Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Tuner (radio)	Closed	Andrevan (t)	30 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 days, 20 hours
Wolf	In Progress	Nagging Prawn (t)	26 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 18 hours
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	New	Randomstaplers (t)	22 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 hours	Bon courage (t)	7 hours
Genocide	Closed	Bogazicili (t)	10 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 hours
Khwarazmian Empire	Closed	176.88.165.232 (t)	6 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 12 hours
Egusi	Closed	OmoIyaLeke (t)	6 days, 6 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	6 days, 3 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	6 days, 3 hours
Double-slit experiment	New	Johnjbarton (t)	5 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 23 hours
List of musicals filmed live on stage	New	Wolfdog (t)	4 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 23 hours	EncreViolette (t)	1 days, 1 hours
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor	New	PromQueenCarrie (t)	2 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days,

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 08:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

William Lane Craig

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Squatch347 on 16:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• William Lane Craig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Squatch347 (talk · contribs)
• Theroadislong (talk · contribs)
• ජපස (talk · contribs)
• GretLomborg (talk · contribs)
• Bill the Cat 7 (talk · contribs)
• Hob Gadling (talk · contribs)
• PaleoNeonate (talk · contribs)

Collapsing all previous discussion and comments about dispute, I've read through it. Let's start with a clean slate. Steven Crossin 15:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Dispute overview These disputes started initially with the removal of a long standing quote on the William Lane Craig page. This was a quote and topic that had three prior talk page discussions with consensus over the last few years. It became a hotbed issue for a number of editors and resulted in changes being made to the page absent discussion on Talk or consensus. In the last few days it has attracted a number of new editors who have begun removing whole sections of the page absent any discussion on the talk page or clear wiki policy supporting the change. I have little confidence given the emotion and POV level on the talk page that a rational discussion of these edits will occur. I think a return to status quo ante (say 20 may or so) would be a good place to start discussion on proposed changes. I should highlight that there is no current "no changes allowed' type arguments here, the request has been for discussion on talk prior to removal of long-standing and repeatedly agreed to content. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have proposed three different suggested text changes to the relevant sections and proposed criteria for the removal of some content as recommended by editors. I have supported removal of several sections for streamlining and published relevant secondary sources when asked. Finally, I've been prompt and courteous in responding to requested changes on the talk page and not escalated discussion with personal attacks, but rather ignored several personal attacks and derogatory comments. How do you think we can help? I believe an emphasis on collaborative editing and a reminder of the wiki policies around biographies by Admins would help calm down the topic a bit. The debate appears to focus more on individual editors' attitudes toward the biography's subject than objective editing, so some monitoring of those edits would help as well. Update: As Robert McClenon prepares to evaluate this case I'd like to update this requested assistance section to be more in line with where, I think, the discussion has evolved to and what the primary matters of contention are. I would propose this [1] as my summary of the issue at hand (specifically the second paragraph onward). The difference seems to be that some editors feel that any discussion of any topic, even in included in a WP:RS, that isn't fully confined to their conception of philosophy should not be included. The question comes down to, if a topic is published by a reputable source, should we be the arbiters of whether it is "vetted" or not? Secondarily, I think mediation can help us work through the points proposed by [User:GretLomborg|GretLomborg] as points of consensus [2]: William Lane Craig is a philosopher and a theologian, he is not a scientist. Philosophy and theology are not pseudoscience. The ideas of philosophers or theologians do not require the recognition of scientists to be covered in their biographies, even when they reference or comment upon scientific theories. The article William Lane Craig is not a science article. The overriding goal of a biography article should be to accurately describe its subject, his life, and his work. Following that goal is what is best for the encyclopedia and its readers. The article William Lane Craig is a biography. It is right and proper to directly attribute William Lane Craig's thoughts to himself in his biography. As a biography of a philosopher and theologian, the article William Lane Craig should cover his thought. Examining the list of featured and good articles from the Philosophers [Biography] Task Force, this is common practice (e.g. Søren_Kierkegaard#Philosophy_and_theology, Bertrand_Russell#Views, and Karl_Popper#Philosophy). None of William Lane Craig's philosophical or theological ideas should lack coverage, or have their coverage minimized, in his biography because an editor disagrees with them or believes them to be mistaken. That conflicts with the overriding goal of a biography to "accurately describe its subject, their life, and their work." In a biography we describe their ideas (and reactions to them) from a neutral point of view, even when we think their ideas are wrong. The standard of inclusion of William Lane Craig's philosophical or theological ideas in the article should be: can the idea or position be attributed to him based on WP:RS, keeping in mind WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:PRIMARYCARE. Sources from philosophy and theology are acceptable and sufficient. At one point, though perhaps not now, the William Lane Craig article was in dire need of further secondary sourcing, which I wholeheartedly support. It's right and proper to reference criticism and critique of William Lane Craig in his biography if it can be reliably sourced and is not given improper emphasis. Squatch347 (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Theroadislong The article has been in a VERY poor state for some time, with far too much unsourced or primary sourced POV trumpery. All attempts to remove this have been reverted. This [3] would be a good place to start again as suggested by User:ජපස. Theroadislong (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by ජපස Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I reject this dispute resolution as the summary is not written neutrally. If the proposer would rewrite it WP:Writing for the enemy, I will consider undergoing dispute resolution. jps (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by GretLomborg I got involved with this article when I noticed nearly every sentence in a basic biographical section was being challenged as "". Many of those facts were already sourced and easily verified in nearby references (sometimes ones even attached to the same sentence). I thought that was odd, so I spent a little time adding relatively easily found references for things like degrees held, etc. I've since been watching the page, and have seen this dispute unfold. My involvement has been limited to some clarifying comments on the talk page, and some reversions of a couple large deletions (one of nearly the entire article content). The article's subject appears to work extensively in atheism/theism debates, and that's a recipe for conflict as we're seeing now. It appears that some editors object to the subject's ideas [4], and are attempting to excise as much article content as they possibly can, sometimes using spurious Wikipedia policy arguments to do so, or by claiming that sources don't support it without making a serious attempt at verification. I think that, despite whatever anyone thinks of the article's subject or his ideas, they should be summarized and represented neutrally, encyclopedically, and completely in his own biography article. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. After doing some research, it appears that one of the most disruptive editors in this dispute User:ජපස/jps has previously been topic-banned from a topic that he probably considers similar to the one of this article (see [5] [6]). He is being uncivil and aggressive by being snarky and sarcastic with other editors whom he opposes and not assuming good faith (see [7] [8] [9]). His behavior on this article may be a reprise of his previous problematic behavior. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Update: As of now [10], pretty much every sentence of the intro, biography, and career sections has one or more supporting cites to either a secondary source or a WP:BLPSELFPUB-acceptable source. This includes sections other editors wanted to WP:TNT. Other sections that were proposed to be WP:TNT'd appear to have always had support via secondary sources in WP:GENREFs (e.g. the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's page on the Cosmological Argument), and I suspect that most if not all of the gaps can be filled in with secondary citations to academic book reviews in theology or philosophy journals, though some of those may only be available in print. I appeal to all the editors involved to make a good-faith efforts to find secondary sources and add inline citations. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC) Update 2: tl;dr: This dispute has been very fast moving, and I think we're past the WP:TNT stage. However I think it's still necessary to emphasize that in the biography of a philosopher/theologian, the subject's ideas should be summarized neutrally, encyclopedically, and completely. Even if every fiber of an editor's body is opposed to those ideas and their whole field of study, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Writing_for_the_opponent and WP:OPPONENT mean they should still be included, and WP:BIASEDSOURCES means theological and Christian sources are acceptable, at least to outline the subject's views and reactions to them within that part of his academic community. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Bill the Cat 7 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Overall, I agree with Squatch347. The problem would half solved if we just removed the accusation of genocide. One person unjustifiably accusing another person of supporting genocide because they got their panties in a bunch is irrelevant, not noteworthy, and it just doesn't belong in a BLP. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Hob Gadling It is easy to find out that the claim that the topic "had three prior talk page discussions with consensus over the last few years" is simply not true. There was never a consensus, there were always the same two sides, with various representatives, and the discussion just stopped in each case without anybody changing their stance. There are some users, like the filing editor, who want to keep every inappropriate part of the article that makes the person Craig look good and his opponents look bad, and who achieved that in every case by sheer persistence and by misrepresentation, instead of valid reasoning. For some reason, all except two of the recent editors who were anti-Came-quote (Theroadislong and ජපස) have not have not been notified here: User:AzureCitizen, User:Guettarda, User:FreeKnowledgeCreator and me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by PaleoNeonate I am not used to DRN but have promised to look at the article so am offering my assessment. Apologetics are currently presented unduly like if they were mainstream scientific breakthroughs. There is no need to expand on what the Kalam argument is, for instance, to say that the author is a notable proponent. Another obvious problem is that most is editor commentary on the author's primary sources, rather than summaries of third party reviews of his work. —PaleoNeonate – 22:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Note by Drmies This article, after the most recent revert by GrettLomborg, is in a terrible condition. jps's cleanup made sense to me. However, if jps wants this to be resolved, he should probably refrain from posting unacceptable personal attacks like this one. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC) William Lane Craig discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Apologies, I thought the template notified them. I have updated everyone now. Squatch347 (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Volunteer Note - The filing editor has notified some but not all of the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC) Volunteer Note - I will try in the next 24 hours to open this case for moderated discussion, but first: Stop editing the article. Stop the personal attacks. Read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules, although I have not yet started moderated discussion. Stop editing the article. Stop the personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC) First statement by moderator I will try to moderate this discussion, at least for a little while. The article has been fully protected for a week. Leave it alone. After the full protection expires, leave it alone anyway. Read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules, and comply with the rules. Be civil and concise. Both civility and conciseness have been in short supply on this article. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements are not useful. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Comment on content, not on contributors. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think should be done to improve the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC) First statements by editors My proposal for article improvement would involve two major areas of focus. 1) Review of the section currently called "Apologetics" to reflect areas of Apologetic positions and philosophical works. The goal of this would be to make the page more consistent with other philosophers' pages. See Alvin Plantinga or Daniel Dennett for example. In that effort each major section should be made concise, covering primarily a brief summary of the position, its notable points, and notable publications on the topic. 2) Referencing notability, a table of public debates and notable talks should be included. This is the main source of Craig's non-professional notability and warrants reference. The table should include; participants, topics, locations, notes. - Squatch347 (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Note: I copied Squatch347's sig up here to maintain readable attribution, as the latter half of his comment was rearranged to be at the bottom. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC) The article can be improved by looking for third-party independent sources which discuss Craig's ideas and only including an explanation of the ideas about which third-party independent sources have commented. Furthermore, when an idea of Craig's is in the purview of a particular epistemic community (say, science, for example), the only third-party independent sources which should count are those which are produced by members of that community (say, scientists, for example). If there are no sources which comment upon a particular idea of Craig's from the relevant epistemic community, we should not include the idea in the article. jps (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC) I think the article can be improved by fleshing out the "Apologetics" section (once more-neutrally labeled "Research" prior to this dispute) to give an appropriately complete account of the subject's thought and work. That is what's best for the readers of the encyclopedia and the article. Other content goals may take priority on other parts of Wikipedia, but not in a biography. The subject is clearly notable as a philosopher and theologian ([11] [12] for a few examples), and per WP:NNC, it's inappropriate force the article content of his biography to be subject to further notability evaluation. Furthermore, it's inappropriate to require some other field (e.g. physics) to validate the subject's thoughts and views in order to include them in his biography: if they can be verifiably attributed to him, they should be permitted to be included, regardless or whether they are correct or incorrect in the judgement of some editor. They're his thoughts, and one reads his biography to learn about them. I think this is the core issue, there are smaller implementation details that I won't get into now. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC) A small note to the other editors here and the moderator. I will be offline as part of the national guard until 30 June. No issue with continuing resolution without me in the meantime of course, but I didn't want anyone to think I was ignoring them if questions or concerns came up. Sorry for the delay. Squatch347 (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Second Statement by Moderator Okay. I had meant to ask each editor to give specifics about what they want changed in the article, and so I will do that now. However, here is a summary of what the editors have said: 1. Rework the Apologetics section, possibhly renaming it as Research. 2. Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks. 3. Look for independent third-party sources. 4. Compare Craig's article to that on Plantinga. (Plantinga, like Craig, and unlike Dennett, is best known as a Christian philosopher.) Will each editor please comment on those four points briefly? Comments about what should not be included are not helpful unless they request to omit something in particular that is in the article. Will each editor please list one or two specific changes that they think should be made to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC) Second Statements by Editors 1. Rework the Apologetics section, possibhly renaming it as Research. Rework? Yes. Rename it "research"? No. That's a POV-push. jps (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC) 2. Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks. I see no purpose to this. WP:NOT#CV. 3. Look for independent third-party sources. The most important thing we can do. These sources should be organized by their levels of independence and they should be from the relevant epistemic communities if they are talking about Craig's specific ideas. 4. Compare Craig's article to that on Plantinga. (Plantinga, like Craig, and unlike Dennett, is best known as a Christian philosopher.) No. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good game to play. jps (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC) 1. Rework the Apologetics section, possibly renaming it as Research NO. 2. Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks. NO. 3. Look for independent third-party sources. YES the article still needs to be dramatically hacked back to what can be sourced from independent reliable secondary sources. On 12th June, out of the 124 sources, 71 were primary sources to his own book or website, this is not acceptable. 4. NO WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Theroadislong (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC) Rework the Apologetics section, possibly renaming it as Research If "apologetics" is challenged, possibly that "views" may suit. Research suggests serious (possibly scientific) research and would be misleading. Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks Per WP:NOTCV, instead of a table, if some have particular notability they should be mentioned. Look for independent third-party sources Absolutely, work about that already started. Compare to the Platinga article The other article may itself need work, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS indeed applies. However, WP:BLP and MOS:BLP are more useful. —PaleoNeonate – 15:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC) Rework the Apologetics section, possibly renaming it as Research Yes rework, but from a starting point closer to the pre-dispute version ([13]) than current version. I personally think the section should be named something along the lines of "Philosophy and Theology." "Research" is ok (it's not an activity limited to science and science-like activities), but I don't prefer it. Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks That seems like too much detail to me. Look for independent third-party sources Yes, but in compliance with WP:NNC and understanding that WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Compare to the Platinga article Yes, and perhaps others. WP:Some stuff exists for a reason. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC) Third Statement by Moderator One editor proposed four points of work. Those four points have been rejected, so we will not go there. I would like to thank User:GretLomborg. Proposing four changes that other editors don't want was useful. Now we have narrowed the field of changes. Now, will each editor please identify one or two proposed changes that should be made to the article? List changes that have not already been discussed and that other editors can agree with or disagree with. Third Statements by Editors Note to moderator: the previous proposals were made by User:Squatch347, not me. I tried to fix a sig problem with his comments, which may be the source of the confusion. I also think the second round was closed before one side of the dispute could comment (as User:Squatch347 is on vacation and I didn't see the updates until now). Here are some news proposals: Re-integrate recently-removed content back into the article from the pre-dispute version [14], so that any issues with it can be discussed in this process. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit," (the matters here aren't "contentious matters related to living people", e.g. "John Doe is a racist axe-murderer"). If we can't do that, I think this process will have difficulties resolving the dispute. Since it's universally agreed that the article would benefit from more secondary sources. Editors in this dispute should find secondary-source support for at least one sentence in the article that needs it. I've been doing this, and it isn't too hard. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC) New proposal: WP:TNT the article and start writing only using third-party independent sources. Sources written by Craig and his acolytes can be worked in later. jps (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Fourth Statement by Moderator First, I apologize for having misread the authorship of certain comments. Second, since some of the suggestions were made by an editor who is on temporary military duty, I will put this dispute on hold until the end of the month. Third, there have been suggestions that the article be stubbified and rewritten from scratch. If a consensus of the editors agree, I will close this dispute with a resolution to stubbify the article. Fourth, if there is a non-consensus, where at least two editors holding one opinion and at least two editors holding another opinion is a non-consensus, then we will either have to fail this dispute or formulate an RFC, and I would prefer an RFC. Fifth, within the next week (not 48 hours, due to military leave hold), any editor may propose any change that can be put into an RFC, or can make any recommendations for changes to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Back-and-Forth by Editors Note to moderator: I think it's highly likely that the user who opened this dispute, User:Squatch347, would disagree with the proposal to WP:TNT. Since it's understandable that he may not return to Wikipedia immediately the day after his military leave ends, I think we should wait until he comments (or at least give him more time) before proceeding with any vote tallying. I strongly disagree with any proposal to stubify or WP:TNT the article. In the course of making efforts to improve the sourcing of the article, I've been convinced that the pre-dispute version most likely accurately represents Craig's views and the actual level of WP:PUFFERY was minimal to non-existent, so the article is repairable and such drastic action is not called for. I say that as someone who was totally unaware of Craig prior to April and found the pre-dispute version useful to get a sense of him and what his views are. The proposal to WP:TNT is strongly contradictory to the needs of the readers of this encyclopedia, like me. As for RfC propsals, here are mine: Is the purpose of a biography of a philosopher and theologian to accurately represent his views as they exist in the epistemic communities in which he is active (philosophy and theology)? If he is known for referencing scientific theories in his philosophy (e.g. claiming the Big Bang model supports the idea that the universe had a beginning; a quantum vacuum is not nothing as in ex nihilo, because philosophically the system of quantum mechanics is a something), should those views be suppressed unless commented on by someone outside his epistemic community (e.g. a scientist)? - GretLomborg (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Hi there, I just noticed this page. I would oppose WP:TNT. I don't see that the article is too puffy. It points out that he's been accused of defending genocide, for example. However, I do think that more of the critical reaction to his views could be worked in; it is not hard to find since he debates bazillions of people who criticize him. I think it would be good if such material could be worked into the actual discussion of his views, rather than being in a "reception" section. I also think that Craig comes off in the article as purely an apologist, when in fact he has done work on theology that is not apologetic in nature (e.g., his work on the doctrine of the Trinity), and he has made general contributions to philosophy of time and the topic of Platonism that aren't specifically religious. All that gets lost in the current article, and that gives the reader a wrong idea about the scope of his work. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC) The article as it is currently written is a marked improvement over what it was. I believe, but am not certain, that GretLomborg and Squatch347 would like to move it back towards the direction of being an exposition of Craig's treatises rather than an attempt to tease out which of his ideas have received third-party reception. As you point out, it should not be hard to find critical reaction to Craig, but the problem has been that although I have tried, it does not look like there is much desire on the part of the other editors to gather third-party sources (and, indeed, there has been some pushback as to whether this is really the most important thing we can do right now). WP:TNT is offered by me as an alternative, but I would much rather engage with source gathering, TBH. I can tolerate WP:TNT. I will not abide by whitewashing. jps (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Agree with jps. Returning to the old hagiography is not what we should do. TNT or adding third-party sources. Any new non-apologetic stuff should be sourced to other people too. If such sources do not exist, if it is not important enough for anybody else, then it is obviously not important enough to include here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC) What, specifically, was "hagiography" in the previous version? Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Maybe my assessment at the top could be useful to understand, —PaleoNeonate – 21:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC) It wasn't hagiography; most of what was there was accurate. It should not use primary sources, but I think everyone obviously agrees with that, since that's basic WP policy. But Craig is mentioned 90 times in the Stanford Encyclopedia article on the cosmological argument, so we can say as much about his view as we like with that as a source. Some of the stuff from the earlier version was unsourced, such as his view on inflation, and unless sources can be found that should come out of course. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Calling the pre-dispute version a hagiography is an extreme exaggeration, and such exaggerations are very counterproductive. Also, I do not think these statement sections are meant to be discussion forums. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC) I agree to accumulating more third party sources. Jps had already presented some, I added a few more today and intend to add a few more tomorrow. —PaleoNeonate – 21:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC) @PaleoNeonate: I believe that this is the section that was set aside for back-and-forth discussion, so I'm going to reply to you here. I want to be clear that I'm absolutely agreeing that we should not be relying on primary sources. We should instead rely on the best expert discussion we can find, and that's not popular-level stuff. The experts on his scholarly work are other experts who have summarized and commented on it. There's no reason we cannot use those sources. JSTOR alone has over 500 search results for his name. Scores and scores of book reviews will provide professional summaries of those books. Scores of critical articles will provide reactions to his work. There's no need for OR on Craig or Synth of Craig's work. But we do have to summarize the best possible sources, and those are scholarly sources, which are overwhelmingly abundant in this case. Popular-level material is much, much less reliable. As for detail, I don't really understand how there could be too much detail about the subject of the article. I mean, if relevant info is in RS, why shouldn't we use it? The more well-documented info the better, it seems to me. But I'm open to hearing why this is not the right approach. Can you say what you're worried about with "too much detail" assuming that the detail is in RS? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC) You're right about this section, thanks. The moderator may of course move my comment (and even restructure it if needed). —PaleoNeonate – 02:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Adding: it's mostly a question of accessibility and weight (with tertiary sources also a good guide there). WP:VNOTSUFF is also relevant, as well as WP:NOTCV. A third party reader with high-school or college level education should be able to have a good idea of the main topic in a few minutes; the sources and/or linked subarticles are extra-material if they need more. If we also consider avoidance of WP:FALSEBALANCE where relevant, there's no need to have extended pro/con material all along... —PaleoNeonate – 02:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC) One more thing: is there somewhere in RS that his views (all of his views? some of them?) are called pseudoscience? Because, if not, it's really not helpful for editors to keep saying or implying that, and it seems to me like a violation of WP:BLP. I agree that we don't want everything on his CV, and that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. But his work has received a tremendous amount of attention from scholars in philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and theology. I believe that we should include all details of his work that have been discussed at the highest levels within his field. There's no reason we can't summarize those sources at an appropriate level for the general reader. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Fifth Statement by Moderator The rules say that back-and-forth discussion is not permitted, because it hasn't worked before this dispute was brought here. Read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules again. However, continue the back-and-forth discussion above. Since there is a desire for back-and-forth, do it in the area provided, and the Q-and-A can continue separately. Below, restate whether and why or why not the article should be stubbified and then rebuilt. Also below, provide any proposed changes that should be the subject of an RFC. There is agreement to find more third-party sources. If you can do it, that will help. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Fifth Statements by Editors Repeated from above: Note to moderator: I think it's highly likely that the user who opened this dispute, User:Squatch347, would disagree with the proposal to WP:TNT. Since it's understandable that he may not return to Wikipedia immediately the day after his military leave ends, I think we should wait until he comments (or at least give him more time) before proceeding with any vote tallying. I strongly disagree with any proposal to stubify or WP:TNT the article. In the course of making efforts to improve the sourcing of the article, I've been convinced that the pre-dispute version most likely accurately represents Craig's views and the actual level of WP:PUFFERY was minimal to non-existent, so the article is repairable and such drastic action is not called for. I say that as someone who was totally unaware of Craig prior to April and found the pre-dispute version useful to get a sense of him and what his views are. The proposal to WP:TNT is strongly contradictory to the needs of the readers of this encyclopedia, like me. As for RfC propsals, here are mine: Is the purpose of a biography of a philosopher and theologian to accurately represent his views as they exist in the epistemic communities in which he is active (philosophy and theology)? If he is known for referencing scientific theories in his philosophy (e.g. claiming the Big Bang model supports the idea that the universe had a beginning; a quantum vacuum is not nothing as in ex nihilo, because philosophically the system of quantum mechanics is a something), should those views be suppressed unless commented on by someone outside his epistemic community (e.g. a scientist)? - GretLomborg (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC) I oppose TNT or stubify for the following main reason: it won't solve any of the problems. There is a fundamental disagreement about the purpose of the article, and, corresponding to this, a disagreement about appropriate sources. There's obviously a range of options with respect to how much detail we will go into in summarizing Craig's views. There is also a range of options with respect to how much reaction (including critical reaction) we should summarize. Third party reliable sources can and should be found for both of those projects, but we need to decide what sources are appropriate, and how much detail we want. Those problems will immediately afflict the attempt to rebuild the page. Here's my view on these issues. First, it makes sense to focus on the subject of the article, i.e., Craig, rather than his critics. I think we should go into his views in whatever detail is possible with available high-quality sourcing. Second, it also makes sense to include (more briefly) a summary of reactions, including critical reactions, at the end of our summaries of each of his views. Third, I would propose that we focus attention on academic sources that comment on his work. There are plenty of these, and they are going to be the highest quality sources. So not popular discussions, or publications aimed at a general audience, but scholarly work in journals, acdemic presses, and venues that are edited by academics. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC) I have no opinion about TNT, other than that technically it would allow to establish a new plan from scratch, possibly through extensive work and consensus. It seems that we were now told that we could reply to eachother before the next round? If so: should those views be suppressed unless commented on by someone outside his epistemic community (e.g. a scientist)? Probably not suppressed, but whenever claims of someone notable touch pseudoscience it is unevitable to find relevant (and appropriate) criticism or commentary, in which case WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE also apply. So not popular discussions, or publications aimed at a general audience, but scholarly work in journals, acdemic presses, and venues that are edited by academics. The danger here is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH using primary sources, where tertiary sources like other encyclopedias or third party reviews can be very useful to establish what should have weight, etc. should go into his views in whatever detail is possible too much details may return to the point where the article did appear to need WP:TNT. But here again, possibly that analysis of other tertiary sources will help for guidance (WP:TERTIARY). I listed a few secondary and tertiary sources at the article's talk page recently. There probably are more, those are in material I'm familiar with and have easy access to. If the epistemic community is philosophy, there may be more relevant encyclopedias of philosophy for reference. This is probably also true for theology. On the other hand, arguments like Kalam venture into wild territory... Philosophy is like math: symbols can be used to describe anything the mind could conceive; whenever something interacts with known reality (outside of the mind), some become hypotheses that may be tested or questioned. This is also a theologian who insisted on meeting key people in their field like Krauss, in attempt to gain extra legitimacy. —PaleoNeonate – 01:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Sixth Statement by Moderator I have extended the time for this discussion to 11 July. (The bot archived this discussion, and I have unarchived it because I don't think it is finished.) If the editors think that it will take longer than that, please so state. This noticeboard is intended primarily for disputes that take no longer than two to three weeks to resolve. I see that there is disagreement as to whether to stubbify the article and start over. In that case, I would suggest that each editor who thinks that the article contains puffery or undue weight stuff identify paragraphs that they propose be deleted and we will put those to RFC. Do any editors have any other specific suggestions for improvements to the article? (Specific means specific.) Back-and-forth discussion may continue in the space for back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Sixth Statements by Editors I do not think there is any true puffery in the article to be removed. Even the pre-dispute version was very light on adjectives of any kind, let alone puffy ones. It needs to be made absolutely clear that WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI (a.k.a. WP:TINFOILHAT) don't apply to this biography article. Theology and philosophy are in fact their own mainstream fields, regardless if any editor wishes they weren't or has more affinity to another field. Craig's work is well within those fields (e.g. to the point that he's published and his work has gotten much commentary in mainstream philosophy journals, and seems quite active and well cited in the sub-field of philosophy of religion). As for specific improvement proposals: The headers should be removed or significantly trimmed down. Some are no longer relevant, and others were most likely inapplicable even when they were added (e.g. logic behind the "the factual accuracy" one seems to be taking issue with Craig himself, not with the accuracy of the biography article itself). In any case, the rational for each of them needs to be justified, in detail. The section that was recently re-titled "Apologetics" should be again re-titled with less POV, something along the lines of "Theological and Philosophical Work" is probably best. It's descriptive and broad enough to encompass Craig's academic activity. There are other, more general improvement proposals that I think should be implemented, but will not go into them because the request was for specific ones. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Seventh Statement by Moderator I wrote: " The article has been fully protected for a week. Leave it alone. After the full protection expires, leave it alone anyway. Read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules, and comply with the rules." What part of that is there an excuse for not complying with? I meant not to edit the article while discussion is in progress. I will be giving all of the editors of the Craig article a BLP discretionary sanctions warning. This is the last warning. Resume responding to my questions either in the Sixth section or the Seventh section; it doesn't matter which. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Seventh Statements by Editors I agree with everything GretLomborg said above. I also strongly support everything in the moderator's last statement. I have made these suggestions: (i) replace primary source references with third-party sources, (ii) all the third-party sources should be professional, academic work, not popular level work, (iii) as much of the pre-dispute version as possible consistent with the first two suggestions should be restored. Perhaps this is not specific enough. If it isn't specific enough, let me look at the section on the Cosmological Argument. In the current version of that section, almost all of the sourcing is good, except for a single primary source reference to Craig (1992). I would support removing that primary source reference, which is gratuitous anyway in the current version. The pre-dispute version had a lot more primary-source material, so it's good that most of that has been removed. However, I would specifically propose reinstating any content from that pre-dispute version--and especially a statement of the Kalam argument itself--that can be sourced in professional academic commentary on Craig's work. The Stanford Encyclopedia, and specifically their article on the Cosmological Argument, is an excellent source for this, and would serve as a source for his version of the argument, and probably more. Nobody can reasonably disparage the SEP: it is funded by NEH and NSF grants, it is published by one of the world's premiere philosophy departments (Stanford), and it publishes blind-reviewed articles. It is absurd to disparage this as a source; the quality of sourcing for our philosophy articles could not get any higher. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC) I am concerned that the moderator is not unbiased. I have expressed my concerns on his talkpage. jps (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC) The existence of this sandbox is prima facie evidence that the user who made it is not participating in this dispute resolution in good faith. jps (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC) I also note that as of this timestamp, the moderator has only tagged my user page with the discretionary sanctions notification and has not tagged any other participant's page. [15] This seems to be further evidence that the moderator may be compromised in his position here. jps (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

William Lane Craig discussion - take 2

Alright, I'm a volunteer here and I'm going to reopen this one and take it on board myself. I've collapsed all previous discussion and I will be sending a message to all that have contributed here to ensure that you're all still willing to participate. A bit about me - I've been doing sporadic dispute resolution on Wikipedia for about ten years, so I've done this sort of thing before. I don't have any formal ground rules, nor will I expect editors to comment in a structured way (my style is a little different to some others here, but that's just how I roll).

