Talk:William Lane Craig/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Edit request from LikeLakers2, 27 September 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

‹ The template below (Edit fully-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Null edit to purge page and remove from Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates, please. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

On what basis are you purging this page? If you do, it'll be put back. Best discuss matters before making rash decisions eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperEntity (talk • contribs) 19:49, 27 September 2011

If you read the edit request, you'd know. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, the request is likely to be done by an admin anyway. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Null edit made by Causa sui. Huon (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Latest comment: 12 years ago36 comments6 people in discussion

Please note this revert, along with the series of prior reverts by SPAs. @Maiorem, what consensus? I don't see anywhere this was discussed further, since prior consensus was to remove the material. — Jess· Δ ♥ 19:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There was no such prior consensus to remove the materials as the relevant sources were not even discussed here. I even brought the matter up to WP:BLPN but even then you have failed to answer to my query concerning the reason as to why those sources were not accepted, and now it is automatically cleaned up so if there is need, you will have to go to the archives to refer to the previous discussion where your silence concerning the issue is noted. Furthermore, three different users (go check the IP addresses if you wish) have agreed, based on the recent reverts, that the removed material has no basis for their removal. Do not talk about prior consensus where there was none. Maiorem (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say Reasonable Faith and Closer to Truth are not reliable sources because the former is self-published and the latter is entertainment, not a scholarly source. Apparently Hipocrite agreed at the BLP noticeboard. The current long version of the article is full of primary sources. I agree with Jess and Hipocrite: It's better to have a short, well-sourced article than a long, poorly-sourced one. Huon (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Reasonable Faith website, then you are correct in saying that it is "self-published", but it is still an acceptable source for WP:BLP under WP:SELFPUB as I have stated before here as well as the WP:BLPN. In addition to that, Closer to Truth is not entertainment. An agreement from a dyslexic user who has zero administrative power and one who embellishes his own page with random nonsense from January to October of 2010 (all his own doing, removing content, inserting content, arguing with himself, etc.) and who has not addressed my statements on the board means absolutely nothing. Maiorem (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS states: Self-published or questionable sources may be used [...] so long as [...] the article is not based primarily on such sources. If half the article is exclusively based on self-published sources and the other half still features them prominently, with very few truly reliable secondary sources to compensate, that is not acceptable. You have stated your opposition, but it seems you are alone while everybody else who commented agrees on this. And I'd strongly advise you to redact your comments about Hipocrite. You asked for additional opinions at WP:BLPN, you got one, and since you don't like it you now try to discredit it by attacking the user. Not cool. Huon (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Maiorem, please note WP:PA. That type of comment is unacceptable. Consensus was settled on this, and you were told as much when you escalated the problem to BLPN. It's time to drop the stick and move on. Please find reliable, secondary sources, and we can use them to expand the article. — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

However, according to your reversion, the following sources are ignored without basis: The Evangelical Philosophical Society; The Cambridge Companion to Atheism; The Kalam Cosmological Argument; Closer to Truth; The Tensed Theory of Time: A Critical Examination; The Tenseless Theory of Time: A Critical Examination; Naturalism: A Critical Analysis; God, Time and Eternity; Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom: The Coherence of Theism: Omniscience; Contending with Christianity's Critics: Answering New Atheists & Other Objectors; Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus; Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse in Dialogue; and more. Are all these self-published sources? No. Hipocrite's opinions cannot and should not be accepted because he has demonstrated lack of understanding concerning the issue, in addition to the problems which can be observed in his contribution. The user is thus unfit to comment or edit. This is a fair assessment of the individual's ability and not merely an ad hominem which disregards the user's capability in any other field, if any. Both you and Mann_jess need to educate yourselves on what is considered to be a personal attack. Mann_jess, I should not need to remind you about what constitutes a reliable source. Don't just sit there and simply waive all of these off as self-published sources; you need to provide sound reasoning, which is not seen from either of you concerning the removal of such sources. Yes, Huon, you still have not answered concerning Closer to Truth, which you have somehow unreasonably regarded as "entertainment". Maiorem (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is well sourced. The characterisation of Closer to the Truth as 'entertainment' and therefore 'not reliable', is joke which merits no serious discussion. The only problem is the 'organizational affiliation' section. I would prefer to have sources from each of those organizations but this seems to be extemely difficult and some do not appear to have websites. However, in general, the article does not rely exclusively on a single source. Secondly, are you seriously saying that a man's CV and his university page are not acceptable sources on Wiki? Where is your evidence for this?HyperEntity

