though everyone who gets a Ph.D. has a subspecialty, and sometimes their profession is named after the subspecialty depending on various factors, e.g. if there's a word for it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer the latter ("philosopher and theologian") in the lead and an expansion of Christian apologist in the body as this would move from the general to the specific activities he's engaged in. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, how about this: William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an American philosopher and theologian from Peoria, Illinois. He specializes in analytic philosophy and Christian apologetics. That way we get the most general description in the first sentence, more specific but still general info in the second sentence, and then leave the details of his work to the body of the article? I absolutely agree with you that the section on his apologetics needs expansion. I've been thinking about what else needs to go in there, but there's tons of stuff, clearly.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think that's perfect. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, why don't we wait at least for Mann_jess to weigh in before making the edit, as they've put a lot of thought into this article as well?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That is a well-worded opening sentence. "Philosopher and theologian" sound about right. --TMD (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that works. Sums it up well.--Apologeticsaurus Rex (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

this article seems to lack neutrality

I find this article incomplete to say the least. There are no sections that include criticisms or counter-arguments to his positions (and there are a few..), while in almost all other biographies there is always such a section (as part of the text or in different subheading)...why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.161.233 (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you add some, then?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits have added massive amounts of poorly sourced non neutral content and red links, I hardly know where to begin! Theroadislong (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The dead-end wikified words have been cleaned up. And instead of just asserting it, can you please give examples of "poorly sourced non neutral content" in the article? This article currently has over 100 total references from many different sources. That is really good compared to other articles of this type. Thanks. --Bobby 02:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apologeticsaurus Rex (talk • contribs)

I agree that the recent edits lack neutrality and contain just attacks on William Lane Craig. If they are included then they should not be allowed to stand alone. To be fair they should only stay if the responses of Craig and/or his defenders are added to provide balance (CaptainCS (talk)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainCS (talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any attacks? Theroadislong (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps criticisms is a better work. When I went to Lawrence M. Krauss page I saw no such link to his critics. It seems to me that if we are going to include his critics then we should also include his defenders or make it like Krauss's page where we include neither. CaptainCS (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC) There are no attacks currently on his page, just descriptions of some of his controversial public positions that have provoked debate. This certainly deserves a place on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.248.87 (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Other views: Canaanites

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

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

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

The entire Other Views section makes vague, sensational, blanket statements with no context. It sticks out like a sore thumb in an otherwise well-written article. I tried to remove it, then someone restored it.--TMD (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it needs adding to? It is what he is most notable for in the UK.Theroadislong (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Says what reliable source? Actually, no secondary source at all is cited on that paragraph. The only sources are primary and the websites of the people involved. As something out of context giving a wrong impression of Craig's actual discourse, and not covered by any secondary source, I think it should better be removed or completely rewritten within context. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Your recent removal of material just about completes the whitewash. Theroadislong (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Please keep your personal judgments for yourself. Wikipedia works on the basis of reliable, secondary sources, also WP:DUE weight and WP:NPOV, not personal opinions. Just because you think something is notable or due weight doesn't make it so. Prove that any reliable source covers that single opinion, and if it is due weight to be included, it must be written in an accurate, clear and neutral tone, not as a shocking sensationalism picking one phrase out of one whole discourse to make it seem that Craig is a maniac, and using personal blogs as source. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Craig's position on the slaughter of the Canaanites has been the subject of very lengthy discussion on this page if you look at the archives. You have removed material unilaterally against previous consensus.Theroadislong (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It must have been such a serious and encyclopedic discussion that no one could even come up with a secondary source. Just because two blogs accused Craig of being defender of genocide, because of one phrase he said in a long discourse, inside a specific context, doesn't mean that should be included on a Wikipedia article, separated from its context. I'm afraid whether or not people have discussed that on the past doesn't alter the fact that the paragraph is undue, POV and lacks a secondary source. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I restored the deleted material because it appears that you were under the impression that it was not sourced with secondary sources, but actually it is sourced with six secondary sources none of which are blogs.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

