Talk:William Lane Craig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Illinois (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Creationism / Intelligent design  (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Intelligent design task force (marked as Low-importance).
 


Neutrality[edit]

Wikipedia reports on what reliable sources say about a subject and preferably what reliable third party sources say. This article includes 108 references of which 59 are primary sources and mostly his own website Reasonable Faith. This doesn't help with the neutrality of the article which reads as if he wrote it himself. Theroadislong (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Even more reason for a 'criticism' section (see above) DocHeuh (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Most of the sources about his life are secondary sources. As far as an academic's work, you generally have to use primary sources to determine what position they take on an issue.--TMD Talk Page. 03:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
"you generally have to use primary sources to determine what position they take on an issue" I strongly disagree, Wikipedia relies on what third party sources have reported, NOT what WLC says about himself and his work. Any criticism can be added to the appropriate sections, I'm not sure that it needs it's own section. Theroadislong (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Not quite right. It is right that Wikipedia cites an individual when stating their own views or position. Wikipedia then relies on third party sources to critique the person's view or position where necessary. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
AND to determine which portions of a person's positions are the ones that are of note. WP:OR / WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Archive Bot time[edit]

Hi, I found it unreasonable that the discussion page gets archived after only ONE month (30 days). This will prohibit important and lengthy discussions. You can't assume that everyone works every night and day to get an issue resolved, some things take time. It also can be abused if some people are just sitting out an issue. And further to that, new people who want to contribute to the article won't see the recent discussions about the article. The archiving time should be raised to like six months. --Lexikon-Duff (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Billionaire[edit]

Why do people consistently call him a billionaire? I see no way he could have made or inherited that kind of money. Abductive (reasoning) 20:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

??? Where "do people consistently call him a billionaire"? Certainly not in this article or on the talk page - your claim is the first time I've ever heard it mentioned and I've read plenty of criticism of Craig (which I actually tend to agree with, btw).
Are you sure you've posted this on the right talk page? Or perhaps you've just seen the provocative titles of a couple of YT videos? If so, these video titles were the only accurate hits a quick Google search gave me on William Lane Craig and billionaire. Mojowiha (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Debates and dialogues section[edit]

At some point this section has become a gigantic list of EVERY debate Craig has ever had. It's not very informative, I suggest it could be hacked back to the 10 or so most notable ones or peeled off into it's own article List of every debate William Lane Craig has had Theroadislong (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing. A common theme on this article is to turn it into Craig's portfolio. That's not the purpose of wikipedia. If you have ideas to cut back on that section, go for it. I don't know what's notable and what's not.   — Jess· Δ 17:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Curiously none of the debates mentioned in the article seemed to be sourced at all let alone have reliable third party sourcing? Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Yep. Hence my inability to determine what should be kept. My recollection is that a lot of it is sourced to craig's site (which is his actual portfolio), but that's a primary source, so isn't too helpful in making decisions about weight.   — Jess· Δ 17:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Apart from his own websites and a few blog mentions they don't seem to have been given much coverage! Why are we mentioning them at all? Theroadislong (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved from article space as entirely unreferenced

How about just adding references, since these are pretty easy to find?--207.86.226.210 (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
If you have found any please list them here.Theroadislong (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't know if this would be admissible. It is a blog, but not Craig's or a Craig apologist's. Also not particularly hostile to him either, claiming he just admires his debating ability. It claims to list every debate. http://www.stafforini.com/blog/william-lane-craig-a-complete-list-of-debates/ Pleonic (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
A blog isn't considered a reliable source we need significant coverage in reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The reason we need a source isn't so much to verify these events happened, it's to determine what's significant enough to cover. As such, it's hard not to insist on a reliable secondary source; a blog doesn't tell us much about weight.   — Jess· Δ 00:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding back the list referenced with youtube links is NOT sufficient, we need sources that discuss the debates in order to show any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