Somebody removed the 'organizational affiliation' sections. Good work. We can add it later when it is better sourced.

Maiorem, please provide (1) reliable secondary source, and the content you wish to include using that source, and we'll discuss it. Your continued disparaging remarks regarding Hipocrite are uncalled for. Please stop. — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

All of the materials that you wish to remove. Why no discussion before removal? And here you are talking about "consensus"? I see zero mention concerning the above sources I have listed. In what way are they not reliable? And please refer back to what is considered to be a personal attack. I do not need to repeat myself. Maiorem (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Now, for example, out of the ten books cited as references, only five of those are authored by William Lane Craig, while two of them were co-authored with Paul Copan and JP Moreland. Thus their inclusion fits the criteria that "the article is not based primarily on [self-published] sources." Maiorem (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you guys are talking about this, but talking while continuing to revert war does not exempt you from the edit warring policy. Protection has been tried as a "warning shot" if revert warring continues the next step is to start blocking the edit warriors and/or place longer and longer protections on the article without regard to the state it is in at the time protection is applied. Note that having consensus on your side is not a valid reason to edit war. The only exemption to the policy is reverting blatant vandalism, which is obviously not what has been happening here. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Maiorem (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate all these recent edits... at least we have more content to talk about. I'm concerned that the article is too sycophantic. There's no reason to spend this much time on the Kalam Cosmological Argument, for example. And, I seriously question the entire inclusion of "professional organization." 108.54.52.228 (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that last comment was me.... could I ask for some clarification over why it's okay for us to source Reasonable Faith? It seems to me that Craig's own website might contain something that we may want to use... but, it also seems obvious to me that Craig's self-interest will bias many of the statements on the website, too. So, it cane be used unto itself... we need to be careful with it, actually... and look at the recent edits, it seems to be being used entirely too much. Theowarner (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Because there is no evidence of self-serving bias. Is 6 references to the website too much for you? Maiorem (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Maiorem above gave a lengthy list of supposedly reliable sources. Let me break down this list:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument, The Tensed Theory of Time: A Critical Examination, The Tenseless Theory of Time: A Critical Examination, God, Time and Eternity; Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom: The Coherence of Theism: Omniscience and Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus are all authored by Craig. While they probably are not self-published, they are still not secondary sources.
Naturalism: A Critical Analysis and Contending with Christianity's Critics: Answering New Atheists & Other Objectors are co-authored by Craig. Still primary sources.
The Closer to Truth link is not to anything that was on the program itself, making the question whether it's educational or entertainment moot (and I may have been wrong there, although I still doubt the show is a reliable source). Instead, it's the biographical sketch of a "participant". That is not a source independent of the subject, and I doubt there's editorial oversight for participant biographies.
The Cambridge Companion to Atheism looks reliable to me, and while my revert removed that source, it left the sourced statement, namely that Craig is particularly notable for the Kalam argument, more or less intact with a different source. I wouldn't mind expanding the short version of the article a little and incorporating this source.
The Evangelical Philosophical Society was claimed as a source, but I could find no reference to it.
While I'm at it, yes, I am saying that a man's CV at his own university or at any organization with which he is affiliated is not a secondary source and thus should be avoided. My source here is WP:RS, which says: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Faculty pages and self-published CVs are not third-party sources and do not have a reputation for fact-checking.