If you think it's biased, couldn't you just edit it to make it non-point-of-view instead of deleting it. As far as sourcing goes it's by far the best attested portion of this entire article.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the entire section needs to go for reasons stated above by GWO and TMD. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Craig has made so much of Dawkins' refusal to debate him, even going so far as theatrically Eastwooding Dawkins in his Dallas "debate", that the matter between them probably warrants a couple more sentences. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Greta Christina is a magazine columnist, published author, and public speaker, not just an "atheist blogger". She is a noteworthy figure in the so-called "new" atheist movement. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Dawkins refusing to debate Craig is a completely different matter than Craig's discourse on the Canaanites, and whatever are Greta's credentials do not justify the overall content. The paragraph under dispute, is as explained and agreed by two more editors, taking something Craig said out of context in a sensationalist manner, putting it together with accusations by his opponent in a way that gives the impression that Craig is a maniac. If you want to talk about Craig's discourse, it will need to be due weight compared to his other ideas and presented in a full manner, not as an illustration of his opponents' accusations. Richard Dawkins page has no criticism section, no mention to his critics, and no similar highlighting, or even mention of his controversial views, for example of defending post-birth abortion, as you can easily find on youtube. Why do you think WLC must have a different standard than other similar articles? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree; I think the paragraph gives the impression that Craig is a zealot, not a maniac. On this particular issue, more context changes neither his statement's meaning nor its moral bankruptcy. You're right that all BLPs should be held to the same standard. And you'd have a good point about the propriety of criticism sections, had Craig himself not made such a public spectacle over this particular criticism. Its due weight may seem disproportionately heavy to you, but IMO that's because Craig's own clowning magnified its importance. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

At best, this is a "he said / she said" situation. But the fact that you openly expose yourself as a radical atheist (e.g., claiming that WLC is "clowning", "a zealot") means that you are not neutral and including this information is an ad hominem attack and a violation of BLP. I realize that characterizing WLC as a "clown" and a "zealot" makes your philosophical predilections seem emotionally justified, but it doesn't belong in a WP article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that the section is quite well cited, far more so than most of the article, and that if it is not objective then we should edit it to make it more objective, but deleting it entirely would be wrong.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

While you need not to be a "radical atheist" to think poorly of WLC's stunt of debating an empty chair, I am indeed an atheist. Though you needn't have guessed, since it says so on my User page.

No, that does not make any part of the paragraph you dispute an ad hominem. No part of it was ad hom. And shouldn't being an atheist make me regard his theology with more neutrality, not less?

WLC is more like a thespian than a clown. I think he'd be an exceptional speaker and debater if only his substance were as good as his style, but strong oratorical skills can't make his shoddy arguments and weak apologetics sound. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

All personal opinions are irrelevant on Wikipedia. Richard Dawkins and similar pages do not show any criticism at all. Why do you think this page should have a different standard than other similar pages? Also, you haven't answered the argument on why is it ok to take a phrase out of a whole speech just because it illustrates a sensationalist accusation from opposers? That is not anywhere near encyclopedic, and the only arguments you gave, whether or not you deny it, were that "it's due weight because WLC "clowned" about it, because it's "morally bankrupt", and because he is a "zealot". I'm sorry, but that's just not how Wikipedia works, you will need better arguments than that. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You seem not to have comprehended how any of my replies above relate to the comments I was replying to, Grey. You also apparently ignored me saying "all BLPs should be held to the same standard", since you obliviously ask me, "Why do you think this page should have a different standard?". Try clearing your mind and rereading from the beginning, paying more attention to the conversation. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think telling someone to "(pay) more attention to the conversation" will help them "(clear) their mind". If you think that "all BLPs should be held to the same standard" then why do you think this page should be different? C7S (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Because WLC's notable publicity-seeking behavior stemming from this public dispute has made this particular belief relevant to WLC's public life, hence not inappropriate to include — carefully — per BLP.

And you got it backwards. Clearing your mind helps you pay attention. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The entire section features short, sensational statements that can be interpreted multiple ways, and none of them touch on his main work. The section confuses the reader rather than informing the reader. Again, this section should not exist. If you want to improve the article, we certainly could use a media appearances section, and more photos of Craig speaking at high-profile events. We could also use an awards and recognitions section. It should be more like the Neil deGrasse Tyson article.--TMD (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

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

The reason to remove it is because it is a he said/she said smear. WLC strongly denies he supports genocide, and others (including atheists) agree with the logic and non-genocidal nature of his explanation regarding the Canaanites. And the smears continue with RL on this page by referring to WLC's behavior as "publicity-seeking". Really, RL, a person with your level of antagonism that you have towards WLC shouldn't be editing this page. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it as being a smear. It's related to his philosophy, as one user put it, "as a divine command theorist". It's notable because of the criticism found in secondary sources. Since others apparently "agree with the logic and non-genocidal nature of his explanation" then in that case we should add those sources as a counterpoint to the critical ones. We already have six critical secondary sources which, even if this were a smear, is still enough to demonstrate notability. As I said, just interpreting this notable and significant controversy as being a "smear" is not enough to justify deletion. All we need to do is change the wording of it to make it neutral and you could also add onto it sources from those who agree with him.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