YouTube and Podcasts ARE sufficient, especially to establish that the debates took place.--TMD Talk Page. 15:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Nobody doubts they took place but unless they have been reported on by multiple reliable sources why on earth would they be notable enough to mention? Theroadislong (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I despair, the article is nothing more than a promotional CV. Theroadislong (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
And I say that the article is accurate and not nearly as promotional as many other heavily edited articles, such as Neil Degrasse Tyson and James Randi.--TMD Talk Page. 17:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not questioning the accuracy of the article? I'm questioning whether a GIGANTIC list of non notable debates, primarily sourced to Youtube, belongs in the article at all. Theroadislong (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
It certainly does not belong in the article. This is an encyclopedia article ~ not a repository of links to stuff which is not in any context to the information in the article. A few of these links might be appropriate as proper references in the article but not a whole section of nothing but what are really external links and not references. This is a complete misuse of referencing principles and a "section" such as this has no place in this or any other article. Afterwriting (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Correct. Craig is a public figure, so recording every public event he takes part in overwhelms our goal to write encyclopedicly about him as a subject. If any of these events are significant to the subject, we should include them, but we determine what is significant by secondary sources, not primary youtube clips. Again, an encyclopedia article serves a different purpose than a resume.   — Jess· Δ 18:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Clearly User:Bill the Cat 7 is not interested in discussing anything and is still edit warring to include the content. Theroadislong (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Clearly Theroadislong is not aware of the BRD policy. I provided you a link. It would be to your benefit to familiarize yourself with this policy. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes. It's concerning that we've edit warred poorly sourced content into the article when the only discussion has so far yielded consensus to keep it out until better sources are found to demonstrate significance. The only arguments in favor so far have been "it's sourced" and "other articles are worse".   — Jess· Δ 18:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Bill, in fact, you may wish to have a refresher on BRD. WP:BRD says very clearly that it is not a reason to revert. You're applying the essay poorly, and this is coming from someone who has done nothing but discuss, without reverting. Coming to the talkpage to say "I provided a link to BRD, read it" is not helping discussion... ya know... the whole point of BRD.   — Jess· Δ 18:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
And more precisely this section Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#Edit warring Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict) Ok, fair enough. Let's discuss. I don't particularly care if the section is reduced, even drastically, but to remove it entirely is robbing the readers of really good debates. Now, I think these debates were very informative: Hitchens, Harris, Peter Millican, Stephen Law, and Peter Atkins. What does everyone else think? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
These debates are already mentioned in the article though. Theroadislong (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I don't have a problem covering significant events, but looking through that list, I have no idea what's significant and what's not. We cover some of the debates in prose already, and we list several more in "Life and career" - I imagine those are probably significant. What is this list adding to what we already have? Keep in mind, our goal is not to provide debates to readers... it's to cover the significant aspects of Craig as a topic, and full-page list of entries including "Klemens Kappel in Denmark" is not adding to that goal.   — Jess· Δ 18:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Compromise Suggestion: Perhaps a line like, "Craig has participated in at least 70 debates (I counted) with people such as Christopher Hitchens... (3 or 4 of the best known names)" and references for those specific debates. Pleonic (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem with that suggestion. In fact, we already have it in "Life and Career". Quoting: "Craig has participated in debates on philosophical and theological questions with philosophers, scientists, and biblical scholars including Antony Flew, E. M. Curley, Richard Taylor, Quentin Smith, Michael Tooley, Paul Draper, Shelly Kagan, Peter Millican, Paul Kurtz, Peter Atkins, Lawrence Krauss, Francisco Ayala, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Ray Hoover, Bart Ehrman, Gerd Lüdemann, Christopher Hitchens, Ray Bradley, and Sean Carroll.[citation needed] He has also engaged in debates on Islam, having engaged academic and Islamic scholar Shabir Ally, Jamal Badawi and South African Muslim apologist, Yusuf Ismail on the divinity of Christ."   — Jess· Δ 18:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
And to be clear, changing the names in that section to "the most notable", or adding the number 70, are both fine by me. The section does need references, though.   — Jess· Δ 18:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
His books are listed in their entirety, and he is known for his debates at least as much as he is for his books. Leave the entire debate list.--TMD Talk Page. 01:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the section should stay on the page. A large part of what makes Craig notable is his debates. It seems entirely appropriate to provide a full list (with references) instead of a mere comment in his career section about the number of debates he's had. Bobby (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
It cannot be included in its present form as it violates MoS principles. The sooner you realise this the sooner we might find an appropriate MoS way to include some of the material. Afterwriting (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
You're going to have to be much more specific than that to justify ridding the article of this particular section. Craig's popularity is largely due to the number of debates he's been involved in and the quality (or popularity) of his opponents. This section is good; let's keep it.--C7S (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep the section. Not a violation of the manual of style.--184.81.169.26 (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Then you just don't understand the MoS if you think this. It also seems obvious that some sockpuppetry has been going on with recent IP and new account edits defending the inclusion of the section. Afterwriting (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
You need to be more specific in your accusations. Exactly which parts of the manual of style is this violating? What justifies listing an author's complete works but not a debater's list of debates?--TMD Talk Page. 21:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
There are no reliable third party references to indicate that the debates have any notability? 21:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Among other policies, the gist of WP:IINFO is that we list significant and notable works with a summary and relevant information; we do not generally list large swaths of content without summary. In this case, a list of 70 debates, many of which are in no way significant, is excessive; we cannot discuss them in any depth due to a lack of significance, and their being listed in this format is overwhelming to the rest of the article.   — Jess· Δ 01:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. It is clear from WP:IINFO that this policy is sufficient reason on its own to not include the section in the article. Afterwriting (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, I don't see how it is indiscriminate information any more than listing an author's works violates it. It's a short section of the article, not overwhelming.--TMD Talk Page. 03:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
We're not talking about some other article. We're talking about this article. See also WP:NOTDIRECTORY: "mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists... may be acceptable." The emphasis in every one of our policy pages which concern this topic is to urge discretion in listing only significant items. A 70-item list is not short. This is not List of William Lane Craig's debates; we need to cover significant parts of the topic - ideally with a summary - not insignificant details intended to span the man's entire portfolio. We can link to such a list as an EL, however.   — Jess· Δ 03:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
How about a short section listing his major debates and then a new article called List of William Lane Craig's debates? What do you all think? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Fine in theory but are there enough reliable sources to support an article? Why are they notable? Theroadislong (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "enough reliable sources", nor by "notable" in the context of a list article. I mean, it's just a list (e.g., like this) that provides additional information about a well-known person, the purpose of which is not to clog up the main article. Please elaborate. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
We don't add lists of "random stuff" to Wikipedia it needs to be notable, ie mentioned in depth in multiple reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I have a better idea Bill the Cat 7. Let's just put the most prominent debates in the article. That should be 5 or 6 or so.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
They are already mentioned in the article. Theroadislong (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Debates and dialogues[edit]