In summary, there was just one secondary source, and the basic gist of what it was used for is present in both versions. If no secondary source can be found for any given claim, that claim is probably not relevant enough to be included in the article. Craig is already on the border of notability because there is very little significant coverage in secondary sources; emphasizing primary sources raises problems of undue weight. The same holds for the Reasonable Faith website. Using it for some biographical details, such as Craig's birthdate, is acceptable - but using it more often than all secondary sources combined is highly problematic.

In regard to personal attacks: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views." Using Hipocrite's dyslexia and his user page edits as an ad hominem means of dismissing his opinion on the reliability of sources (and now even his fitness to edit and comment!) seems to fit the bill. Huon (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used for non-interpretive citation of information. WP:PRIMARY states clearly in its policy that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base articles and material entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy."
Ditto
Personal doubts do not constitute valid reasons.
Fine.
The Evangelical Philosophical Society is the very first reference.
Faculty pages, I would argue, do have a reputation for fact-checking. The allegations that the CV on a particular website is self-published needs to be proven, otherwise it is commonly accepted as published by the university or organisation.

In summary, your discontent towards using primary sources is moot.

Hipocrite's dyslexia is not an affiliation, but an affliction. Please learn to differentiate between the two before making further accusations against me. Indeed, do you even know what is dyslexia and how it affects a person's ability to read? It is also fully justifiable that a person's fitness to edit and comment be judged by his own writing or contributions. Does this bother you? In short, if I want to dismiss or discredit someone's view by using his affiliation, I would point out that X is a Y, therefore his views regarding Z should be dismissed. Obviously, that is not what I did. Maiorem (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Evangelical Philosophical Society reference is currently misattributed to "Faith, Reasonable" (which by the way seems to be a mistake in the use of the first= and last= parameters of the cite template); that's why I missed it. It's another "author profile" which is not independent of Craig. And while you are correct about the importance of my personal doubts regarding the Closer to Truth show, the point is moot because we do not actually cite the show. Huon (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

How do you determine if an author profile is or isn't independent of Craig? We're not dealing with the Closer to Truth show; we're dealing with its website and how it handles information. Same difference. Maiorem (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

An author profile is written either by the author himself or by his publisher, neither of which is independent of the author and neither of which is likely to be subject to editorial oversight for such purposes. When Closer to Truth writes about its own authors, it is not a "third party". If you want to, we can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard for confirmation. Huon (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The author's publisher is independent of the author, and your claim that "neither of which is likely to be subject to editorial oversight for such purposes" is unfounded. In addition, regardless if it is independent of the author or even subject to editorial oversight, they remain as viable sources according to WP:BLPSOURCES so long as it is accepted that Closer to Truth is a reliable source. Furthermore, the Wikipedia policy against using primary sources is mainly to avoid original research, as apart from that, there is no other issue with using primary sources. Maiorem (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Since we currently seem unlikely to agree, I have asked for community input at the reliable sources noticeboard. Huon (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

’'the point is moot because we do not actually cite the show’’

And yet you have a page dedicated to the show: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closer_To_Truth

I have yet to see any evidence that Craig is the author of his profile at Closer to the Truth. CTTT is a TV show which hosts discussions on scvience and phiosopphy. To claim that it is unreliable (based on merely on suspicion) and simply because Craig was a guest there is akin to claiming that a Time magazine article summarising Sam Harris’s work on neuroscience could not be reliable source on the grounds that they interviewed Harris before. If you are concerned that the views expressed in the article do not match Craig’s actual views you can verify them by reading his (cited) books and watching his videos on CTTT. If you are uncomfortable with how often CTTT is cited, please note that virtually every paragraphy is backed up with a reference to Craig’s books.

