Talk:The Kalām Cosmological Argument

Removal of majority of the article

HyperEntity recently made this edit, and subsequent revert, which removed the majority of the article without initially providing a reason. His edit summary in his revert was: "This article is too long and poorly written. Words like 'purpots', 'alleged' and so on are clearly NPOV. I have never witnessed this level of amateurishness on a philosophy article before. It will be changed. Please don't revert this edit again." We can discuss the wording of the lead, certainly, but my primary concern right now is the removal of the majority of the content in the article, which you haven't given a reason to do. Can you elaborate on why you did that? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The reasons why I removed the contents are stated in one of my reverts. If you are concerned that the contents be present, you'll notice I left them in this revert (as I did in my last revert). I am happy to discuss the improvement of the first paragraph but I hope you'll agree with me that my latest revert improved on the previous (clearly NPOV) paragraph.--HyperEntity (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my concern last month was that you had removed a great deal of content from the article without discussion. I did notice you left it in with your latest edit in September, but the change you proposed was subsequently reverted by LikeLakers2. I agree that there are some problematic points to this proposal, so I'd ask that you discuss the change first before reinstituting it. Two issues which jump out at me right away are:

1. Some of the wording posits facts not presented in sources. For instance, "developments in Big Bang cosmology ... support the thesis that the universe began to exist". Big bang cosmology does not support that thesis; the big bang theory only shows the universe beginning to expand rapidly some billions of years ago, but makes no claims about the state of the universe prior to that expansion. I understand that Craig takes the Big Bang theory to imply a "beginning", but we can't be stating things like that in wikipedia's voice.
2. Your proposal goes into very specific detail of the premises of KCA, which I don't think is really warranted. The lead should be reserved for discussing the concept of the argument, its impact, notable reception, and leave the finer details to the body itself.

To be honest, I also don't really see a neutrality concern here, so I'm not sure why we need such a drastic change. Perhaps you could elaborate on what neutrality issues there are, and what problems need to be addressed. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not see an issue with neutrality either, and could use some clarification. Meatsgains (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I am the "author". I don't claim ownership or stewardship of any article, once an article is created in the Wikipedia it belongs to everyone. I don’t see any neutrality issues with the lead. I couldn’t ever have a NPOV issue with this book or WLC since I, do not share his views in ANY ways. I happened to think the book is notable and deserved an article after noticing that we had a page for Craig and he was mentioned in the KCA article. If you find the lead substandard, you are welcome to expand it, correct it and make it better. The pic of the book cover got deleted by User:Fastily, all the sudden. It had been standing in this article for almost year, it had a source and a license justification for use as a "book cover" under "fair use". I will try to take care of that, if I have the time. Efiiamagus (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Notable?

Is this book even notable enough for a wikipedia article? While it seems to still be in print, its publisher is Wipf and Stock, a small Christian publishing house that specializes in republishing out of print Christian works.

I see the sources of this article are 1) the book itself 2) a standard academic review shortly after its publication and 3) a link to a reprint of a book review. It seems this book is no different than any of the other thousands of academic books that get published and don't merit a wikipedia article.

Are there any other sources to show this is a notable academic work and it meets Wikipedia:Notability (books)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apajj89 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• It is notable and it meets the criteria, amply. Efiiamagus (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• WP:ITSNOTABLE, without any detailed discussion of the criteria is a very poor argument. The most relevant criteria would appear to be WP:NBOOK #1 "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself" -- which appears to have been met, at least minimally (not "amply"), by the two cited reviews. Further independent works on the subject would however be desirable, in order to both demonstrate above-minimal-notability and to expand the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• It is not an argument it is a statement. But thank you for citing the policy here, so we can better illustrate the point. A case can also be made that it also meets criteria for WP:NBOOK #3 and #4 or that it is indeed an academic work (many consider it so). You already made the point that it met the minimal requirements of WP:NBOOK, therefore (tentatively) notable; that should be sufficient for inclusion (for the time being). I am not in any way a sympathizer of WLC works, his religious views, or ideas; hence I have no POV to push. Nevertheless, I will not devote my time looking for more references or citations for the article; surely you will not expect me to do all the work on the article, which is why Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. I will also not invest my time discussing the semantics neither bickering, if the book meets the criteria amply or not. If you want to look for “[f]urther independent works on the subject […] in order to both demonstrate above-minimal-notability and to expand the article” you are welcome to contribute, or bring it up for deletion if you are not convinced of its notability. Efiiamagus (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• It was an unsubstantiated assertion -- so added nothing whatsoever to the discussion. As you have not made "a case ... that it also meets criteria for WP:NBOOK #3 and #4", this is likewise an an unsubstantiated assertion that adds nothing whatsoever. You are neither interested in analysing the notability criteria, nor in finding additional references -- so what are you adding to this conversation? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• It doesn’t really qualify as unsubstantiated, when there is already references in the article that qualify it as notable. I used 3 references, 1 the book itself, 2 independent. Is that enough for you? There a lot more references out there to satisfy your definition of "amply" (maybe 100?) and assert the notability of the book. Perhaps I added to the discussion; I just added two more references (against Craig of course!). Do you have any other flair aside from complaining? If you are not satisfied with the number; you can look for more of them and stop squabbling about trivial things. Be jolly friend, don’t be such a grouch! For my part this is the end of the discussion! Have fun editing! Efiiamagus (talk) 10:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)