  • "Sean Carroll at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, "God and Cosmology" (2014)". 
  • "Lawrence Krauss at Melbourne, "Life, the Universe and Nothing: Is it reasonable to believe there is a God?" (2013)". 
  • "Lawrence Krauss at Sydney, "Life, the Universe and Nothing: Why is there something rather than nothing?" (2013)". 
  • "Lawrence Krauss at Brisbane, "Life, the Universe and Nothing: Has science buried God?" (2013)". 
  • "Alex Rosenberg at Purdue University, "Is Faith in God Reasonable?" (2013)". 
  • "Klemens Kappel at Copenhagen, Denmark, "Does God Exist?" (2012)". 
  • "Kari Enqvist at University of Helsinki, "Does God Exist?" (2012)". 
  • "Peter Millican at University of Birmingham, "Is Faith in God Reasonable?" (2011)". 
  • "Peter Atkins at University of Manchester, "Does God Exist?" (2011)". 
  • "Stephen Law at Westminster Central Hall, London, "Does God Exist?" (2011)". 
  • "Sam Harris at University of Notre Dame, "Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural?" (2011)". 
  • "Lawrence Krauss at North Carolina State University, "Is There Evidence For God?" (2011)". 
  • "Yusuf Ismail at Jubilee Community Church, Cape Town, "Identifying Jesus: Is he, man or both man & God?" (2010)". 
  • "Victor Stenger at Oregon State University, "Does God Exist?" (2010)". 
  • "Francisco Ayala at Indiana University, "Is Intelligent Design Viable?" (2009)". 
  • "Eric Dayton at University of Saskatchewan, "Does Evil Disprove God?" (2009)". 
  • "Shabir Ally at McGill University, "Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?" (2009)". 
  • "Ronald DeSousa at York University, Toronto, "Does God Exist?" (2009)". 
  • "Shelly Kagan at Columbia University, "Is God Necessary For Morality?" (2009)". 
  • "Richard Carrier at Northwest Missouri State University, "Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?" (2009)". 
  • "Christopher Hitchens at Biola University, "Does God Exist?" (2009)". 
  • "Christopher DiCarlo at University of Waterloo, "Does God Matter?" (2009)". 
  • "John R. Shook at University of British Columbia, "Does God Exist?" (2008)". 
  • "Bill Cooke at University of Auckland, New Zealand, "Is God a Delusion?" (2008)". 
  • "Louise Antony at University of Massachusetts at Amherst, "Is God Necessary for Morality?" (2008)". 
  • "James Crossley, "Was Jesus Bodily Raised From the Dead?" (2008)". 
  • "Roy Hoover, "Should We Believe That Jesus' Resurrection Was Historical?"(2007)". 
  • "Lewis Wolpert at Westminster, London, "Is God a Delusion?" (2007)". 
  • "Bart Ehrman at College of the Holy Cross, "Is There Evidence For the Historical Jesus?"(2006)". 
  • "Austin Dacey at California State University, "Does God Exist?" (2005)". 
  • "A.C. Grayling at Oxford, "Does God Make Sense In Light of Tsunamis?" (2005)". 
  • "John Shelby Spong at Bethel College, "Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?" (2005)". 
  • "Austin Dacey at Purdue University, "Does God Exist? The Ultimate Debate" (2004)". 
  • "Hector Avalos at Iowa State University, "Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?" (2004)". 
  • "Victor Stenger, "Does God Exist?" (2003)". 
  • "Quentin Smith at Harvard, "Does God Exist?" (2003)". 
  • "Peter Slezak, "Atheism vs Christianity" (2002)". 
  • "Shabir Ally, "Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?" (2002)". 
  • "Shabir Ally, "The Concept of God in Islam and Christianity" (2002)". 
  • "Shabir Ally, "Who is the Real Jesus?" (2002)". 
  • "Shabir Ally, "What Must I Do to be Saved?" (2002)". 
  • "Gerd Ludemann at California Polytechnic State University, "Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?" (2002)". 
  • "Torbjorn Tannsjo, "God and Morality" (2001)". 
  • "Paul Kurtz, "Is Goodness Without God Good Enough?" (2001)". 
  • "Massimo Pigliucci at University of Georgia, "Does God Exist?" (2001)". 
  • "Ron Barrier, "Does God Exist?" (2000)". 
  • "Eddie Tabash, "Secular Humanism vs. Christianity" (1999)". 
  • "Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, "Do Evil and Suffering Disprove God?" (1999)". 
  • "Edwin Curley at University of Michigan, "Does the Christian God Exist?" (1998)". 
  • "Keith Parsons at Prestonwood Baptist Church, "Why I am/am not a Christian" (1998)". 
  • "Robert Price, "Did Jesus of Nazareth Rise From the Dead?" (1998)". 
  • "Antony Flew at University of Wisconsin at Madison, "Does God Exist?" (1998)". 
  • "Peter Atkins at Carter Center, "What is the Evidence For/Against God?" (1998)". 
  • "Jamal Badawi at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, "The Concept of God in Islam and Christianity" (1998)". 
  • "Paul Draper at United States Military Academy at West Point, "Does God Exist?" (1997)". 
  • "Theodore Drange at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, "Does God Exist?" (1997)". 
  • "Gerd Ludemann at Boston College, "Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?" (1997)". 
  • "Douglas Jesseph at Arizona State University, "Does God Exist?" (1997)". 
  • "Douglas Jesseph at North Carolina State University, "Does God Exist?" (1996)". 
  • "Quentin Smith at Southern Methodist University, "Does God Exist?" (1996)". 
  • "Corey Washington at University of Washington, "Does God Exist?" (1995)". 
  • "Greg Cavin, "Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?" (1995)". 
  • "John Dominic Crossan, "Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?" (1995)". 
  • "Michael Tooley at University of Colorado, "Does God Exist?" (1994)". 
  • "Ray Bradley at Simon Frasier University, "Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?" (1994)". 
  • "Robert Deitz at Arizona State University, "Does God Exist?" (1993)". 
  • "Richard Taylor at Union College, "Is the Basis For Morality Natural or Supernatural?" (1993)". 
  • "Frank Zindler at Willow Creek Community Church, "Atheism vs Christianity" (1993)". 
  • "Kai Nielson at University of Western Ontario, "God Morality and Evil" (1991)". 
  • "Kai Nielson at University of Calgary, "Does God Exist?" (1982)". 