I do expect everyone here to stay on topic, be as concise as possible, and be polite to each other. I will generally guide the discussion amongst you, and make both suggestions and give directions based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If each editor can confirm they would still like to participate in this discussion, we will proceed from there. The only rule I do have is that I ask the article is left in its current version, no matter how "wrong" it may seem. We will work on the article issues until they are resolved. Sound good. Let's get started with a comment from each editor first please. I'll check this page in 12 hours to see who has commented - for now, please just indicate willingness to proceed and no more. Thanks Steven Crossin 15:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Just checking in - still see a few editors I’m awaiting a response on. I’ll give things until tomorrow morning my time (about another 12 hours or so) and then I’ll start framing the discussion from here. Cheers. Steven Crossin 10:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Alright, fantastic, that’s everyone I think. My timezone is a little odd (I’m in Australia but often operate on US eastern time). I’ll open up initial discussion in a few hours. Steven Crossin 17:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Confirmation from editors that you are willing to proceed

• I'd be happy to participate. Thanks for your help. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. Theroadislong (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• I accept. I would like to try this again. jps (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• No thanks. Good luck to you people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Absolutely, looking forward to moving this forward, thank you. Squatch347 (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• I am tentatively willing to proceed with another round of this. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Let's try, —PaleoNeonate – 17:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Beginning of discussion

OK, thank you to everyone for your patience. I've been reading through the article as well as some previous revisions. I'd like to start with a brief yardstick check - can each of you please tell me, in less than 100 words, which version of the article, in it's history, you feel is most "correct" - a starting point that we can work from (and provide a link to that revision). If you think there isn't a version that is a suitable starting point for progress, please state that, along with a very brief explanation of what you think needs to be addressed in the article going forward to get to a starting point.

I also note that numerous sources in the article are books - if links to these texts are known by editors and could be provided here, that would be of benefit as well. I appreciate that some of this discussion has happened before, but as I noted, I feel it's best we start off fresh and go from there. No need for the discussion below to be overwhelmingly structured, just keep it brief and for now, please try limit the back and forth - there will be time for that later. Cheers. Steven Crossin 17:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm having a hard time coming to terms with a decent starting point. I'm willing to go with the current version, but think there are lots of problems with the current version. Previous versions were worse. What we need to do is explain which ideas of Craig's have been noticed by others -- ideas that relate to science noticed by scientists, ideas that relate to philosophy noticed by philosophers, and ideas that relate to theologian noticed by theologians. jps (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• I think that this revision from just prior to the current disputes isn't perfect, but it's probably the best starting point for this discussion per WP:NOCONSENSUS. I'm no expert on Craig, but based on my research during this dispute, my sense is it's substantially accurate with regard to him and the content of his work, which should be the focus of his biography. More recent revisions have sourcing and other improvements that should be kept, but the dispute has been too tumultuous to work from one of those revisions. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with GretLomborg that this is our best starting point. We should replace primary sources with high-quality independent sources, add some high-quality critical reaction, and trim out any stuff that can only be found in primary sources. By "high-quality" here I mean scholarly publications authored by experts and subjected to blind review. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• I support the same version as a good starting point [16]. With that said, there has been some good work done and I would include some of the diffs made later as improvements that clarify the article such as, [17] and [18] for starters. This version would be the best starting place because it will be far easier to include the later diffs we can gain consensus on based on a shared understanding of goals and policy rather than having to tease out those edits from a later version. Squatch347 (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• I think all revisions have problems, but find that improvements were made (difference of old revision with the current one). As such I would prefer to go with the current revision, but as this diff demonstrates no information from previous revisions is lost. The original was too long and seemingly from a fan perspective. Also pinging Theroadislong who seems to be another participant. Adding: Articles may remain a long time with problems without attention. This is how the article recently came back to attention. —PaleoNeonate – 18:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• I can't find a good starting point version without going back about 12 years, so reluctantly agree to start with the current version, as nuking doesn't appear to be an option. There are far too many primary sources, 70 at last count. Theroadislong (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with GretLomborg. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments so far, I'm starting to see a possible starting point suggested by a few of you. @PaleoNeonate:, @Bill the Cat 7:, could you chime in on the question I have asked above. After they've commented, we will likely proceed by going through the version of the article that has the most consensus as a starting point among you, and then I will suggest that we go through the article section by section, discussing each and working on the article content until we reach a version of the article that has a consensus supported by policy. I will also guide that discussion and weigh applicable policies and guidelines when we determine the content of the article, so there may well be times where the "correct" outcome is not one that is supported by a majority. But we will get there! Steven Crossin 17:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

That's almost everyone. As consensus seems to be split rather evenly on a starting point, I'll take a look through both proposed versions of the article and weigh each on its merits, in line with the Manual of Style, and various other policies and guidelines. This should not be taken as an endorsement of the content in that revision, merely my assessment on the best starting point based on Wikipedia policy (since after all, that is the real decider here). Will comment shortly and then we will break up sections and proceed from there. Steven Crossin 19:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Section Break

Alright everyone, thanks for your patience while I've reviewed the discussion here and both proposed versions of the article as starting points. As I noted, since opinions on the starting point for our progress moving forward was split, I have assessed and made a recommendation on the version that we would work off. After review, I've determined that the best version to start off would be the article in it's current version.

My rationale for this is as follows - while the fact that the current version of the article was noted as not having universal consensus, most of you who supported the alternate version noted that improvements have been made in later versions that should be retained, in particular, improvements to referencing in the article. With verifiability being one of our core policies, I am minded to work on the current, more referenced version. I have weighed other policies in recommending this starting point, specifically our policies on use of primary sources, self-published sources and neutral point of view (specifically, undue weight) - very briefly, primary and self-published sources are OK up to a point, however they should not be the sole source or predominant source in an article. This is a secondary consideration at this stage, however.

The Philosophy Manual of Style will guide us here. While we need to be careful to not make changes or include content just because other articles have the same structure or content, it would be useful to identify a few articles on other philosophers that have a similar article structure that we can use as a yardstick. If suggestions could be made below, I will review them (they need to be a "Good Article" or better, however).

Lastly, I note that this recommendation is not necessarily an endorsement of the current article version, or overwhelming criticism of the alternate, however a weighed decision based on a review of the two versions and your comments here noting improvements made since the dispute started. Content that was previously in the article that has been removed can be re-included after a discussion here, if deemed appropriate.

How will we proceed from here?: We will break the article up section by section. I will post a section below, and we will discuss whether there is unanimous agreement for the content in the section, as is. If there is, great, we will move on to the next section. If there is disagreement, I will guide a collaboration on the content, using a template at this page I've created in the past. It will allow us to identify the current version, and work on proposed alternate text until a version is reached that is agreed to, that is supported by our policies, guidelines, and styles. At times, I will of course interject with comments regarding appropriateness of content based on these policies, but it will largely from here be a relatively collaborative discussion process. I'll give a few hours for comments, and then I will start with posting the lead section of the article here for review and work by all editors.

For the time being (and this will be the format for the discussion on each section of the article), can each editor advise whether there is content in the article infobox that you disagree with (and if so, very briefly - What do you disagree with, Why, and What is your alternative text (with sources provided).

Finally, over the course of this discussion, I reserve the right to re-structure comments for readability purposes, but the content of your edit will remain (however, if discussion is getting too long, I may ask you to trim things down for ease of readability. Thanks everyone, let's proceed. Steven Crossin 19:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Hi all. This is just a request for links to sources - specifically links to any books that are cited in the article, if they are available, for verifiability purposes. (I assume most of you have seen electronic or physical copies of some of these books, so this request is mainly for my benefit. Just a URL link below is fine, cheers. Steven Crossin 22:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• First source goes here. Google - example ref
• God and Cosmology: William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll in Dialogue (Greer-Heard Lectures)
• Philosophy of Religion: The Basics by Richard Creel, Page 205
• The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers in America edited by John Shook Direct Link to Page
• God Over All: Divine Aseity and the Challenge of Platonism by William Lane Craig
• The Love of Wisdom: A Christian Introduction to Philosophy by Stephen B. Cowan and James S. Spiegel
• The God of Philosophy: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion by Roy Jackson
• Reason and Religious Belief edited by Peterson et al.
• The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy (Texts and Studies in Religion, Vol 23) by William Lane Craig
• A Faithful Guide to Philosophy by Peter S. Williams
• The Cambridge Companion to Atheism edited by Michael Martin
• The Kalam Cosmological Argument, Volume 1 edited by Copan and Craig
• Eternal God: A Study of God Without Time by Paul Helm
• Time & Eternity by Craig
• The Tensed Theory of Time: A Critical Examination by Craig
• Craig's view of Apollinarianism: Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Book) Page 608

---

• After asking here, the above list should only include sources currently used in the article, but links to source propositions at the article talk page may be posted here. Here are two collections that I remember: 1, 2. —PaleoNeonate – 01:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• Most specifically, links to books. Not interested in websites/online news etc - this section is about granting easier access to cited books so all can review the content of the cited works (most importantly in this instance, myself). Steven Crossin 01:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Did you specifically want a google books link, so you could read the sources themselves? It wasn't obvious to me. If that's what you'd like, I'll try and do that. —Approaching (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, where possible that’s preferable, or any other online viewable copy is fine too. Steven Crossin 00:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments on infobox

• @ජපස:, @GretLomborg: in line with the need to keep things brief (this discussion will take some time) can I please ask for the content that you've written below to be reduced by half. All, please keep responses around 500 characters for now at a maximum, thanks. Steven Crossin 12:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Hi all - still waiting on a response from a few of you. I'll wait about another 12 hours and then I'll summarise the consensus I see, and then we will proceed with the first section of the article (not the lede section, since that should ideally be a summary of the content of the article). Steven Crossin 14:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Alright, thanks everyone for your input. I think the consensus we have here is that some changes might be warranted, but agree with the assessment that it is best to wait until the article is rewritten, and then the infobox contents can be updated. Steven Crossin 00:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

---

• No to Template:Infobox philosopher! Infobox:Theologian is better as he is famous for theology. Unverifed claims: Era, Region, and School. Craig is notably a conservative Christian apologist. Notable work = Reasonable Faith is not sourced. Craig's notability is related to apologetics, not books. "Main interests" are primarily sourced, self-involved, and non-notable. Craig's ideas pretend towards academic philosophy, but he is famous as a shadow academic with an outsider philosophical approach. jps (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• The infobox is fine, except his first two Kalam books should be his most notable work (though Reasonable Faith may be his most popular, who knows). Template:Infobox philosopher is appropriate, and I object to changing it. The WP:RS seem to primarily describe Craig as a philosopher first (e.g. [19]). His first Ph.D was in Philosophy, his job is Professor of Philosophy [20], he publishes in philosophy journals e.g. Synthese, Philosophy, Religious Studies, etc. His most well-known work involves nonsectarian religious concepts, which atheist philosophers write about without becoming theologians. Most contemporary philosophers have similar "peculiar identifications" (e.g. Kwame Anthony Appiah). Furthermore, Template:Infobox theologian lacks things that are pertinent to Craig (e.g. advisors). That said, Craig definitely has a foot in theology. I wouldn't object to having two infoboxes, with the philosopher one first and main one. - GretLomborg (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC) - Condensed by request from User:Steven Crossin - GretLomborg (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I prefer to not to take a position about the infobox at current time, since like for the lead, what fits will probably be best determined by reading the "final"/consensus-established article later on. —PaleoNeonate – 23:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• No issue with the infobox as currently posted. EDIT: I support the changes recommended by Approaching and Shine. Those edits streamline it a bit and are more accurate. Squatch347 (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• One additional note related to applicable other pages to model our edits after. I'd point us back to the original filing, point 8 which references the list of good and featured biographies of philosophers. Specifically Bertrand Russell, Alan Turing, and Soren Kierkegaard. Squatch347 (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me take part. I think the infobox template is mostly adequate except for some minor deficiencies: (i) The infobox should maybe reflect the article's claim that he was at Westmont College, and (ii) the infobox claims his interest is Apollinarism, which is inaccurate. I have a kindle version of the book referenced in citation 102. He rejects Apollinarism. —Approaching (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• List of interests is weirdly specific; I'd cut off at "systematic theology". The Kalam is an ancient idea--maybe don't list it as his idea. His ideas can't be summarized for the infobox; maybe omit this part. Per GretLomborg, WLC is primarily a philosopher of religion. He does theology, but he's famous for defending non-sectarian philosophical arguments for theism. He publishes in top journals and top academic presses. He takes mainstream positions on mainstream topics. Thousands of citations from other academics. Suggesting he's a "shadow academic" is false and violates WP:BLP. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• I'm ok with the infobox as is. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Comments on article content

Alright, thanks everyone. Now, let's proceed with the article content. I'll ask if everyone can try and be more responsive on this thread, as the aim is to try and hash out a workable solution as quickly and as easily as possible. We will skip the lead of the article for now, as that will be a summary of the article content.

Here's how things will work from here.

• Each section of the article will be posted here as Version 0 (the current version).
• I would then like each editor to either

• State that they are satisfied with the current content of the article, and very briefly, why (no more than 500 characters excluding signature) OR
• Propose an alternate version of that article section, using the format that is listed on my Mediation discussion template page. Add references, and then after the section, a brief explanation of the exact changes proposed, and then the rationale. Do not edit each others proposals, but suggest alternates.

• We will discuss and work on the content until we come up with a version that a consensus is formed on, in line with policy. Once that has been done, we will move onto the next section, and repeat until the article content has a consensus.