I’m glad you sent this to the noticeboard but I’m not sure what difference it’ll make. The sections citing CTTT do not rely primarily on it. They employ Craig’s books and so do not violate Wiki guidelines. Even if you remove CTTT, we can still back every statement there with a reference to Craig’s books.User:HyperEntity|HyperEntity]] (talk)

As I keep repeating, articles should be based on "reliable, third-party" sources per WP:RS. Closer to Truth (it's actually not Closer to the Truth; I too got that wrong before Maiorem pointed out my error) is closer to being a third-party source than Craig's books, but it still falls short. (By now three editors at the noticeboard agreed that the CtT profile should be considered unreliable or at best a primary source.) I'm not necessarily uncomfortable with how often we use CtT, I'm uncomfortable that there's nothing better for us to use. Huon (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As I also keep repeating, primary sources are also allowed per WP:RS, the only restriction being no original research. Please explain how Closer to Truth "falls short" of bring a third-party source, apart from your unfounded allegation that it is not independent of the author. Indeed, three editors have voiced similar sentiments, but when pressed to explain, for example, in what way is it lacking as a reliable source (I am thus far even willing to concede that it is a primary source!), they keep silent over the matter. The last such editor even claims that citations of the subject's own books are "OR/synthesis from primary sources", but even the allegation is baseless. As such, there is no reason given to take their position. Maiorem (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Just noting that some editors might be "keeping silent" due to WP:SHUN, considering the overwhelming amount of WP:IDHT behavior here. It's been explained why these sources are either unacceptable or incomplete, and why basing the article on primary sources isn't allowed, yet we have two editors who keep coming back to flatly assert they're acceptable. Maiorem, if you're interested in getting a broader opinion on these sources from the community, I'd recommend taking the issue to WP:RSN. You may reject the opinions of editors here, and at WP:BLPN if you wish, but doing so while continuing to argue in this way isn't productive. — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It has not been explained why these sources are unacceptable. (Incomplete? Seriously?) As have already been explained, the article is not based entirely on primary sources, thus the use of primary sources in this regard is allowed. Their acceptability is noted by WP:PRIMARY. In case you have not noticed, the issue has already been taken to WP:RSN almost 24 hours ago. Maiorem (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Terrific! I hope you will heed the opinions you've been receiving on RSN, which as of yet appear to compliment the advice you've received on this talk page and BLPN. I'll reiterate that the best way to proceed right now would be to find new reliable secondary sources about Craig. All the best, — Jess· Δ ♥ 04:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And you just totally ignored what I have said about WP:PRIMARY. Good job. Maiorem (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did, because it's already been explained repeatedly. I'm not interested in explaining it again. Please accept that you've received input from editors here, editors on BLPN, and now editors on RSN that the sources are not acceptable for the content to which they apply, and arguing against that consensus is unlikely to do any good. You may disagree with the consensus, but demanding it be explained over and over is tendentious. Please drop the stick, and move on. If you have reliable secondary sources discussing Craig, I'd be more than happy to discuss those. All the best, — Jess· Δ ♥ 06:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What explanation? There is zero explanation coming from you concerning your ignorance of WP:PRIMARY. I asked for one good reason for going against WP:PRIMARY, but so far no one has given any. The only editor other than you and I that contributed to the BLPN discussion is Hipocrite, which, as I have established, cannot qualify, so don't treat one editor's invalidated agreement as "consensus", as you are oft to do. Of the three editors on RSN which are of the opinion that Closer to Truth is not a reliable source, one also opines that the subject's blog is a reliable source for info about himself, which goes against your arguments for not using primary sources. That is why I sought clarification on why they do not treat Closer to Truth as a reliable source, since 1) they have no evidence that Closer to Truth is not independent of the author and 2) it does not go against WP:BLP or WP:RS (specifically, WP:PRIMARY) standards. Thus, no matter the "consensus", if such "consensus" does not comply with the above standards, it should be ignored. So far, Jess, your only defense for this issue is "consensus" but you never addressed the WP standards in context. Also, for your information, WP:STICK is not WP:POLICY, and you of all people should go take a look at WP:TE yourself and not be so hypocritical about it.

Thus, here are the basic questions answered: Do we already have secondary sources discussing William Lane Craig? YES. Can we use primary sources in light of the fact that there are secondary sources which means we're not basing the article primarily on primary sources? YES. Is Closer to Truth a primary or secondary source? IRRELEVANT. Are articles to be solely based on secondary sources? NO. Good luck going against policy!