Primary sources[edit]

Vast swathes of the article are sourced to his own website "Reasonable Faith" and appear to be original research merely quoting his work? What ever happened to only reporting what the reliable sources say about a subject? Theroadislong (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC suggestion[edit]

Since we don't seem to be getting anywhere with discussion I would suggest that we open a "Request for Comment" ("RfC") process to help clarify things. Afterwriting (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography section[edit]

Shouldn't bibliography section look more like part of article than as a reference section (compare for example with F._Scott_Fitzgerald#Bibliography)? 94.142.238.245 (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Ordering of Lead[edit]

I reorganized parts of the lead, but was reverted. There are several problems with the current order, causing it to violate our policies on due weight, as well as the manual of style.

  1. MOS: The lead is intended to summarize the body. In the body, we have excruciating detail covering Craig's apologetics, but not one single section devoted to analytic philosophy or the philosophy of time outside of theology. Yet, our lead describes him as primarily an analytic philosopher interested in the philosophy of time.
  2. His Works: Craig's own works primarily cover apologetics. See here; the first mentioned are "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics", "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview", "On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision", and so on. All theological works, specifically pertaining to Christian apologetics.
  3. Sources: This article has a problem with using craig's promotional literature to describe and document him, instead of independent sources. The only sources which describe him foremost as an analytic philosopher are sourced to his autobiography. Independent sources describe him primarily as a Christian apologist. The source used to back up the label "analytic philosopher", in fact, never calls him that, and repeatedly refers to him as a theologian. Here are several independent sources: "a prominent Christian academic and apologist", "Chrisian apologist", "Apologist", "noted Christian apologist", "Christian Apologist", "Christian apologist...Many professional philosophers" (outside of theology) "know about him only vaguely", "Christian theologian", "Theologian", "American theologian". These are literally the first results you find when searching for Craig online which give him any label. Not one calls him an "analytic philosopher".
  4. The weight presented to each label in the lead directly contradicts the weight presented in the article. Quoting from the body: "Craig is best known for his resuscitation of a version of the cosmological argument." If that's what he is best known for, then he is best known as a Christian apologist.

The lead needs to be changed to reflect the body and the sources. More than just a restructuring is necessary, but this is where we need to start at a minimum.   — Jess· Δ 18:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

What you are calling "apologetics" is actually philosophy (.e.g., the Cosmological Argument). Apologetics is a generic term that can be used outside of philosophy and theology, hence the order in the article. Also, his degrees are in Philosophy and Theology, not in apologetics. He does do Christian apologetics, certainly, but then so does Richard Dawkins. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I made several very specific points, backed up by a myriad of sources. Could you respond to those, please? It doesn't matter what you, as an editor, call his work, it matters what the sources say. And this discussion has nothing to do with Dawkins.   — Jess· Δ 18:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Also keep in mind these sourced counteropinions:
  • Why I Am Not a Christian (2000), Keith M. Parsons, Atlanta Freethought Society in 2000. [1]
  • Two Ways to Prove Atheism (1996), Quentin Smith, Atheist Alliance convention in Minneapolis, MN on April 6, 1996[2]
  • Review of Reasonable Faith (2007), Chris Hallquist, Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books. 350 pp[3]
  • Reply To Professor Craig (1995), Graham Oppy, Sophia 34, 2, December 1995, pp.15-29[4]
  • Quantum Cosmology's Implication of Atheism (1997), Quentin Smith, Analysis 57.4, October 1997, pp. 295-304[5]
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument: The Question of the Metaphysical Possibility of an Infinite Set of Real Entities (2002)