Sounds good? Let's begin in the section below. Steven Crossin 00:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Just an additional request where possible - is it possible to place in bold and italics in any proposed drafts, changes made compared to the current version, just for ease of reading, wherever this is feasible? Cheers. Steven Crossin 11:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
• Encouragedto see that we seem to be making some progress so far. This format normally works this way - we start with the content as written, and work on progressive drafts until we find one that works. Steven Crossin 06:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments on Biography section

• Where do we put comments? Here or at the end of the draft 0 section? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Good point. I used to use this format when informal mediation existed, so it's a little different here. Lets go with commenting in Draft 0 if you're happy with the version as is, otherwise create an alternate version of the section, and leave your rationale in the comments section for that draft. I'd rather not have each draft section be a long conversation, and prefer proposing an alternate draft if any of you prefer an alternate version, however some back-and-forth is fine. I'll be watching this page closely to ensure we stay on track. Steven Crossin 02:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• @GretLomborg: I’ve noticed in some sections you’ve suggested changes to drafts. Can I ask you to please propose an alternate text (instructions on how to do so and links to the template are above). I realise it may seem a little rigid, but I’ve used this format for years in these situations and it does work. Cheers! Steven Crossin 19:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Steven Crossin: I'm having problems editing this because of the lack of section breaks. Can we insert some, please? I would prefer not to use ;bolding when possible and instead use sub-sub-...-sections. In fact, I just messed up again because of this problem. jps (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Can do, will adjust this shortly. Steven Crossin 22:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Drafts on Bio Section