What antagonism? Never mind; my opinions of WLC's behavior are irrelevant, Bill. Every edit I've made to this article was NPOV. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"WLC's notable publicity-seeking behavior ... has made this particular belief relevant to WLC's public life, hence not inappropriate to include". According to you, your opinion of WLC's behavior is actually directly related to what you edit, thus not "irrelevant". Moreover, I don't see how you can deny any antagonism or tendentiousness when you've called WLC a "clowning" "zealot" who has "publicity-seeking behavior", "shoddy arguments", and opinions that are "morally bankrupt", admitted to being an atheist, and the only time you've chimed in on this page is to defend the sensational Canaanite sentence. Your intentions are a far cry from neutrality. -- C7S (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You've blown a couple of my statements out of proportion. I called WLC's chair-debating antics "clowning" and "publicity-seeking behavior". Your "opinions that are" should be "an opinion that is". And I never actually called WLC a "zealot".

You say I "admitted" to being an atheist as if that were a bad thing, implying that an atheist cannot be neutral in writing about an apologist. Seems to me being a theist should raise more question of one's neutrality toward this subject. However, both theists and atheists are equally capable of writing from a NPOV.

And even though I personally do not hold WLC in high regard, even GreyWinterOwl thanked me for one of my edits to make this disputed paragraph more fair to him. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I accidentally thanked one of your edits. I actually didn't mean to have done so. I completely agree with each word C7S has said. The only reasons you gave for keeping the paragraph are entirely your personal opinion. That's just not how Wikipedia works. If from this talk page there is no consensus to remove the paragraph, I think this will have to be escalated to 3O or ANI. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The reason I gave was that, in accordance with BLP, this particular belief is relevant to WLC's public life. Such arguments are exactly how Wikipedia works. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You say it's relevant, and we are supposed to believe. But even if it's really relevant, it's a view taken directly from strong critics of WLC which claim WLC to defend genocide. That doesn't only violate NPOV but also it's an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, that requires far more evidence than just his opposer's accusations if it were to be in the article. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It does not violate NPOV to specifically identify Craig's invocation of divine command theory w/r/t the slaughter of the Canaanites, and without endorsing or stating it as fact, how his statements were notably characterized. Divine command theory is not such a fringe belief to rise to the exceptional. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is not a divine command theory, or even the slaughter of canaanites. The real problem is that a single phrase is taken from that discourse with the non-neutral purpose of ilustrating WLC's opposers' view that he is a defender of genocide. This view is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, even if not stated as fact. For example, if someone claimed that WLC tortures and eats little babies, we are not going to include that in the article even if not stated as fact, because it's an exceptional claim that needs multiple reliable and non-involved sources, with no conflict of interest, as you can read on the WP:EXCEPTIONAL guideline. Everyone that accuses WLC of defending genocide are advocates of atheism with serious conflict of interest, we shouldn't base a paragraph of an article on their views, especially if it's not on a criticism section. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Reverting for reasons stated by GWO. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Though WP:EXCEPTIONAL would not apply here, amid your casting about citing policy after policy this paragraph was not violating, you seem to have stumbled over an actually germane objection: the characterization was sourced to two primary sources. We should source that part of the sentence to a secondary source. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason so many policies are being cited is because the paragraph so obviously violates every single one of them. The characterization comes from Dawkins and Greta Christina, is that what you mean by sources? They have a conflict of interest as active atheism advocates, and directly oppose WLC on the level of ideology, so I don't think they are neutral at all and therefore not eligible to support such an exceptional claim that WLC defends genocide. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Good thing the section you deleted was not claiming that, then. Dawkins and Christina criticized WLC's ideology, but don't mistake atheism for an opposing ideology. Atheism has none. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The section in question is well attested by reliable secondary sources and no one has managed to explain why any alleged problems with bias could not just be edited out by changing the wording and/or adding new sources. Deletion is an extreme and reckless solution which shouldn't be applied here. I think that those who believe that this section is biased should put forward a concrete proposal to fix the bias so that we can move from vague accusations of bias to a clearer understanding of which parts of the section are the cause of the bias and how it can be edited to sort that out.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is full of primary sources written by Craig himself, which is not something I object to, but why would my edit be reverted for including primary sources when this section is actually attested to by six secondary sources. It thus has more secondary sources backing it up than any other part of the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good article criteria

Hello. I noticed this article listed at the Good Article nomination site. I'm not going to quick-fail it because I only glanced at it, but it appears to need more work. If the cleanup banners are valid (I didn't look closely), that is cause for an immediate failure for the nomination. However, it also apparently doesn't adhere to Good Article Criterion 3.b.: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". The sections on Craig's thoughts should only provide a summary of Craig's position regarding them. Please also review the Good article criteria. I recommend withdrawing the nomination at this point and getting a peer review. An experienced editor can help raise the quality of the article regarding Wikipedia's criteria. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)