(Revised 2014), Arnold T. Guminski, Philo (Vol. 5, pp. 196-215)[6]
  • Inverse Operations With Transfinite Numbers And The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1995), Graham Oppy, International Philosophical Quarterly, 35, 2, pp.219-221[7]
  • Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story, A Reply to William Lane Craig, Jeffery Jay Lowder, Journal of Higher Criticism 8:2 (Fall 2001), pp. 251-93[8]
  • God (1997), Jan Narveson, Reason Papers, #22 - Fall 97, pp. 109-118[9]
  • The Anthropic Coincidences, Evil and the Disconfirmation of Theism (1992), Quentin Smith, RELIGIOUS STUDIES in 1992 (Volume 28, pp. 347-350)[10]
To make the article neutral, these should be considered.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Craig is not a scientist.[edit]

Regarding this revert, Craig is not a scientist, and we have no source backing up the claim we are making, in wikipedia's voice no less, that his arguments are supported by science. It is sourced only to a lecture by Craig. This is WP:OR.   — Jess· Δ 18:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The source is in the citation. Please take some time to read it as it can help you from being blocked for edit warring. As for the scientist part, I agree. But Stephen Hawking is. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure you're reading my comments. Source 1 is a lecture given by Craig. Interpreting his talk to support a statement in wikipedia's voice that his arguments are scientifically supported is original research. The second source has 4 mentions of Craig, none on page 17; linking it to Craig's arguments is synthesis. The same goes for taking a talk from Hawking that never mentions Craig or his arguments.   — Jess· Δ 19:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Since you are trying to get me blocked I'll limit my participation on this talk page until that is resolved. In the mean time, user B makes the point I was trying to make, below, except more eloquently. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to get you to participate in discussion instead of repeatedly reverting. You still have yet to respond to the myriad of sources I've listed to support my edits above, which you reverted without comment. Please do that. 19:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
"Scientifically" simply means that he's discussing the science. It does not mean that Craig is a scientist or that his science-related arguments have scientific validity. I can talk with you "philosophically" (the other word in there that was not reverted) - it doesn't mean that I'm a philosopher or that my arguments are worthwhile philosophy. --B (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
By stating "Craig supports his arguments scientifically", we are implying scientific support for his arguments. We can say "Craig believes his arguments are supported by scientific evidence" or "Craig discusses Hawking's work when formulating his arguments" without issue. However, at the moment, the current wording is completely unsourced and not attributed to Craig, and it apparently implies something which was unintended.   — Jess· Δ 19:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
That is a bizarre way of interpreting the text. Does anyone else read it the same way? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
"... the current wording is ... not attributed to Craig ... ." Not a problem - it's not in quotes so it shouldn't be his wording - it should be original wording. " ... the current wording is completely unsourced ..." again, see above. HOWEVER, if you would instead say that it is supported only by primary sources and that Wikipedia articles should be sourced using secondary reliable sources, not the subject's own video, then I would agree with that. --B (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm not saying it should be a quote. I'm saying it should be worded as an opinion attributed to Craig, if at all. It's the difference between "Craig references science" and "The science supports Craig". The former is cited (albeit poorly - only to Craig's lecture), the latter is not sourced, except as Craig's own opinion (not the majority, or even minority view). I think we're on the same page, B. I don't mind saying Craig discusses science, and indeed I included that wording elsewhere in the article, but we shouldn't imply Craig is doing science or that the science supports his views, without independent sources saying just that.   — Jess· Δ 21:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