Drafts 0 (current version), 1, 2 and 3 have been collapsed for reading ease

Draft 0 (current version) Biography Born August 23, 1949, in Peoria, Illinois, Craig is the second of three children born to Mallory and Doris Craig. His father's work with the T. P. & W. railroad took the family to Keokuk, Iowa, until his transfer to the home office in East Peoria in 1960. While a student at East Peoria Community High School (1963–1967), Craig became a championship debater and public speaker, being named his senior year to the all-state debate team and winning the state championship in oratory. In September 1965, his junior year, he converted to Christianity, and after graduating from high school, attended Wheaton College, majoring in communications. Craig graduated in 1971 and the following year married his wife Jan, whom he met on the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ. In 2014, he was named alumnus of the year by Wheaton. In 1973 Craig entered the program in philosophy of religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School north of Chicago, where he studied under Norman Geisler. In 1975 Craig commenced doctoral studies in philosophy at the University of Birmingham, England, writing on the Cosmological Argument under the direction of John Hick. He was awarded a doctorate in 1977. Out of this study came his first book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), a defense of the argument he first encountered in Hackett's work. Craig was awarded a postdoctoral fellowship in 1978 from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation to pursue research on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus under the direction of Wolfhart Pannenberg at the Ludwig-Maximillians-Universität München in Germany. His studies in Munich under Pannenberg's supervision led to a second doctorate, this one in theology, awarded in 1984 with the publication of his doctoral thesis, The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy (1985). Comments on Draft 0 (current version) Comment goes here. This is to specifically note that you are happy with the current version, exactly as written. If not, please propose an alternative. Steven Crossin 02:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC) This section is straight forward. I doubt anyone will have issues with it, but we'll see. By the way, can you please provide a translation of the Latin below?  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC) Looks fine to me. If I were nitpicking, I'd say maybe there are too many numbered inline references popping up too frequently, which interrupts the flow of the text. But that's not important. I'll accept the section in its current state. —Approaching (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC) I'm happy with the current version. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC) I can't verify the information for the first sentence (more info below in my other comment). I agree with Approaching that the inline citations are messy (number and position of citations). The sentence about the second doctorate could probably be shorter. Overall, it could be better but I don't debate any of the contents. —PaleoNeonate – 18:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC) Draft 1 Biography Born August 23, 1949, in Peoria, Illinois, Craig is the second of three children born to Mallory and Doris Craig. His father's work with the T. P. & W. railroad took the family to Keokuk, Iowa, until his transfer to the home office in East Peoria in 1960. While a student at East Peoria Community High School (1963–1967), Craig became a championship debater and public speaker, being named his senior year to the all-state debate team and winning the state championship in oratory. In September 1965, his junior year, he converted to Christianity his faculty profile from Biola University says that "he first heard the message of the Christian gospel and yielded his life to Christ", and after graduating from high school, attended Wheaton College, majoring in communications. Craig graduated in 1971 and the following year married his wife Jan, whom he met on the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ. In 2014, he was named alumnus of the year by Wheaton. In 1973 Craig entered the program in philosophy of religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School north of Chicago, where he studied under Norman Geisler. In 1975 Craig commenced doctoral studies in philosophy at the University of Birmingham, England, writing on the Cosmological Argument under the direction of John Hick. He was awarded a doctorate in 1977. Out of this study came his first book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), a defense of the argument he first encountered in Hackett's work. Craig was awarded a postdoctoral fellowship in 1978 from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation to pursue research on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus under the direction of Wolfhart Pannenberg at the Ludwig-Maximillians-Universität München in Germany. His studies in Munich under Pannenberg's supervision led to a second doctorate, this one in theology, awarded in 1984 with the publication of his doctoral thesis, The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy (1985). Rationale for Draft 1 (current version) Claiming that Craig "converted to Christianity" is an unreasonable paraphrase of his faculty profile's claim about his altar call moment. Also, we don't need two sources that are copies of each other (and obviously just repeating a single source). jps (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC) Brief feedback on Draft 1. This comment can be replaced. Steven Crossin 02:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC) I don't think this change is necessary, as the original wording reads better and appears accurate. Though perhaps we could tack more refs onto the sentence. The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers in America: From 1600 to the Present states "Craig attributes his life's work to a profound religious conversion when he was sixteen years old." He states on his website "to speak personally, I myself was not raised in an evangelical home, but I became a Christian my third year of high school." [21]. These can be reasonably paraphrased as "he converted to Christianity." - GretLomborg (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC) My impression is that the primary source language is so promotional that the quote is not necessary better... This also unfortunately doesn't address the problematic sourcing of the first line. I can't verify the birth date or parents at the cited sources. The closest book Google shows is [22]. Searching in it seems unsuccessful and the citation doesn't provide the page. —PaleoNeonate – 18:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC) You can verify his birth date in the second inline cite for that sentence, here. The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers in America: From 1600 to the Present also mentions his birth date and location, which is an inline ref two sentences down. His parent's names can be verified here ("Others may know that William Craig is the second child of Mallory and Doris Craig, but I alone can know that I am the second child of Mallory and Doris Craig; no one else can access my first person perspective..."). I personally would like to remove the sentence about his dad's job at the railroad. It's not easily sourceable and it's not worth the effort to do so. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC) I find the current language ("converted to Christianity") reasonable. The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia also uses the language of conversion. I don't see the need for this change, but I would love to hear jps further explain his concerns. —Approaching (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC) People in the conservative Christian Evangelical world often refer to their response to an altar call as "converting to Christianity" even when they were raised mainline Protestant or Catholic, for example. I don't know if this is what is happening here, but I think the claim that someone converted to Christianity needs to attributed directly as it is really one's personal opinion rather than an identifiable moment. If Craig was, for example, baptized in another church before the age of sixteen (I will not dig into baptismal records out of a respect for privacy, but I submit this as a thought experiment), would it be appropriate to say he only converted to Christianity at that age? jps (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC) I see. Thanks for explaining. When you say that the claim needs to be attributed directly, do you mean that we should hear it from him? I went on his website, reasonablefaith.org, and found some search results where he speaks of his own experience as a conversion. Quote: "So, in a sense, for me my call to full time Christian ministry was simultaneous with my conversion. I soon got into a local church..." (source). Would this resolve this particular issue for you? —Approaching (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC) I think quoting Craig is fine as it makes it clear that it is his opinion about the event. jps (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC) What should that particular sentence read like, in your view? —Approaching (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC) I gave one option above. If you wanted to use a different quote, I would be okay with that too, but I'm not sure how to use your quote to do what we would like. jps (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC) I see. So in your view, jps, Wikipedia should never report religious conversions. Wikipedia should only report that people believed they had religious conversions, and only if they can find direct quotes from the person. And your defense of this position is that religious conversion is a personal opinion, rather than an identifiable moment. Why can't we just take the personal testimony as reliable evidence if it is consistent with everything else? —Approaching (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC) My view is that religious conversion means a lot of different things depending on context, so it is best to attribute rather than state in Wikipedia's voice when person self-reports their conversion. jps (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC) That's not the same thing as your earlier claim, which was about personal opinion, rather than semantic ambiguity. To address the ambiguity issue: if we understand religious conversion to involve a substantial change in the details one's religious beliefs and/or practices? If that fits the ordinary usage, and it first the BLP's self-reporting, then the problem of ambiguity is solved, it seems. What other problem is left? —Approaching (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Alright, let's move this conversation along. The idea here is to progressively work on drafts - can you please give a view on Draft 3 which is the latest draft, and then propose further drafts as needed. Thanks. Steven Crossin 16:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Rather than descending into personalization and rudeness. I will just say that the semantic ambiguity has always been my concern. If we assert facts, not opinions, I think it clear that we not use Wikipedia's voice to assert the personal opinion of Craig that he converted at sixteen. It is a simple matter to attribute that opinion with a quotation, or with an attributory statement such as, "Craig says he converted to Christianity at the age of sixteen". jps (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC) References References Draft 2 Biography Born August 23, 1949, in Peoria, Illinois. Craig was is the second of three children born to Mallory and Doris Craig. His father's work with the T. P. & W. railroad took the family to Keokuk, Iowa, until his transfer to the home office in East Peoria in 1960. While a student at East Peoria Community High School (1963–1967), Craig became a championship debater and public speaker, being named his senior year to the all-state debate team and winning the state championship in oratory. In September 1965, his junior year, he converted to Christianity, and after graduating from high school, attended Wheaton College, majoring in communications. Craig graduated in 1971 and the following year married his wife Jan, whom he met on the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ. They have two grown children and reside in Atlanta, Georgia. In 2014, he was named alumnus of the year by Wheaton. In 1973 Craig entered the program in philosophy of religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School north of Chicago, where he studied under Norman Geisler. In 1975 Craig commenced doctoral studies in philosophy at the University of Birmingham, England, writing on the Cosmological Argument under the direction of John Hick. He was awarded a doctorate in 1977. Out of this study came his first book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), a defense of the argument he first encountered in Hackett's work. Craig was awarded a postdoctoral fellowship in 1978 from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation to pursue research on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus under the direction of Wolfhart Pannenberg at the Ludwig-Maximillians-Universität München in Germany. His studies in Munich under Pannenberg's supervision led to a second doctorate, this one in theology, awarded in 1984 with the publication of his doctoral thesis, The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy (1985). Rationale for Draft 2 Happy to accept draft 0 as is, but I thought a few small corrections would be warranted. I struck the "second of three children" language. Looking around I couldn't find a reference for that data anywhere. I added that he and his wife have raised two children in line with the biographies of Kierkegaard and Russell. It is referenced both in the linked article and on his CV. Language difference in draft 1 is fine I guess. It seems a little odd to have the hedging language given that this point is referenced in at least four of our sources the exact same way. Normally the "according to" language serves to hedge the editors from a statement by a source that might be controversial, which this doesn't seem to be. We can add it if there aren't other objections, it just seems an overly complex way of saying the exact same thing. Squatch347 (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC) While I have no doubt that Craig heeded an altar call at age 16, calling it a "conversion" to Christianity in Wikipedia's voice is certainly not a universally accepted interpretation of such an event. According to language is used because this is a direct quote and not a paraphrase. jps (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC) See my comments above. One source uses the term "conversion" to refer to the experience, and Craig himself says he "became a Christian" at that time. It's a fair paraphrase of the latter to say he "converted to Christianity." I also think it would be inappropriate to use hedging language here. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC) I like it, but I would like condense the birth information to "Born August 23, 1949 in Peoria, Illinois to Mallory and Doris Craig." and I would also like to strike "His father's work with the T. P. & W. railroad took the family to Keokuk, Iowa, until his transfer to the home office in East Peoria in 1960." I think the former reads better, and the latter seems not terribly relevant to the biography and I haven't been able to source it easily (beyond him spending his childhood in Keokuk) using Google. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC) Between the original text and this one, I find both acceptable. I couldn't verify claims of the first sentence. —PaleoNeonate – 19:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC) Squatch347, you might be interested in GretLomborg's second comment on the previous draft, which found a citation for the claim that he was the second of three children. —Approaching (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC) References References Draft 3 Biography William Lane Craig was born August 23, 1949 in Peoria, Illinois to Mallory and Doris Craig. [new cites] Craig was is the second of three children born to Mallory and Doris Craig. His father's work with the T. P. & W. railroad took the family to Keokuk, Iowa, until his transfer to the home office in East Peoria in 1960. While a student at East Peoria Community High School (1963–1967), Craig became a championship debater and public speaker, being named his senior year to the all-state debate team and winning the state championship in oratory. In September 1965, his junior year, he converted to Christianity, [new cites ] and after graduating from high school, attended Wheaton College, majoring in communications. Craig graduated in 1971 and the following year married his wife Jan, whom he met on the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ. They have two grown children and reside in suburban Atlanta, Georgia. In 2014, he was named alumnus of the year by Wheaton. In 1973 Craig entered the program in philosophy of religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School north of Chicago, where he studied under Norman Geisler. In 1975 Craig commenced doctoral studies in philosophy at the University of Birmingham, England, writing on the Cosmological Argument under the direction of John Hick. He was awarded a doctorate in 1977. Out of this study came his first book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), a defense of the argument he first encountered in Hackett's work. Craig was awarded a postdoctoral fellowship in 1978 from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation to pursue research on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus under the direction of Wolfhart Pannenberg at the Ludwig-Maximillians-Universität München in Germany. His studies in Munich under Pannenberg's supervision led to a second doctorate, this one in theology, awarded in 1984 with the publication of his doctoral thesis, The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy (1985). Rationale for Draft 3 This is a revision of User:Squatch347's draft. The first couple sentences regarding his birth have been condensed and the refs improved. Citations were added to the sentence about his conversion, and added a mention the he lives in a suburb not Atlanta itself. - GretLomborg (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC) I like this draft the best so far. I agree with the suggested changes for the reasons given. I also think that the language of conversion is appropriate per the RS. No RS I'm aware of refers to an "altar call" so I don't know where that claim is coming from. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Agreed that this is the best version so far. The railroad info is interesting and in line with the other bios I referenced for style, but I agree it isn't worth tracking down a source. We might consider readding the second of three children language given you found an acceptable reference. Birth order is standard encyclopedia trivia. Squatch347 (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC) I think this draft is the best too. Four minor, entirely negotiable nitpicks: (i) I don't think it's within the scope of the encyclopedia to track the ages of the children of BLPs, so simply stating the BLP has two children seems sufficient, without determining whether they are grown or not. (ii) I don't have a problem with the biographical information previously struck out, if we do indeed have adequate sources for them. (iii) I think the alumnus of the year statement is better suited for the second paragraph, since the first paragraph is focused on his early life and family. (iv) The BLP has two doctorates, and by extension, would presumably have two theses. Maybe it's worth specifying that the historical argument was his second doctoral thesis. —Approaching (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC) This version still asserts as fact that Craig converted at the age of sixteen, but it is his personal opinion. jps (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC) It's not his personal opinion, it's a fact about his own self-identity. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC) No, the fact about his own self-identity is that he is a Christian. The statement that he "converted" at sixteen in a particular event is his testimony. jps (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC) I object to the use of Jeffrey Robinson David Blagget's source churnalism standing in as scholarship from the Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers. I wrote Bloomsbury to ask them to take down this poorly researched and written entry. Apart from the fact that these two conservative Christians are not ideologically independent of the beliefs of William Lane Craig, they also have not sufficiently cited sources in their entry. Suggest removing the source entirely. jps (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC) The Robinson and Baggett piece is in an encyclopedia published by Bloomsbury Academic, a well-regarded, award-winning, academic press. It was edited by John R. Shook, a widely-published and cited philosopher who works on pragamtism and philosophy of mind. Here is Shook's Scholar page. I see no RS indicating what the ideology of Robinson or Baggett is, so that seems to be irrelevant speculation. Also, it isn't clear why their personal religious or theological beliefs are relevant. The Bloomsbury RS reports that Craig converted to Christianity when he was 16. That should settle it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC) It does not settle it. The source is ideologically compromised and I received word that there might be some gaming going on here. It seems that the source was specifically submitted to raise the profile of Craig, but there is no indication that it was reviewed. I am in conversation with Bloomsbury about this. This is entirely separate from the matter of a personal conversion being an opinion rather than a fact. jps (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Those are some pretty serious allegations, and I think they need more support than the vague insinuations that you have provided here. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC) I reject your suggestion to remove the entry from the Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers as a source. I see no good reason to doubt its accuracy concerning Craig. I note your link to WP:FRIND, and again reject the assertion that WP:FRINGE applies to this article. Philosophy and theology are their own mainstream (and very diverse) fields, and Craig is not a fringe participant in them. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC) The reason to doubt the accuracy is because the authors are fundamentalist Christians. Typically, fundamentalist Christians are not known for good fact checking. jps (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC) This comment looks to me like another violation of WP:BLP, and I request that it be struck. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC) I certainly will do no such thing. Both of these authors are creationists and we should look for additional verification of anything they write owing to their WP:FRINGE status. It seems Bloomsbury dropped the ball here. jps (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Even accepting your assertion that the authors of the Bloomsbury article are "fundamentalist Christians" (which I do not, to be clear), are you seriously claiming that they're going to have disqualifying problems accurately reporting biographical stuff like someone's birth date and educational history because of their religious beliefs? - GretLomborg (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Yes. I have been badly burned in the past accepting at face value ideologically compromised sources for seeming non-controversial facts (for example, verifying credentials). I just ask that we find some additional sources to fact check. Right now, this article is being leaned on way too hard. jps (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC) I disagree that the Robinson and Baggett/Boomsbury Encyclopedia source is "being leaned on way too hard." Do you have any evidence to show that Craig's credentials, for instance, may have been misreported in that encyclopedia entry? - GretLomborg (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Alright, thanks for the feedback on this draft so far everyone. I’m putting a 12 hour circuit breaker on this discussion, and I’ll look through the draft and comments here to help us come up with a way forward. (May be less, and then we can proceed but want some time to review.) Steven Crossin 22:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC) (Sorry what do we mean by a 12-hour circuit breaker? I'm not up to date on the hip new slang. I just learned what "on fleek" means last month....) —Approaching (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Huh, maybe I only use that term. Basically I’m freezing extended discussion until my questions are responded to (below, I was edit conflicted, terrible thing to happen on an iPad!) Steven Crossin 23:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC) OK, from reading the discussion here, jps, please clarify - your objection seems to be how this draft words the claim that Craig converted to Christianity, and additionally the use of the text by Robinson and Baggett? If these are the two objections, a yes will suffice. Otherwise please clarify briefly below. GretLomborg, I’ll need a link to the source please - as its a book, I need to be able to access a copy of it. Can you please provide that? I’ll likely discuss this with editors at the Reliable Sources noticeboard - however my initial thoughts are this: we need to take care to not synethesise the content of sources and what they say. That said, a statement of sorts by the subject of an article can be used for select information in an article, unless there are multiple secondary sources that refute that claim, and the claim doesn’t meet the red flag criteria. For example, if a person in on their own website biography, stated that they were born in Chicago, we would write in the article “X was born in Chicago(ref here)” and not “According to X, they were born in Chicago” or “X claims they were born in Chicago”. I’d like a copy of the source so I can review, but noting the quote in a reference from Craig directly “To speak personally, I myself was not raised in an evangelical home, but I became a Christian my third year of high school” - do we agree that this quote is from Craig directly? If so, the approach we take here is to include for this particular sentence, only the citation directly from Craig (since it is personal information about the subject, and no secondary sources presented seem to refute his religious belief (that he is a Christian). I would disagree that in this instance we need to attribute the claim to Craig in text, but writing “Craig converted to Christianity based on his quote is a synthesis of what the source says - as written in the Religious conversion article, conversion to a religion normally means when someone holds a set of religious beliefs, and abandons then in favour of another. I’ve not seen that particular fact noted in the provided sources, so a more accurate writing of the text could simply be “In September 1965, his third year of high school, Craig became a Christian/adopted Christian beliefs/some other variant(insert Craig quote reference only here)” This way, we are quoting the subject, and only the subject, on purely personal information. Again, for this item I don’t see the need to attribute the claim in-line by noting the comment was from Craig, that is what having the reference is for, to attribute the text in the article to the source we gathered the information from. Steven Crossin 23:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Yes, except I don't mind attributing Craig's conversion story to him, I just object to it said in Wikipedia's voice. jps (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC) User:Steven Crossin: Here's the link I use to the source: [23] (should be a two column scan, other searches give an ebook version without columns). If you search within for "William Lane Craig" you can bypass the preview limits and read the full entry. It has about two pages of bibliography and further reading. Personally, I've never actually read any of Craig's works, beyond a bit of his website in this dispute, but my guess is his conversion story appears in on of his popular books that they cited. He seems to have told it many times in many different venues. This youtube video of him has him stating: "I myself was not raised in a Christian home, or even a churchgoing family..." That said, I think the proposal of "In September 1965, his third year of high school, Craig became a Christian." is acceptable language to me. Though I think we should keep the Robinson & Bagget source to support it in addition to the primary source to Craig, given the nature and high frequency of challenges that have been made to this article's text. The main concern I have about this passage is that we must not imply inappropriate doubt about the sincerity of someone's personal identity in a BLP. If Craig said he became a Christian, he became a Christian full stop unless we have the very best sources that give very good reasons to doubt that. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC) Thanks for your reply GretLomborg. jps, do you agree to the proposed alteration in text that I suggested as a way forward? As a reminder to all editors, I do note that in disputes like this, a little compromise now and then goes a long way. Disputes tougher than this one that I’ve mediated have been resolved through interpreting policies and guidelines and everyone giving a little to get a little. I’d encourage that here. Steven Crossin 00:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC) (I know you didn't ask me, but for the record, the source book is linked in the sources section above, with a direct link to the page. Ctrl+f "Shook" —Approaching (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)) Thanks for that, that’s helpful. It appears the source meets the classification of a tertiary source. The page in question cited here has additional citations for the content they wrote. Can we determine from that entry what citation they came across to make the “profound religious conversion” statement? I would suggest we proceed under that basis here - find what the tertiary source cited, refer to that, and if the citation supports the text, we can discuss. But the suggested approach could well be to just cite what Craig said directly, rather than a third party’s interpretation of what he meant when he said that. Steven Crossin 23:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Could we say, In September 1965, his third year of high school, Craig says he became a Christian." That would certainly satisfy me and it allows the testimonial characteristic of his identification (which to me indicates more of a conversion to evangelicalism rather than Christianity writ large) to feature. Since we cannot verify the Luke 15:10 celebration that occurred in heaven, can we just make it a simple attribution? jps (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Nobody said anything about a celebration in heaven. He became a Christian at that time. We don't need to attribute this fact to him, and doing so strikes a skeptical tone that is inappropriate. Is there some RS indicating that he was a Christian prior to the indicated date? Or is that just idle speculation? Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Insisting that he became a Christian simply because he said it does not make this a fact in the WP:ASF sense. The WP:ONUS is not on me to find independent confirmation of this so-called "fact". jps (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC) WP:ASF supports the line about conversion to Christianity: (i) There is no serious dispute about whether Craig is now a Christian, or that he was not born a Christian but converted to Christianity early in his life. The criteria for facthood is satisfied. (ii) The claim that Craig is a Christian, or that he converted to Christianity early in his life are neither considered opinions. The criteria for opinionhood is not satisfied. (iii) Furthermore, claims about one's internal mental states, such as beliefs, are almost always taken to be fact; we do not write of Daniel Dennett that "he believes himself to be a philosopher". —Approaching (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Jps, based on my review of this discussion and the relevant policies and conventions, we will move on from here. It’s not appropriate to word things in a way such as what you’ve suggested in this instance - if the fact that he was a Christian or the rough period that this belief occurred was refuted by a source, then such a wording might be appropriate. ASF does not apply here - it is not standard practice to state “X person claims they are Y” - personal information that comes directly for the source, especially viewpoints they hold attributed to themselves, do not need to be written in this way unless they are contested by other sources. I’ve not seen that occur in this instance, and the case that this is an opinion that is contested has not been made, so it’s not appropriate to style the text this way. Shortly I’ll propose a draft 4 incorporating the changes that have been suggested thus far. Steven Crossin 21:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC) To be clear, the issue here is not with the identity of Craig as a Christian. The issue is with the precise meaning of what it means to "become" a Christian (or "convert to Christianity") in the context of a predominately Christian culture and a household that was apparently nominally unconnected to church but not overtly orthogonal to religious belief. What we are adopting here is a strictly evangelical mindset towards what it means to "be a Christian". Specifically, evangelicals and other low church Protestants believe in the believer's baptism which presumes that every individual converts to Christianity as a profession of individual faith. This is very interesting, but it is strictly the opinion of religious believers that this is what it means to "become" a Christian or "convert". What we are adopting is a subtle but important violation of NPOV in favor of the perspective of Craig -- that of Evangelical Christianity. I am sure there is a way to word this so that it satisfies people without succumbing to this problem if we workshop in good faith. jps (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Jps, I take your point here - "became a Christian/converted to Christianity" may be seen by some as meaning the same thing (however my reading of it is that one may have held no religion and then adopted a set of beliefs, making "became an X" appropriate. If there's an alternate wording here, let's look for it - though I maintain "became a Christian" is probably pretty close (I believe some references presented indicated he may have been an atheist/agnostic before?). As we are citing the subject directly for this sentence, it's not necessary to attribute it in line - this is what the reference is for and as no sources have been presented to cast doubt on his account of this piece of personal information, it doesn't seem appropriate to proceed with that style of referencing. If you do have a source that casts doubt on his account of his religious belief, then for personal, biographical information, this path seems appropriate - purely for this instance only. Steven Crossin 00:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC) "Became a Christian" is an advantage because it avoids the ambiguity of religious conversion, but we are running into No True Scotsman arguments with the question of what Craig actually means by what occurred at the age of sixteen. This is in no way trying to cast doubt on Craig's story. I am actually interested in the reader being able to understand the context of this kind of testimony in the context of Craig's faith. Many people who are not evangelical simply do not understand what an evangelical means when they say that they converted. It does not mean the same thing as when someone talks about converting to other religions. These vivid road to Damascus experiences serve as touchstone points and are therefore extremely relevant to biographies of such people, but the testimonials intentionally are framed as a particular kind of narrative informed by the religious community (c.f. Chapter 4). I think the testimony aspect of Craig's conversion story is vital, and I would argue that this is the way he is actually treating this point. jps (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC) I cannot make sense of jps above. It seems that jps was suggesting that Craig may not have become a Christian at 16, but now he says he is not casting doubt on what Craig says. In any case, I'm fine with saying that Craig became a Christian when he was 16 rather than saying that he converted to Christianity then. I regard these formulations as equivalent. I do not think we should get into Craig's theology of conversion in this section. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC) I am not casting doubt on what Craig says because Craig's conversion testimony serves a different purpose than a means to tell the history of his religious identity as we would sample it in a survey, for example. The problem is that many people don't know about this distinction and so such wording can be deceiving (see my user talkpage for more). jps (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC) I know Steve is on a tight schedule to manage this process. So he might not be able to entertain long conversations. But JFS, I'd love to see you better explain your point on your own talk page so others can engage with it. Seeing as you appealed to religious texts, angels dancing in heaven, etc, I suspected you were pushing a religious interpretation of the language yourself, but it seems you're not. —Approaching (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC) There is an ongoing discussion of this very issue on my talkpage. You are welcome to join if you would like! jps (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Steven Crossin, I haven't been able to find their source just yet. I'm happy to look later. But I have been able to find a similar claim made on the BLP's website. At least, I think it reads like it would be an example of a "profound religious conversion". To make a long story short, my spiritual search went on for the next six months. I attended Christian meetings; I read Christian books; I sought God in prayer. Finally, one night I just came to the end of my rope and cried out to God. I cried out all the anger and bitterness that had built up inside me, and at the same time I felt this tremendous infusion of joy, like a balloon being blown up and blown up until it was ready to burst! I remember I rushed outdoors—it was a clear, mid-western, summer night, and you could see the Milky Way stretched from horizon to horizon. As I looked up at the stars, I thought, “God! I’ve come to know God!” That moment changed my whole life. I had thought enough about this message during those six months to realize that if it were really the truth—really the truth—, then I could do nothing less than spend my entire life spreading this wonderful message among mankind. — Source (date) —Approaching (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC) I did a bit more Googling and found these sources that speak to Craig's family's religious beliefs: I wasn’t raised in a church-going family, much less a Christian family—though it was a good and loving home. (from Approaching's source above) Well, I come from a non-Christian family, so, when I came to Christ in high school, I wanted to share my faith with my brother and with non-Christian friends in high school. (from an interview with him) "My folks sort of believed in the man upstairs," he says. "He's sort of up there watching out for you, and that's sort of it." (from the Chronicle of Higher Education article, quoting him) - GretLomborg (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC) Right. For Craig, a theist who comes from a Christian background is a "non-Christian" as they are non-practicing. This is a perfectly fine definition to have, but it definitely confuses people. It's why I think it is important to note that Craig is offering his testimonial as to his conversion. That couches the situation in a way that allows for people to follow the story if they want to. Perhaps a link to Testimony#Religion could help, too? jps (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC) Sorry, I don't think "In September 1965, his third year of high school, Craig became a Christian" would actually be confusing to readers, nor do I think that wording would be "deceiving" to them. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC) Sorry, I don't think "In September 1965, his third year of high school, Craig says he became a Christian" would actually be confusing to readers, nor do I think that would be implying "inappropriate doubt" to them. jps (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC) I agree. Also, where is the claim that his parents were from a Christian background coming from? Is that more speculation? Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC) Looks to me like you're the only one implying speculation here. jps (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC) In either case, I cannot find any evidence that his parents were Christian, or that he grew up having a Christian background, or anything similar. Nobody else seems persuaded by this, even by their examination of the sources. And you, too, have failed to provide any sources for this claim. I think we should drop the issue, and pick it up only once we find a source for the claim that his parents were Christian. —Approaching (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC) I have read the same sources you have, but I think your approach towards trying to understand my point strikes me as more of a straw man than a good faith attempt to grok my point. I am not interested in sources about Craig's parents' religious backgrounds. That is not my issue here. jps (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC) For me, there's no deadline. I can, and am in fact are, considering moving this to private mediation, something I've done historically before. I've worked on disputes that took considerable time to work through issues, but we got there, and they were resolved. As other DR forums have largely closed, and a requests for comments only lasts 30 days and is generally not appropriate in this instance, how would editors feel about myself conducting a private mediation, rather than keeping things open at DRN here? Steven Crossin 00:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC) It's fine with me. I'm happy to work through these matters on the talkpage, tbh. jps (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC) I'm ok with it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC) Wow, glad I took the weekend off. I'm not familiar with the ins and out of private vs. public mediation. I'll submit to whatever the group wants to do. On the two topics currently at play. I support the agreed to language: "In September 1965, his third year of high school, Craig became a Christian." Additionally, I support retention of the Robinson/Blagget source. The rationale for its removal is a bit disconcerting. I don't think we want to be in a place of dismissing sources based on their personal characteristics absent any evidence. That is a road that goes to a dark place. I'll defer to the mediator's plan of action, but review of the continued assertion that WP:FRINGE applies here might help focus this discussion a bit. I don't see that point of contention going away, but rather getting much worse in the next sections. Squatch347 (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC) User:Steve Crossin what are the benefits of private mediation as opposed to this process, especially ones that may help in this case? - GretLomborg (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC) Also, I don't mind shelving the conversion issue for later, while we work on the other sections in the article. If that is what other people want as well. —Approaching (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC) Apologies for my tardy reply all, had a busy day and a bit. Briefly, private mediation just means we can work through things at our own pace. I'd move this sort of thing in the past to informal mediation but that was closed some time ago, so I'd prefer to mediate it elsewhere. There's no other benefits or downsides to doing this, apart from us having more time to work through issues. For the time being, the encyclopaedia reference won't be included on it's own - secondary sources are always preferred to these tertiary sources that cite other (including secondary) sources, and if we can do so, we should do cite these sources directly (and the encyclopaedia mentions their cited sources, so doing so is the preferred approach here). Can we agree on the text "In September 1965, his third year of high school, Craig became a Christian"?Italic text Steven Crossin 15:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC) I would prefer to be more clear that Craig became an Evangelical Christian. He did not become a Catholic, rather explicitly. This would help mitigate some of my concerns over the way people can be confused about these matters. jps (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC) Although, to play devil's advocate with my own interrogatives, there is a source linked above which describes his conversion as being more of the Mere Christianity sort before he was sufficiently immersed in doctrine to understand that he was some particularly non-Mainline-Protestant form. jps (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC) I agree with the text "In September 1965, his third year of high school, Craig became a Christian". I don't see anything more specific than that in the sources. I'm also fine with private mediation. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC) I support "In September 1965, his third year of high school, Craig became a Christian" I'm not sure we should go any more specific on denominations unless a source or quote makes it clear that is what he meant. I'm open to that being the case, I just don't recall him making any kind of theological distinction in the sources we cite. Private mediation seems fine as well. Squatch347 (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC) I agree on the "became a Christian" text and incorporated it into a draft below. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC) References References