While you're at it, go and take a look at what consensus ISN'T.Maiorem (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me repeat: Articles "should be based on reliable, third party" sources per WP:RS (first sentence of WP:RS#Overview). While this article currently has two such sources, it is clearly based on primary sources, which is not acceptable. On primary sources, WP:RS states: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. [...] Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." We have entire sections based purely on primary sources. And:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves [...] so long as:
the material is not unduly self-serving; [...]

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This is what Wikipedia policy says about primary and self-published sources. Your claim that as long as we have some secondary sources somewhere we are free to use as many primary sources as we want is rather absurd, to be honest.

How about a request for comment? If the editors who disagreed with you somehow all simultaneously misinterpreted Wikipedia policy, surely wider community input would be of assistance? Huon (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In which case you need to brush up your understanding of what a third-party source is. The only sources that are not third-party sources currently in the article are the Reasonable Faith web articles. Closer to Truth is not a primary source, and we have not made any "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources". No, we do not have entire sections based purely on primary sources. Apart from the Reasonable Faith website, none of the others are self-published sources. Your view of what is or is not absurd is not a valid ground for objection. I'd much prefer one argument like the above which actually touches on WP:POLICY than ten editors simply saying that such a source is not valid without offering any explanation. Maiorem (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Your own interpretation of policy is erroneous. WP:RSN has agreed that the Closer to Truth profile is not reliable, not independent of Craig or both. Claiming that books written by Craig are not primary sources on Craig is so obviously wrong that I'm at a loss for words. I'll initiate a request for comment so we may enjoy some additional community input. Huon (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, your own interpretation of policy is erroneous. See how unhelpful that is? Your assertion of my erroneous interpretation is invalid unless you can somehow explain it. Bear in mind it is some of the editors who wrote on WP:RSN, not WP:RSN itself, that is of the opinion that the Closer to Truth profile is not reliable, but those opinions are not compliant with WP:POLICY as there is zero justification from WP:POLICY for their personal views, which is why I pressed them to clarify further, failing which, it would mean that their opinions are not backed by any existing WP:POLICY and thus cannot be accepted. I never claimed that books written by Craig are not primary sources. With this, I doubt that you are even clear on what third-party sources are, which is why I provided that link in my previous response here. A primary source can also be a third-party source. If that statement sounds wrong to you, then it means you have not clearly understood what a third-party source means. So unless Craig is the publisher of his own books, or if Craig paid for his books to be published, then those books are not self-published (how hard is it for anybody to understand this?) and therefore they are not subject to restrictions on self-published materials. Maiorem (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And here's an update from another section of RSN, with the consensus there being that an individual's resumes and CVs are reliable sources. Maiorem (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly, no. The consensus was that an individual's resume is a primary source, that it can sometimes be embellished and so should be used with caution, but can be used for claims about the subject's education and job history, date of birth, etc. That's not what we're talking about here. Craig's date of birth and education history is still sourced to his CV - no one has contested that. We've contested sourcing large swaths of other content to primary sources such as his CV. That discussion on RSN didn't address that, but the other discussion concerning this article did, and consensus was that it was inappropriate. — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

As I already pointed out, every paragraph there can be backed up with a reference to Craig’s books. Even if we remove CTT we still have Craig’s books to rely on. I trust his books will be considered reliable sources.HyperEntity (talk)

Philosophy of time - draft

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Based on the Stanford Encyclopedia article HyperEntity found, I suggest changing the section on philosophy of time into the following:

Craig says that, since nothing existing outside time can interact with the world, God, a causal agent, must be in time. At the moment of creation, God becomes temporal. This makes creation an A-series temporal event for God. According to Paul Helm, Craig's reasoning seems confused because a timeless God (as Craig sees God before the creation of the world) cannot become temporal at a certain point in time.^[1]