More reverts without rationale[edit]

And... more reverts without any rationale or discussion. The edit summary was "You can't just delete that much material from the page". Can you point to that policy page, please? Every one of the 26 edits reverted had a detailed edit summary and justification. Nonetheless, unsourced and poorly sourced material has been restored, simplified wording was made nearly incomprehensible, cleanup tags were removed, and so on, and despite all that, seven hours later, still no attempt at discussion on the talk page.   — Jess· Δ 04:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed TMDrew's bad faith edit has restored unreferenced material, removed citation request tags and added back incomprehensible text. There appears to be no hope for a neutral article here with such ownership issues. Theroadislong (talk) 08:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Prominence of theologian, philosopher[edit]

This edit by an ip is attempting to change the order of our lead, suggesting that WLC is more prominently known as a philosopher than a theologian. This is territory we've been over extensively in the past, so I'd like to discuss it again here before changing the article. The IP says that sources support his claim, so I'd like to see them to assess. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ 20:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

He identifies himself as, "William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and Professor of Philosophy at Houston Baptist University." (Emphasis added.) Nothing about "apologist" in there (no Phd's in "apologetics") It seems to me that the vast majority of his work, therefore, is in philosophy, not apologetics, although he occasionally does that too. To label him as an "apologist" first and foremost is really to denigrate him (since any Tom, Dick, or Harry can be an apologist, without any formal training) and misleading to the average reader, which I'm sure is your liking but not fair or accurate in a WP article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He lives in Atlanta, Georgia, with his wife Jan and their two teenage children Charity and John. At the age of sixteen as a junior in high school, he first heard the message of the Christian gospel and yielded his life to Christ. Dr. Craig pursued his undergraduate studies at Wheaton College (B.A. 1971) and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A. 1974; M.A. 1975), the University of Birmingham (England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D.Theol. 1984). From 1980-86 he taught Philosophy of Religion at Trinity, during which time he and Jan started their family. In 1987 they moved to Brussels, Belgium, where Dr. Craig pursued research at the University of Louvain until 1994."

http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/william_craig/

"Research Professor of Philosophy, Talbot School of Theology

D. Theol., Ludwig-Maximilliéns-Universität München, Germany; Ph.D., University of Birmingham, England; M.A., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Dr. Craig is one of the world's leading philosophers of religion and holds the position of research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. He holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the university of Birmingham, England, and a D.Theol. from the University of Munich, Germany. He is the author or editor of numerous cutting-edge works in philosophy, theology, and apologetics, including The Kalam Cosmological Argument, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom, Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology, and God, Time and Eternity, as well as over a hundred articles in professional journals of philosophy and theology. Find him on the web at www.reasonablefaith.org."

http://www.biola.edu/academics/sas/apologetics/faculty/

"Houston Baptist University is pleased to announce that Dr. William Lane Craig will join the faculty as a Professor of Philosophy in the Fall of 2014. Dr. Craig is an internationally known philosopher and theologian. He has authored or edited more than 40 books and over 150 journal articles, including his signature book Reasonable Faith. Recognized for his groundbreaking work in philosophy of time and in philosophy of religion, Dr. Craig is also well known as a teacher and debater. He has successfully debated prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens."

https://www.hbu.edu/About-HBU/General-Information/HBU-in-the-News/Press-Releases/2014/January/Dr-William-Lane-Craig-to-Join-HBU-Faculty.aspx

Jess, can you provide at least three sources that are equally reliable as Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, and Houston Baptist University that support your idea that WLC should be labeled a theologian first and a philosopher second?