Draft 4

Biography William Lane Craig was born August 23, 1949 in Peoria, Illinois to Mallory and Doris Craig. [new cites] Craig was is the second of three children born to Mallory and Doris Craig. His father's work with the T. P. & W. railroad took the family to Keokuk, Iowa, until his transfer to the home office in East Peoria in 1960. While a student at East Peoria Community High School (1963–1967), Craig became a championship debater and public speaker, being named his senior year to the all-state debate team and winning the state championship in oratory. In September 1965, his junior year, he converted to Christianity became a Christian, [new cites ] and after graduating from high school, attended Wheaton College, majoring in communications.[new cites ] Craig graduated in 1971[[new cites ] and the following year married his wife Jan, whom he met on the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ.[new cites] They have two grown children and reside in suburban Atlanta, Georgia. In 2014, he was named alumnus of the year by Wheaton. In 1973 Craig entered the program in philosophy of religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School north of Chicago, where he studied under Norman Geisler. In 1975 Craig commenced doctoral studies in philosophy at the University of Birmingham, England, writing on the Cosmological Argument under the direction of John Hick.[new cites ] He was awarded a doctorate in 1977.[new cites ] Out of this study came his first book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), a defense of the argument he first encountered in Hackett's work. Craig was awarded a postdoctoral fellowship in 1978 from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation [new cites ] to pursue research on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus under the direction of Wolfhart Pannenberg at the Ludwig-Maximillians-Universität München in Germany.[new cites ] His studies in Munich under Pannenberg's supervision led to a second doctorate, this one in theology, awarded in 1984[new cites ] with the publication of his doctoral thesis, The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy (1985).[new cites ]

Rationale for Draft 4

• This is a revision of draft 3 that incorporates the "he became a Christian" language that we've been discussing above, but was not actually in draft 3. I personally would also be ok with the "he embraced Christianity" language that was suggested by User:PaleoNeonate somewhere, though that might require a bit more context. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm okay with this. I personally think "he embraced Christianity" doesn't sound very encyclopedic. On the issue of sourcing: Steven Crossin asked to look into the John Shook article source. There are endnotes for the article, but they are not shown by google books. If someone else can access them, great. —Approaching (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Approaching: I think those pages are accessible in google books, you just have to hit the right edition with the right search terms. Try following the procedure I outlined here [24], but clicking page 211 from this link might be an easier way to do it. - GretLomborg (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Tried it. Got to the bibliography at the end of the encyclopedic entry, but none of the bib. entries look like they would talk about his personal life/conversion. Either way, we have his website, and someone else linked to a youtube video of him literally saying it out loud. That should be more than enough reason to establish its veracity. —Approaching (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• My sense is he's probably given a similar accounts to the ones we've found in one or more of his popular books, but I agree that we have reasonable, verifiable wording and can proceed to other things. - GretLomborg (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Looks good. I'm for saying when he became a Christian. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• This looks fine to me. I'd still be ok with re-inserting the "second of three children language" since that relationship is often covered in our other reference articles and we have a source now. But it certainly isn't a show stopper. Squatch347 (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• ALL - Shinealittlelight, Theroadislong, jps, Bill the Cat 7,Squatch347,GretLomborg,User:PaleoNeonate - I am putting a 48 hour clock on this draft. We seem to have been able to work towards a consensus here. Can I get a final yea or nay on Draft 4 - if agreed as is we will proceed. Steven Crossin 15:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Steven Crossin: I think you forgot Approaching. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes and no, but they already indicated they were happy with Draft4, but thanks :-) Steven Crossin 17:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes that looks good to me. Theroadislong (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• yea on draft 4. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Let's remove some of the tertiary references for biographical facts, please. jps (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes on draft 4. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, once more, if it helps finalize this section and move on to the next one. —Approaching (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. Squatch347 (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft 5

Biography William Lane Craig was born August 23, 1949 in Peoria, Illinois to Mallory and Doris Craig. [new cites] Craig was is the second of three children born to Mallory and Doris Craig. His father's work with the T. P. & W. railroad took the family to Keokuk, Iowa, until his transfer to the home office in East Peoria in 1960. While a student at East Peoria Community High School (1963–1967), Craig became a championship debater and public speaker, being named his senior year to the all-state debate team and winning the state championship in oratory. In September 1965, his junior year, he converted to Christianity became a Christian, [new cites ] and after graduating from high school, attended Wheaton College, majoring in communications.[new cites ] Craig graduated in 1971[[new cites ] and the following year married his wife Jan, whom he met on the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ.[new cites] They have two grown children and reside in suburban Atlanta, Georgia. In 2014, he was named alumnus of the year by Wheaton. In 1973 Craig entered the program in philosophy of religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School north of Chicago, where he studied under Norman Geisler. In 1975 Craig commenced doctoral studies in philosophy at the University of Birmingham, England, writing on the Cosmological Argument under the direction of John Hick.[new cites ] He was awarded a doctorate in 1977.[new cites ] Out of this study came his first book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), a defense of the argument he first encountered in Hackett's work. Craig was awarded a postdoctoral fellowship in 1978 from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation [new cites ] to pursue research on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus under the direction of Wolfhart Pannenberg at the Ludwig-Maximillians-Universität München in Germany.[new cites ] His studies in Munich under Pannenberg's supervision led to a second doctorate, this one in theology, awarded in 1984[new cites ] with the publication of his doctoral thesis, The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy (1985).[new cites ]

References

References

Rationale for Draft 5

Removing tertiary references that are unnecessary. Otherwise the same as Draft 4. jps (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you for clarity add, and strike out the references that you removed, or note them here please? Steven Crossin 18:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I simply removed some of the extra ones that were added by others for reasons that they did not explain. jps (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I was initially in favor of removing the gratuitous references. But then I discovered that this article has a history of editors raising problems with the article on a word-by-word level. It's this critical attention to the article that led to the large number of references in the first place. If we remove the citations, it'll just bring those problems back, so I learn towards keeping the extraneous citations now. —Approaching (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a terrible justification for Wikipedia:Citation overkill. jps (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a case of citation overkill. Citation overkill seems to involve improper use of citations. I think the issue here is an improper editing. I'd like to revisit the issue after the whole article is finished. But for now, I prefer Draft 4. —Approaching (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm still in favor of draft 4 and keeping all the references to the Bloomsbury Encyclopedia source. If they weren't necessary, we probably wouldn't be here. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• I'm also in favor of draft 4 with all references. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

These references do not appear to be vetted beyond the citations already in the article. What is the point of referencing a source that references the same sources already in the article? jps (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Much of article's biographical text can be supported by content in the Bloomsbury Encyclopedia source. Much of it now is also supported by Craig's resume, which is a primary source. There have been significant numbers of challenges to this article's content, many of them objecting to the use of primary sources. Due to the history of those challenges, we should not be removing non-primary sources. I also believe you are the only one who really objects to the Bloomsbury Encyclopedia (basically on account of what you assume the author's religious views to be: "The reason to doubt the accuracy is because the authors are fundamentalist Christians. Typically, fundamentalist Christians are not known for good fact checking"). I have no issue with using it to source basic facts for a biographical sketch. - GretLomborg (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I also pointed out the preference to not use a tertiary source, but to use the secondary sources that the tertiary source cited. If the tertiary source is citing an existing primary or secondary source for content in the article - it is superfluous and shouldn't be added. Steven Crossin 02:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I thought. But apparently, any suggestion I make is going to be resisted because apparently we "wouldn't be here" if they "weren't necessary"? What does that kind of assumption of bad faith even mean? jps (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Steven Crossin: The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia article isn't citing Craig's resume or any of the sources that I recently added to this section. Also, it appears that encyclopedia article can perhaps be considered secondary source in relation to Craig, as its bibliography cites Craig's works directly (works that I don't have access to). - GretLomborg (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that the tertiary source should be removed to the extent that it is simply providing circuitous citation to the same source. That will likely be an issue we need to be aware of when it comes to summary of his positions (in that case it might be preferable to us reading the primary sources to avoid WP:OR). However, for biographical information it doesn't appear to be citing any of those sources. Those sources tend to be related to his academic or popular works rather than his CV data. I think, when related to his biographical data this is a secondary rather than tertiary source.

One additional piece of information. I think you'll see some hesitance from this group to strike additional sourced based on personal history with this page. There has been a tendency to delete large portions of this page as "overly reliant on primary sources" and I think the concern is that this leaves this section open to that kind of future "cleansing" as well. If you look at the article's talk page you'll see a large amount of discussion primary sources and how that means the page needs to be simply scratched. Just some insight from my foxhole. Squatch347 (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

That's always going to be a risk. The tertiary source actually doesn't make you immune from that. I have been quite insistent that we look for high-quality secondary sources, but they are scarce so far. Biographical details can be sourced to primary sources if they are providing background, but having secondary sources would solidify their WP:PROMINENCE. jps (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

If someone can give me a list of statements supported by tertiary sources, we can start hunting for secondary sources that cover the statements. Specifics would be nice, because the Bloomsbury source doesn't have inline citations. —Approaching (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Bio section discussion - section break

* Alright, for now, let's move along. I would support working through this section at a later date, purely for updating of references. But the text of the article has been agreed to in Draft 4, so I am for now determining that there is a consensus to proceed with the text of Draft 4, which I will now implement into the article, and we will move on to the next section and discuss from there. The details of tertiary references to include or exclude can be discussed at a later date.

I will be implementing a small change to Draft 4, namely changing the first sentence to "Craig was born on August 23, 1949 in..." as this is in line with the MOS, rather than the current formatting. We don't bold names outside of the lede section, and normally refer to the subject of an article by their surname only after the first usage. Steven Crossin 23:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• After reviewing the text of the article while I was implementing Draft 4, I in fact do not see a consensus for it that is in line with policy, or several other drafts. I think we can get there, but I am recommending that we end the discussion here, and move to informal mediation at another venue. We will continue discussion there, and I will shortly post where it will be held. Cheers. Steven Crossin 23:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Could you explain in further detail what the problem is? If not here, in private mediation. —Approaching (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Steven Crossin: Could you clarify what the issue is? - GretLomborg (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll continue the discussion at the newly created page for the informal mediation, Talk:William Lane Craig/Mediation, and will outline the concerns I see there. Will close this thread up within 24 hours. Steven Crossin 16:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

List of online encyclopedias

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute List of online encyclopedias (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved PCHS-NJROTC (talk · contribs) FuzzyCatPotato (talk · contribs) Avernarius (talk · contribs) Dispute overview On June 22, 2019, I removed RationalWiki from List of online encyclopedias on the basis that RationalWiki itself states that it is not an encyclopedia. This action was challenged by User:Avernarius, and we discussed on the talk page, coming to the conclusion that RationalWiki should be included despite its own views of itself due to WP:RS coverage, and RationalWiki was re-entered by Avernarius as a science-related encyclopedia per the talk page. User:FuzzyCatPotato, who is a former Board of Trustees member for the RationalMedia Foundation (who has expressed an interest in running for it again in the near future) entered the conversation and proceeded to challenge the move from the "general reference" section to the "science and technology" section, claiming that the WP:RS describe RationalWiki as a general reference. I have reviewed the sources FCP have provided, and I do not see anything stating that RationalWiki is a "general reference encyclopedia," rather I see the sources describing it as an encyclopedic resource covering pseudoscience topics, which seems would solidly put the wiki under science and technology. RationalWiki's mission statement, which explicitly says that it is not a general encyclopedia and does not cover topics unrelated to it's mission, pretty much seals the deal per WP:SELFSOURCE in my opinion. Disclaimer: I am a sysop-lite on Conservapedia. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The three of us have discussed the matter on the talk page, but finding a solution that is acceptable to both me (PCHS-NJROTC) and FuzzyCatPotato seems to be tough at this point. How do you think we can help? I am hoping to peacefully establish consensus as to where to include RationalWiki in the list, if at all. Summary of dispute by FuzzyCatPotato Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. see below FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Avernarius Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The main task of the list is, to find the wiki at all. The characterization is secondary. The solution could be a note, stating the diverging views. Have fine day! AVS (talk) 05:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC) List of online encyclopedias discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The other editors have been notified. Is this a question that can be resolved by discussion (such as of how to list it)? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC) If you mean at the talk page, I doubt it. Although I want to keep this about the content and not the editors, part of the reason I decided to go this route was due to previous encounters with FuzzyCatPotato. I'm hoping that discussion will remain more WP:CIVIL and productive here. This is my first time at DRN since joining Wikipedia over ten years ago, so apologies if I seem "new" to this, but I am hoping that some discussion here and uninvolved opinions can resolve the matter. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 02:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC) Volunteer Note - FuzzyCatPotato do you have any issue with it being classified as science based on the sources included in PCHS-NJROTC's reply on the talk page? SpoonLuv (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC) This case has been open for a week, FCP is no where to be seen, and everyone else seems to not care where it is placed, just that it does belong in there. Does anyone other than FCP have a different opinion of the sources than my own? Obviously I think the sources favor my position over FCP's (the one source blatantly favors my position), and FCP kind of made this change in spite of on-going discussion, does anyone have any objection to me undoing FCP's change, and then we can reopen this if he returns and objects to it? To be honest, assuming good faith, I'm not even really sure why he made the change, going against the position of the very organization he officially represents. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 16:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC) @SpoonLuv: yes. I've provided 2 reliable sources which describe RationalWiki as an encyclopedia: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3151?journalCode=pto& I suggest the encyclopedic resource http://rationalwiki.org as a starting point. https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3329582 "RationalWiki (http: //rationalwiki.org/) is also a wiki encyclopedia project website, which was, in turn, created as a liberal response to Conservapedia" AVS also provided 1 reliable source which describes RationalWiki as an encyclopedia: https://www.thedailybeast.com/kill-all-citations-sloppy-sourcing-plagues-kill-all-normies-book-on-sjws-and-the-alt-right But Nagle never mentions RationalWiki, another online encyclopedia PCHS-NJROTC has provided 1 primary source https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Mission and claims it is evidence against including RationalWiki in the "general reference" section. Quoting: "RationalWiki is not a general encyclopedia; it does not require articles on every known subject. However, the wiki's mainspace welcomes many articles that do not relate to the primary missions of RationalWiki providing that they are factually accurate and of interest to the community at large. These include articles on general science, historical events and important individuals throughout the world." At most this suggests RationalWiki should not be in the "general reference" section, but it doesn't suggest which section it should be in. If we're willing to look at RationalWiki's content, which appears to be what PCHS-NJROTC has done to categorize it as "science", then we see that its content spans all of the sections on the page: antiquity, pop culture, math, film, music, philosophy, politics, history, religion, science. This suggests the best section is the least specific section: general reference, despite RationalWiki's protestations. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC) I'm not challenging that these sources describe RationalWiki as an encyclopedia, I am challenging the claim that these sources describe RationalWiki as a general reference encyclopedia. I think the disconnect is that somehow FCP is not understanding that this list is not a list of wikis, but rather a list of encyclopedias; a science and technology encyclopedia is indeed an encyclopedia, and that's how RW is best described per the reliable sources. FCP wants to introduce WP:OR into the discussion, but in addition to the obvious policy problems with that (including WP:COI), we have the problem that even though some of the topics FCP mentioned are not exactly scientific subjects, they are covered from the standpoint of RationalWiki's mission, and despite what FCP says, articles are routinely delete as being "hopelessly off-mission". Another problem with FCP's argument is that, while Rational-Wiki may have some content that is not science related (especially in the "Fun" namespace), Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica have articles unrelated to pop culture and fiction (HowTo:Play Conservatroll and HowTo:Play RationalTroll at Uncyclopedia are not exactly either of those, for example). The hopeless idea of Wikipedians determining what Rational-Wiki is through original research is why I think we should stick to WP:RS, which (including R-W itself) classify Rational-Wiki as an encyclopedia covering issues related to pseudoscience. Rational-Wiki's own state mission is to refute pseudoscience and the anti-science movement, document "crank" ideas, explore authoritarianism and fundamentalism (both of which someone from Rational-Wiki's POV would associate with pseudoscience), and analyze how these topics are covered by the media, so clearly Rational-Wiki is primarily a science and technology encyclopedia, not a general reference like Wikipedia or Encarta, which covers a wide variety of topics. I'm interested in the uninvolved community's opinion on this. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 17:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC) I went ahead and made a WP:BOLD move sinc{e there doesn't seem to be any objection to my position, and FCP has been silent despite making edits since this discussion started, I say lets leave this open a few more days just to see if he chimes in now that his edit has been reverted and close it out in about two or three days if no objections from him or anyone else. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 14:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Sahaja Yoga

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Freelion on 05:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Sahaja Yoga (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Freelion (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Another user Alexbrn I believe is editing the article on Sahaja Yoga tendentiously. He has a long history of debunking articles that feature information that does not comply with mainstream medical science. I have been blocked twice for attempting to bring him to heal for ignoring the BRD cycle, removing reliable sources, and skewing the article by cherrypicking content from sources, also he is insisting on certain interpretations of sources that are unbalanced and only promote his view. I have provided accurate edit summaries, he is very brief. I have documented every one of my changes on the talk page in numbered points. He continues to ignore this and threaten me with being blocked again. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The talk page as mentioned. I also reported him for edit warring. How do you think we can help? Provide a referee to insist that he engage properly with the points raised on the talk page. Talk:Sahaja Yoga discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not listed the other editor. Also, the other editor has filed an inquiry at the fringe theory noticeboard. If the filing editor notifies the other editor properly, they need to agree on whether to have this case discussed here or at FTN. A case cannot be handled in two places at once. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:T. Rex_(band)#RfC_on_Disputed_Reformations_section

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Romomusicfan on 17:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:T. Rex (band)#RfC on Disputed Reformations section (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Romomusicfan (talk · contribs) (also posts while logged out, mainly from IP 62.190.148.115) Woovee (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Woovee previosuly insisted on deletion of section on disputed reunions of the band such as Mickey Finn's T-Rex and X-T. Rex, on the grounds that the late Marc Bolan *was* the band. Now matters have escalated and Woovee has deleted the dates/circumstances of deaths of band members other than Bolan, claiming that since they died after the band's existence ended and arwe therefore not relevant, even though such details are normal for a band page. It seems to me that Woovee is intent on turning the T.Rex (band) page into a second Marc Bolan page, based on the fan POV of "No Bolan, No T.Rex". Have you tried to resolve this previously? Request for Comment - two other members also contributed. Has gone quiet with no further contributions. Woovee tried hard to personalise the discussion accusing me of promoting Mickey Finn's T-Rex and X.T.Rex and accusing me of being somehow fraudulent because I use IP addresses and only occasionally use my account (User:Romomusicfan). Woovee made similar attacks on one of the other two contributors. How do you think we can help? What is needed is arbitration of some sort. If this is not the appropriate place then please direct me to the right place. Summary of dispute by User:Woovee The ip says "Now matters have escalated and Woovee has deleted the dates/circumstances of deaths of band members other than Bolan". That's wrong, it hasn't escalated as the current version is the same as the one of on "12:43 3 July" right before the ip opens a rfc, about the same topic/section. -- Woovee (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC) Talk:T. Rex_(band)#RfC_on_Disputed_Reformations_section discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Our rules say : "We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments".... "Continue on article talk page".Woovee (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=905907999&oldid=905896143&title=User talk:Vicgerami

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Vicgerami on 10:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Vicgerami (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I created a page for Peter Perkowski, the most high-profile LGBT attorney present today, suing the Trump Administration in four class-action lawsuits. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure why or how user: Athaenara accused me of getting paid for creating this page, tagged the profile deletion, ignored my explanation as to why it should remain and subsequently it was deleted. I did NOT, do not and will not be paid to create a Wikipedia page. A baseless accusation should not immediately cause a profile submission to dissapear. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I wrote back to Athaenara and explained why it should not be deleted, but to no avail. How do you think we can help? Have several editors read and evaluate the profile of Peter Perkowski. Let them independently decide whether his profile is noteworthy. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=905907999&oldid=905896143&title=User talk:Vicgerami discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Jonathan Haidt

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Chrisvacc on 19:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Jonathan Haidt (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Chrisvacc (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A few months ago there was some poorly written content on the entry for Psychologist Jonathan Haidt. User Ronz added the "Written like Advert" tag. I saw this and resolved these issues, and after resolving, I removed the tag. A few months later, when user Ronz noticed the tag removed he reverted and put the tag back. Then Ronz began Edit Warring with several editors who attempted to remove the tag saying there was no justification with for it. They kept trying to remove it, saying it looked fine, and he kept putting the tag back. He also added an additional "Conflict of Interest" Tag. His justification was that there were SPA accounts that did some editing, even though there's no evidence those SPA accounts were any type of COI. I attempted to open a discussion on User:Ronz's talk Page, where I linked to the Steven Pinker article because A) Pinker's is one of the articles listed in Wikipedia:Good Articles... (Wikipedia's list of exemplary articles) and B) Steven Pinker is a scientist comparable to Jonathan Haidt. Since the articles of Steven Pinker (listed as an exemplary article) and Jonathan Haidt's were very much alike, I thought this was an appropriate comparison but User:Ronz was unwilling to compromise. I opened a discussion on the Talk page of the Haidt article, and he still was unwilling to compromise. I compromised and changed the tags to "general cleanup" and "neutrality disputed." When he saw this, he got mad and started Edit Warring again and Tag Bombing, putting a total of 6 tags on the article. Several other editors agree that the article is fine, but in my opinion, User:Ronz feels he's the prime dictator of these entries. I explained to User:Ronz that matters like these should be handled democratically, but he's been unresponsive to attempts to "Talk" on his Talk Page, and on the main article's Talk Page and prefers to keep reversing everyone's edits and adding numerous inappropriate tags. Have you tried to resolve this previously? There's no evidence of a COI. User:Ronz claims that when the article was first starting, someone "Copy and Pasted" parts of the Subject's websites. The tag "may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject" was used although that was not the case. Most of the Citations are from New York Times, TED, Wall Street Journal, Google Scholar and similar websites. User appears to be adding random tags. Potentially a COI? How do you think we can help? We need an objective observer to see if ANY tags are appropriate for this article. The other editors say that the article needs no tags, but we need an third party observer to verify. Thank you. Talk:Jonathan Haidt discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:River-kind

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by River-kind on 22:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:River-kind (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved River-kind (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I entered the sentence: For a secular practice derived from the Lotus Sutra, please consider an unpublished article entitled Nichiren Secular - A Comprehensible Ultimate for a Common Good. into https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Secular_Buddhism&oldid=906439550 and it was immediately removed. This matter was not resolved in talk. Have you tried to resolve this previously? None How do you think we can help? Please advise User talk:River-kind discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Pallava dynasty

– This request has been placed on hold.

Filed by LovSLif on 09:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Pallava dynasty (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• LovSLif (talk · contribs)

* Destroyer27 (talk · contribs)

• Nittawinoda (talk · contribs)
• Kautilya3 (talk · contribs)
• Abecedare (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This discussion is bound to the Origination or On the 'Origins of Pallava Dynasty'. Very lengthy discussion happened on the Talk page.The discussion was initiated for the addition of Mythological origin. In the course of discussion, the core content of the initial discussion was sidelined and finally ended up pushing a new POV content into the article's Origins section under the term 'Kanchi Theory'.The content is purely based on WP:OR. I have verified both the edited versions as well as original sources and found the content is against my CONSENSUS.The actuality of 'Kanchi Theory' as an 'origination' is not supported by the sources. I believe the 'Possibility of a dynasty which was already existing/originated and later raising to the power in a particular region, post capturing it from other dynasty' cannot be assigned as an origination theory. During the discussion,A new etymology section was also created in the article which is again a POV content relying on poor sources. The discussion moderated was closed off without the acceptance of all participants. I trust DRN team would thoroughly review the sources and its corresponding content and that is why I am raising a dispute over here.I will bind by the final result.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have fully supported voluntary moderation by user Kautilya3 but no CONSENSUS arrived at.

How do you think we can help?

I request DRN team to review the sources and its corresponding content to decide on the actuality of the content written under 'kanchi theory'.

Summary of dispute by Destroyer27

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Nittawinoda

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

As Kautilya3 has mentioned below, the other editor LovSLif had a dispute with Destroyer27 regarding the origin section of Pallava dynasty. At this point I did my own research and requested that a few more theories regarding the origin of Pallavas be added. Kautilya3 volunteered to moderate the discussion and I must say that he/she did a pretty good job; was very patient and thorough when it came to hearing both sides and clarifying the references. During the discussion it became apparent that LovSLif wanted to keep only theories that were favorable to him/her, that is in this case the Andhra origin theories and the user rejected other theories proposed by other notable historians like for example:

1. As per historians Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, the original nucleus and domain of the Pallavas was Tondaimandalam, which served as the base for their power. [25]

2. Prof. R. Sathianathaier also maintains that the Pallavas originated from Tondaimandalam [26]

I am satisfied and broadly agree with the draft proposed by Kautilya3. As for LovSLif, the editor does not seem to understand primary sources, original research and npov. He/she insisted on interpreting inscriptions and grants on his own and wants to include or reject theories based upon his own interpretation and is adamant that other theories by notable historians must not be included. Nittawinoda (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Summary of dispute by Kautilya3

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I got involved with this page when Abecedare asked me to help to resolve the dispute concerning the origins of the Pallava dynasty. The dispute at that time was between Destroyer27 and LovSLif. Later it became one between Nittawinoda and LovSLif. I asked both the editors to recommend high-level WP:HISTRS that are at the level of "History of India". When the sources they presented were not of this kind, I did my own search and found two multi-volume Histories of India which have chapters devoted to the Pallava dynasty contributed by top Indian historians of the 1960s. The two sets of scholars took opposite points of view. So I said that both the viewpoints were notable and proposed content summarising thei respective viewpoints with WP:In-text attribution. Nittawinoda was satisfied with my summaries but LovSLif was apparently not satisfied. The nature of his objections has not been clear from what he writes. Thus we ended up here.

The content that I proposed is now on the main page: Pallava dynasty#Origins. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I did not get involved with the Pallava dynasty#Etymoogy section. Any disputes concerning it are not yet ripe for DRN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Summary of dispute by Abecedare

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

My role in this dispute has been to (1) as an admin, warn/guide the participants to try to keep the discussion on-track, and (2) request Kautilya3, as an knowledgeable editor in the area uninvolved in the original dispute between LovSLif and Destroyer27, to take a look at the content issues (aside: and I appreciate the time they have devoted to the issue in response!).

I don't have any pre-set views on the central content issue(s) per se, and the DRN should be able to proceed without my participation. Abecedare (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Pallava dynasty discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer comment just chiming in to point out that one of the parties to this dispute, Destroyer27 is currently indef-blocked for socking and looking at their talk page I would not expect them to come back any time soon. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - The preconditions for moderated discussion have been met, in that there has been lengthy discussion on the article talk page, and the other parties have been notified. There has been an effort at moderated discussion already, which did not result in resolution. A volunteer is requested to try to conduct a second round of moderated discussion. I am not optimistic that a second round of moderated discussion will work better than the first, but we will try. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible zeroth statement by moderator

I will ask a few questions to see whether moderated discussion is feasible. It appears that one of the participants in the previous mediation was User:Kautilya3, who was attempting to mediate, and another was User:Abecedare, who is an administrator who sometimes facilitates mediation, so that they were not principals. One of the principals was User:LovSLif. Was the dispute between LovSLif and User:Nittawinoda, or with User:Destroyer27, who is a blocked sockpuppet? If it was between LovSLif and Nittawinoda, will each of them please state, in one or two paragraphs, what they think was the dispute, and how the article needs to be improved? Also, if LovSLif is not satisfied with the mediation, will they please state, in one paragraph, how they disagree with the mediation? Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. Please reply within 36 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Zeroth answers by editors

• Nittawinoda's comments

As I mentioned above, I agree with Kautilya3's draft of the origin section in the article Pallava dynasty. Currently I do not have a problem as this is what is in the article page Pallava_dynasty#Origins. In addition, I want the following theories added if not already,

1. As per historians Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, the original nucleus and domain of the Pallavas was Tondaimandalam, which served as the base for their power. [27]

2. Prof. R. Sathianathaier also maintains that the Pallavas originated from Tondaimandalam [28]

3. The ancestor of the Pallavas was born out of a union of Aswattama and naga princess (already in article and source provided by Kautilya3)

4. "The immediate conquerors of the Andhras were the Pallavas who seemed to have risen to power suddenly in the south. Starting from Kanchi, their capital, they extended their empire northwards, till it included Vengi Nadu."