2601:901:8000:1169:D99F:313E:3717:FC26 (talk)

Thanks for providing a source. Yes, when Craig speaks of himself, he often refers to himself foremost as a philosopher. However, independent sources most often refer to him as a theologian. Here's what I wrote about this last April, including several sources:
  1. MOS: The lead is intended to summarize the body. In the body, we have excruciating detail covering Craig's apologetics, but not one single section devoted to analytic philosophy or the philosophy of time outside of theology.
  2. His Works: Craig's own works primarily cover apologetics. See here; the first mentioned are "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics", "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview", "On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision", and so on. All theological works, specifically pertaining to Christian apologetics.
  3. Sources: This article has a problem with using craig's promotional literature to describe and document him, instead of independent sources. The only sources which describe him foremost as an analytic philosopher are sourced to his autobiography. Independent sources describe him primarily as a Christian apologist. The source used to back up the label "analytic philosopher", in fact, never calls him that, and repeatedly refers to him as a theologian. Here are several independent sources: "a prominent Christian academic and apologist", "Chrisian apologist", "Apologist", "noted Christian apologist", "Christian Apologist", "Christian apologist...Many professional philosophers" (outside of theology) "know about him only vaguely", "Christian theologian", "Theologian", "American theologian". These are literally the first results you find when searching for Craig online which give him any label. Not one calls him an "analytic philosopher".
  4. Weight: The weight presented to each label in the lead should reflect the the weight presented in the article. Quoting from the body: "Craig is best known for his resuscitation of a version of the cosmological argument." If that's what he is best known for, then he is best known as a Christian apologist.
I'm glad we're talking about this now. Per BRD, I'm going to revert back to the state the article has been in for some time, and we can figure out the details here and make whatever change is best. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ 20:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
It appears you edited your post after I responded to it to add a few more sources. Biola and Talbot are both very likely to have been written by Craig (that's how those blurbs usually work), but even still, Biola lists him prominently under "Apologetics Faculty", and first lists "philosopher of religion" in his blurb. Again, it is our job foremost to reflect independent sources, not press releases closely tied to the subject.   — Jess· Δ 21:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, when Craig speaks of himself, he often refers to himself foremost as a philosopher.

Which is important, unless you presume Craig is a liar, or that his perspective is distorted in some way.

However, independent sources most often refer to him as a theologian.

That's indeed your claim.

For the sake of discussion, let's say that is true. Does that mean he is in fact a theologian first and foremost? And isn't the primary job of an encyclopedia to disseminate facts and not mere popular opinion? Wikipedia is not a tabloid. If I could find 10 independent sources that claimed Craig is a duck, then would that mean we should refer to him as a duck in his Wikipedia article? Let's use some common sense here.

I'd take the WLC profiles written by Biola.edu, HBU.edu, and Talbot.edu over sources like “Sabrina Dougall" from redbrick.me. You say that the profiles from Biola and Talbot were most likely written by Craig. Prove it. What do you mean "that's how it usually works"? That's pure speculation on your part. Even if we were to grant you "that's how it usually works," that doesn't necessarily mean that's what happened here. And what about HBU.edu? Is that a puff piece too? Those profiles appear to be written by Biola.edu and Talbot.edu, not Craig, so the burden of proof is on your shoulders here. In regard to the redbrick.me article, it didn't even call Craig a theologian, nor did it state that he teaches theology. It did, however, talk about how he teaches philosophy, and although the article did mention him as a "prominent Christian academic and apologist," please note the order and the question it raises: an academic in what? Richard Dawkins is a prominent atheist academic, but he is a biologist. Is he not? And should we speculate on who exactly wrote that article? Maybe we should speculate that Richard Dawkins was over her shoulder whispering into her ear.

His Works: Craig's own works primarily cover apologetics. See here; the first mentioned are "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics", "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview", "On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision", and so on. All theological works, specifically pertaining to Christian apologetics.