5. As per historian C.Rasanayagam, "The Pallavas are considered to be the descendants of Tondaiman Ilam Tiraiyan the offspring of Chola King Killivalavan and naga princess Pilivalai, the latter being the daughter of king Valaivanan of ManiPallavam. The dynasty took its name (Pallava) after the name of the mother's kingdom manipallavam."

As per my understanding, LovSlif wants the Kanchi theory scrapped from the article. If he wants the whole section removed then I object but if it is just the nomenclature, for example, I do not mind renaming the "Kanchi theory" to something like "Tondaimandalam origin theory" etc. Points 1, 2 and 3 above are somewhat there in the current version. I would like to add points 4 and 5 if possible. Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

References

• LovSLif's comments

I want to clarify that I do not want complete Kanchi theory paragraph struck.I want the term Kanchi Theory to be excluded as this is not the region of origin.It was the the region occupied at later point to strengthen their position.I also disagree adding D.C Sircar as 'proponent of Kanchi theory'.I have provided my explanation on the same at [29].

I believe below is what should be added to make the article balanced. Here is what should be added.

1. It is agreed that the maternal side of the Pallavas is the Nagas. Well the Nagas were likely Telugu speakers. As per the work of D. Ananda Naidu,Gangisetti Lakshminarayana, and V. Gopalakrsna, who were published by Dravidian University (partly funded by Tamil Nadu's government): "The language of the Nagas appears to be Telugu, which the earliest reference to which is found to be in the earliest Tamil-grammar, the Tolkappiyam (5th Century AD)". B. Ramaraju similarly says that the Nagas were closely connected with Andhra. To quote him, "This is a prehistoric celebration of Naga or serpent-worship observed throughout Andhra. Buddhistic and other records mention that once Naga tribes inhabited this part of the country called 'Nagabhumi' (land of the serpent god). Every village in Andhra has some or other Naga idol carved in stone or wood.” Hence, this should be added in.

2. I want the Etymology section clarified. The word Pallava is clearly of Sanskrit origin and this should be clearly mentioned. I also want to mention that according to the Velurpalaiyam Copperplates, the first Pallava ruler's father was named Chutu Pallava. This also puts into question their so-called Chola heritage, which they never acknowledged.

3. I want it to be clearly mentioned that no Tamil inscriptions were issued by the Pallavas, that are found to date, until the late 6th century or early 7th century, which is well after they were established.

4. I want to include K.R Subramanian as another historian that supports the Andhra origin theory.

In regards to Nittawinoda's recommendations: - Firstly, Chenchiah Bhujanga is a Telugu language scholar. A prior scholar of the side that I am advocating for was sidelined because he was not a historian but a literary figure. Chenchiah Bhujanga fits in to the same category more or less. His claim to fame is a book about a history of Telugu Literature and he is not a trained a historian, but a scholar on the Telugu language. I will not agree to include him in this article.

- Secondly, Aswattama liason is a legend and not History.Also, the claim about the Pallavas being the child of the Cholas in untenable at best. TV. Mahanlingam, note a Tamilian, writes "The explanation of Naccinarkkiniyar that Ilantiraiyan was an illegitimate son of a Cola king and a Naga princess is "patently absurd". In fact, given the context of the conflicts between the Pallavas and the Cholas, no wonder the Tamil commentators made the Pallavas out to be illegitimate sons.

References

By LovSLif (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

Okay. We will try moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and follow it. Do not edit the article. Be civil and concise. Remember that civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements have only one value, to make the person posting them feel better, but they do not clarify the issue. Comment on content, not on contributors. (We seem to be focusing on content at this time, which is good.)

The statements made by the editors are long and need to be trimmed. Will each editor please identify one change that they want made at this time having to do with the Origin section? Also, I understand that there are also issues about the Etymology. Will each editor please identify one change that they want made to the Etymology?

First statements by editors should be addressed to me. Do not reply to each other. I am also providing a section for back-and-forth discussion which you may use for that purpose.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

First statements by editors

• Statement by Nittawinoda

@Robert McClenon:

I would like the following theory to be added to the origin section:

"Some historians like C Rasanayagam, M.Srinivasa Iyengar have stated that the Pallavas were descendants of Tondaiman Ilam Tiraiyan who was the son of Chola king Killivalavan and Naga princess Pilivalai, daughter of Valaivanan of Manipallavam in Sri Lanka. The dynasty thus came to be called after the mother's native place.. According to the Ulas(historical poems in honor of Chola kings) written by poet Ottakoothar, Killivalavan is said to have married a Naga princess by entering the bilvadara(cave) and also it is known that Tiraiyan was the son of a Chola prince who married the Naga princess, Pilivalai by entering the bilvadara in Nagapattinam. So that Tiraiyan was the son of Killivalavan is not without force".

I would like the following change to Etymology section:

"As per historians Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, the name Pallava which means leaves or foliage is the Sanskrit equivalent of the the Tamil word tondai which designates their original domain, namely Tondaimandalam."

References

Nittawinoda (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Statement by LovSLif

@Robert McClenon:

Among other changes, the first and foremost change I want to the Origins sections is the identification of the Nagas as Telugus. Here is the phrasing: "As per the work of various scholars, such as D. Ananda Naidu,Gangisetti Lakshminarayana, and V. Gopalakrsna, the language spoken by the Nagas, who were the maternal line of the Pallavas, was likely Telugu. B. Ramaraju notes that what is now Andhra was called "Nagabhumi", which means land of the Nagas."

In the etymology section, I want the following. The word Pallava is a Sanskrit word that means "leaves or foliage. Tondai is the Tamil equivalent of the word. As per the Velurpalaiyam Copperplates, the first Pallava ruler's father was named Chutu Pallava.

By LovSLif (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion

• Dispute LovSLif's statement (Rebuttal by Nittawinoda)

@Robert McClenon: I dispute the following claims by LovSLif.

1. Identification of the Nagas as Telugus - This appears to be original research. I quote from the source provided by LovSLif above " D. Ananda Naidu, Gaṅgiśeṭṭi Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa, Vi Gōpālakr̥ṣṇa. Perspectives of South Indian History and Culture. Dravidian University., 2006. p. 257.":

"In Andhradesa, the Rakshasas, mentioned in the Ramayana, at a later date, appear to have acquired the name of Nagas. The language of the Nagas appears to be Telugu, which the earliest reference to which is to be found in the earliest Tamil- grammar, the Tolkappiyam (5th century A.D.)."

What do the Nagas of Ramayana have to do with the Pallavas? This is completely out of context and has nothing to do with the Pallavas or the origin of the Pallavas for that matter. The Pallavas never mentioned that they married a Naga lady of Telugu origin. In fact, some scholars consider Tondaiman Ilandiraiyan to be the progenitor of the Pallavas and he is said to be the son born out of the union of Chola king Killi and Naga princess Pilivalai of Manipallavam in Sri Lanka. This refers to the Naga people of Sri Lanka and they definitely did not speak Telugu. I request the moderator to review the source more closely before making a decision.

2. As per the Velurpalaiyam Copperplates, the first Pallava ruler's father was named Chutu Pallava - Once again this original research. This is based upon the user's interpretation that Virakurcha, whose father is mentioned as Chutu Pallava, was the first Pallava ruler. As per "History of the Pallavas of Kanchi by R. Gopalan, edited by Sakkottai Krishnaswami Aiyangar, page 51, [30]", I quote, "Again in the Velurpalaiyam plates, it is not stated that Virakurcha who married the naga princess was the first member of the family of the Pallavas..". Moreover some historians like Vijaya Ramasamy, R.Gopalan and many more(mentioned above in my first statement) consider that Tondaiman Ilam tiraiyan was the progenitor of the Pallava dynasty. This being the case, we should not add Chutu Pallava as the father of the first Pallava ruler.

References

Nittawinoda (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

I think that it will be necessary to place this discussion on hold so that we can find another moderator. I have not yet placed it on hold, pending verification of the need for another moderator. However, it appears that the editors expect me, the moderator, to "review the source more closely before making a decision". As a moderator, I do not review the sources because I expect the parties to be able to explain to me what the sources say. Some moderators will review the sources; some expect the editors to present the information to each other and to the moderator. My concept of the role of the moderator is to facilitate discussion between the editors, not to make any decisions. If the editors expect that the moderator will decide on the content, a different moderator is needed.

Each editor should state briefly whether they are satisfied with my concept of the role of the moderator. If either editor is not satisfied, I will have to try to find another moderator, but I am not optimistic about finding another moderator.

I will remind the editors that ArbCom discretionary sanctions apply to disputes about India.

Each editor may also describe one more point that they would like changed in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

• Statement by Nittawinoda

@Robert McClenon: Yes, you are right. I would like a moderator, preferably someone familiar with India/Indian history, who can review the sources and come to a conclusion, similar to how @Kautilya3: did on the article talk page before the other editor came here. This is because, I believe the other editor, LovSLif, is claiming things that are not stated in the sources and presenting his original research. Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

This dispute is placed on hold while we try to find a moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Natalia Dyer

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Hitcher vs. Candyman on 23:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Natalia Dyer (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk · contribs) Broccoli and Coffee (talk · contribs) Thelonggoneblues (talk · contribs) Magnolia54 (talk · contribs) Jaqen (talk · contribs) Muzilon (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There seems to be a factual conflict concerning the age and birth year of Natalia Dyer. According to conflicting sources, several of them claim Dyer is a 24-year-old born in 1995 whereas others claim she is a 22-year old born in 1997. Certain editors such as Broccoli and Coffee, Thelonggoneblues and myself believe she was born in 1995 whereas other editors such as Magnolia54 and Jaqen believe she was born in 1997. I will admit I used to believe she was born in 1997. Have you tried to resolve this previously? As a compromise, Muzilon, Broccoli and Coffee and myself have agreed to add an endnote to the article mentioning both the 1997 sources and the 1995 sources. How do you think we can help? I think you can help by explaining why the endnote is a good compromise. Talk:Natalia Dyer discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Please disregard this notice. We've officially agreed that Dyer was born in 1995 based on this reliable source. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Aquariusveritas#Copyright_problem:_Kenyon_Farrow

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Aquariusveritas on 04:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:Aquariusveritas#Copyright problem: Kenyon Farrow (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Aquariusveritas (talk · contribs) Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) Dispute overview And investigation of potential copyright issue has been lodged. The copyright issue surrounds the listing of books written by and awards received by the subject. I believe the copyright investigation is incorrect and was neither investigated or in the spirit of Wikipedia, corrected. I would like to receive an investigation on the article in question and cleared if no copyright infringement is found. If there is a copyright infringement, I would like to receive help on how to resolve it. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have corresponded with Justlettersandnumbers, reviewed the copyright complaint and applied corrections where I found validity to the issue. I have also questioned the nature of the claim and issued the judgment that no copyright infringement is in place because listing the title of books by publication date cannot be copyrighted. How do you think we can help? I think that you can review the claim and make a judgment on the validity of what of the dispute. If their is validity to the dispute, provide suggestions on how to solve the problem. If the dispute is unwarranted, remove the block on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyon_Farrow Summary of dispute by Justlettersandnumbers Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User talk:Aquariusveritas#Copyright_problem:_Kenyon_Farrow discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - This noticeboard is not a forum for resolving copyright disputes. Wikipedia takes copyright violation very seriously (even if no one else seems to care about copyright violations), and the judgment of the administrators at Copyright Concerns Problems is final. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Murder of Hannah Graham

– New discussion.

Filed by Chaheel Riens on 12:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Murder of Hannah Graham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Chaheel Riens (talk · contribs)
• Berean Hunter (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Berean Hunter believes that a comment about the health of the convicted murderer should be in the lede, even though it is not mentioned anywhere else in the article.

Chaheel Riens believe that it is not relevant, and while it could possibly be placed elsewhere in the article with some work, it is certainly not worthy of the lede, and without extra work not worthy of the article itself.

Berean Hunter has refused to remove the information while discussion is ongoing, and reverted attempts to remove in the meantime.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Started discussion on the talk page, which has not progressed

How do you think we can help?

Arbitration between editors, content, and clarification of the meaning of BRD - whether it has been interpreted correctly in this instance.

Summary of dispute by Berean Hunter

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Murder of Hannah Graham discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The other editor has been notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - It appears that User:Berean Hunter says that this dispute does not need to be mediated at this point. The editors should continue discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I would still like clarification of the BRD process and whether it has been correctly interpreted in this instance. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - Obviously the BRD cycle has not been applied properly in this case, because we have a disagreement that is not being resolved by discussion. I do not intend to act as a judge to decide whether one of the editors is at fault or whether the disagreement simply happened. I see that another editor has offered an opinion. This noticeboard isn't here to decide whether and where there was fault. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 AFC Asian Cup

– New discussion.

Filed by Super ninja2 on 17:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:2019 AFC Asian Cup (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Super ninja2 (talk · contribs)
• Anbans 585 (talk · contribs)
• Wikiemirati (talk · contribs)
• Masgouf (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hello. Me, User:Anbans 585, User:Wikiemirati and User:Masgouf are in dispute about 2019 AFC Asian Cup#Qatar football shirt fan incident. Anbans 585, Wikiemirati and I have have discussed the issue on the article's talk page and the discussion resulted in this but Anbans 585 and Masgouf still disagree with the shape of the paragraph and Wikiemirati insists on adding The National claim that "they have photos of fans waving Qatar flag without being arrested" and refused to compromise, although Anbans 585 and I agreed on removing and concluded that it does not comply with Wikipedia policies but I agreed on adding it eventually and rephrased the text but Wikiemirati and Masgouf think that the rephrase is biased.

I'm not sure if the final shape of the paragraph complies with Wikipedia policies and I wish your help to resolve this dispute.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#2019 AFC Asian Cup#Qatar football shirt fan incident

How do you think we can help?

You might try to give a neutral-third party opinion

Summary of dispute by Anbans 585

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Wikiemirati

Dispute started on 15th of July with user:Super ninja2 non-NPOV edit and rephrasing of long standing information [31]. The user was reverted twice for non-NPOV rephrasing and the initial stable version was restored. The user argued on the talk page about 1-removing "According to the Guardian", 2-removing a cited source from The National, 3-including "the fan was beaten",4-including details from the statement to "clarify why the police arrested him and what excuse they are counting on to justify their action" 5-including a statement by British FCO. I agreed with reason 1,3, and 4. Reason 2 was unjustifiable, reason 5 was unrelated to the incident. Due to the user's conflicting edits, the status quo ante bellum was restored by user:anbans 585 due to the dispute [32]. After discussion in the talk page and agreeing with the users additions, I have edited to this [33]. However, the user once again rephrased the text to their own liking [34] and their edits have been reverted twice, again. Also note the user has thrown some person attacks on calling me a "liar" and accusations of COI, saying "we can say, without doubt, that his edits go under WP:Conflicts of interest", however I am assuming good faith and did not want to open an ANI. Also note the user broke WP:3RR, which I again assumed good faith and did not want to open an AN3. Sorry for the long paragraph. --Wikiemirati (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Masgouf

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:2019 AFC Asian Cup discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.