Your link is a Google Book search of “William Lane Craig” and your claim is that because the books at the top of the list are Christian apologetics (so you believe), then therefore most of Craig's works are Christian apologetics. Well, obviously, that doesn't hold water. All you've shown is that his most popular books (according to Google) are Christian apologetic in nature--not that his body of work as a whole is mainly Christian apologetics. Using your logic, Richard Dawkins body of work is mainly atheistic because his most popular book (according to Google) is the God Delusion. Secondly, I'm going to need you to define for me what you believe Christian apologetics, theology, philosophy, and natural theology mean, because I get the impression that you may not know what they mean (no offense).You seem to think that if somebody presents arguments in favor of a god's existence or in particular, the Christian God, then that automatically means it is theology regardless of whether or not it comes from a philosophical context. If a group of renowned scientists came forward with a piece of unequivocal evidence in favor of the existence of God, would you call that science or theology? You do realize natural theology is a branch of philosophy, correct? Before that's resolved, it makes little sense to evaluate books like “Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview” as philosophy, theology, christian apologetics, etc. 2601:901:8000:1169:D99F:313E:3717:FC26 (talk)

Biola lists him prominently under "Apologetics Faculty", and first lists "philosopher of religion" in his blurb

That doesn't surprise me since Craig is, after all, a Christian apologist, among other things. The question is should he be labeled an apologist first, a theologian second, and then a philosopher last. Additionally, Biola.edu, HMU.edu, and Talbot.edu, are all credible sources. That being said, let's say what they've written is untrue like you've claimed. Do you think these three fine institutions would publish lies or half-truths? If Craig asked them to write about how he once went to wizard school and how he has the power to cast fireballs, would they publish that too? Or would they check the facts? 2601:901:8000:1169:D99F:313E:3717:FC26 (talk)

"Leading philosopher Professor William Lane Craig is to give this year’s Edward Cadbury Lectures at the University of Birmingham." http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2015/02/2015-cadbury-lectures-24-02-15.aspx

Peter Millican, an atheist philosopher whom Craig once debated even labels Craig a philosopher first on his website.

"In 2011, William Lane Craig, the prominent American philosopher of religion and Christian evangelist, toured a number of British universities debating with atheists and sceptics. Richard Dawkins' refusal to engage with Craig at an event in the Sheldonian Theatre that I was invited to chair caused quite a stir, provoking a suggestion of cowardice from an Oxford colleague in The Guardian, and various jokes from Christian sources including a campaign of advertisements on Oxford buses, a couple of Hitler Downfall parodies, and some cartoons, one of which had me in the firing line." http://www.millican.org/other.htm

"William Lane Craig is a Professor of Philosophy at the Talbot School of Theology at Biola University. He is an evangelical Christian, having committed his life to Christ while an undergraduate at Wheaton College...Craig is best known for his extensive work on the kalam cosmological argument, and has also published material on the philosophy of time and on divine foreknowledge. His publications also include some more accessible works on Christian apologetics. A selection of his essays is available on-line at his Virtual Office." http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/whos-who/modern-authors/william-lane-craig/#more-119

"William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He holds a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Birmingham and a doctorate in theology from the University of Munich." http://www.thebestschools.org/blog/2012/02/01/william-lane-craig-interview/ 2601:901:8000:1169:D99F:313E:3717:FC26 (talk)

4.Weight: The weight presented to each label in the lead should reflect the the weight presented in the article. Quoting from the body: "Craig is best known for his resuscitation of a version of the cosmological argument." If that's what he is best known for, then he is best known as a Christian apologist.

The cosmological argument isn't limited to Christian apologetics. Theoretically, an atheist, agnostic, or somebody who believes in purely a generic kind of god could defend or publish work on the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument doesn't even call for the Christian God. Using your own logic, should we then say that because Alvin Plantinga is well known or even best known for his work on the problem of evil, then therefore he should be described as being best known as a Christian apologist in his Wikipedia bio? 2601:901:8000:1169:2C99:4A9E:793B:9469 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Why are we nearly unanimously saying that he should be called a philosopher, theologian, and Christian apologist (in whatever order)? After all, isn't apologetics a subset of theology? Why not just call him a philosopher and theologian (in whatever order), and then say that he is more specifically a Christian apologist, metaphysician, philosophical theologian, or whatever? Would that make sense, or am I missing something? By the way, it seems like there is a box around see words. Can somebody help remove that please? I'm kind of new, so... Thunder4231Rush (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Here are some other sources that label William Lane Craig a philosopher first before calling him an apologist, theologian, etc.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-philosopher-william-lane-craig-calls-atheist-hotline-a-wrong-number-98182/

http://www.closertotruth.com/contributor/william-craig/profile

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392

http://michaelgleghorn.com/artReasonableFaith.php

http://infidels.org/kiosk/article/craig-kalam-and-quantum-mechanics-has-craig-defeated-the-quantum-mechanics-objection-to-the-causal-principle-870.html

http://www.christianpost.com/news/leading-apologist-william-lane-craig-to-join-houston-baptist-us-school-of-christian-thought-faculty-114001/ 2601:901:8000:1169:2C99:4A9E:793B:9469 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)