This seems to give the gist of what the Stanford Encyclopedia has to say about Craig's contribution to the philosophy of time and eternity (their "Time" article does not mention Craig). Thoughts? Maybe we should choose a better link target for "creation"? Huon (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps there is no need for the link for "creation". Anyhow, the points made in your draft differ with the contents of the article. The article claims "Craig argues against the idea of divine timelessness on the grounds that, since the creation is contingent, God must have relations with his creation that he would not have had had there been no creation." What you cited as Craig's confused reasoning is actually Craig's argument against a timeless God, "Once time begins at the moment of creation, God either becomes temporal in virtue of his real, causal relation to time and the world or else he exists as timelessly with creation as he does sans creation. But this second alternative seems quite impossible." There is no "before" prior to the beginning of time, hence there cannot be a view of God being "before the creation of the world". If you want to include Helm's (not Helms) criticism of William Lane Craig's argument, I would suggest to include Craig's own defense as a counterbalance of WP:NPOV Maiorem (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I also see no need to link to creation (but if we do we should choose a better link).

Anyway, I've revised Huon's draft so that it reads like this: In terms of God's relationship to time, Craig argues that God must exist in time if He is to be regarded as a causal agent. He rejects the view that God could exist timelessly with creation sans creation on the grounds that nothing outside time could have temporal interactions with the world. Critics such as Paul Helm maintain that Craig’s argument against divine timelessness is itself incoherent as a timeless God (as Craig sees God before the creation of the world) cannot become temporal at a certain point in time..^[2]

For his part, Craig replies that (insert Craig’s reply).

While we’re in the business of reducing the use of primary citations I suggest we link to this book instead: Eternal God: A Study of God Without Time By Paul Helm (Craig’s response to critics is discussed on p. 220). You can find it in Google books.--HyperEntity (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

^ Helm, Paul (2010). Edward N. Zalta (ed.). "Eternity". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2011-10-01.
^ Helm, Paul (2010). Edward N. Zalta (ed.). "Eternity". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2011-10-01.

I have expanded the draft and put it at User:Huon/Test; feel free to edit it there (that should save us from having to copy ever more versions of it on this talk page). I have expanded the "time" section to include both Craig's stance on the A- and B-series and his reply to his critics as suggested by HyperEntity, and I have changed our coverage of Craig's variant of Hilbert's hotel by removing a "non-" (it didn't make much sense before, but I'm not sure I've removed the correct "non"; thus I tagged the statement with {{fact}}). The Kalam section needs more work; we have secondary sources, but we currently do not use them. Huon (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I've made a few edits to it. What do you think?--HyperEntity (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Primary sources

Latest comment: 12 years ago31 comments8 people in discussion

Does the article currently rely too much on primary sources? Should sections which are based only on primary sources be shortened or removed? Huon (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, (October 12, 2011) Dependence on primary sources is heavy. Yet, Craig seems to be becoming more notable even as we discuss his notability. In such cases, we should seek to find secondary sources which help. Wikipedia readers will be served if we can help them know more about the intensive dialogue taking place because of this new group of Christian apologists. We will always need more evidence that shows a person to be notable. If all we have are sources with Craig listed as one of the authors, then we need to keep searching. Craig associates with other well-known Christian apologists. Their notability seems to help establish his notability. Other questions: How many people have attended a meeting where Craig has been on a debate? How many notable opponents has he debated? How many notable Christian apologists have shared the stage with Craig? If he is favorably reviewed in a non-aligned Christian journal, is that a reliable secondary source. I am thinking of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS). He has been both published and reviewed by JETS. In Evangelical circles, this seems to establish a certain notability. (responding to a random rfc.)DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Maiorem and I disagree on how to apply WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY to this article. In my opinion, the article currently has just two reliable third-party sources, namely The Cambridge Companion to Atheism and a Fox News article. The other sources all fall in one of the following categories:

Craig's website Reasonable Faith: Primary source.
Books authored by Craig: Primary sources.
The apologetics315 blog: No indication of fact-checking or of editorial oversight; not a reliable source.
YouTube: User-submitted content, not a reliable source.
A selection of Craig biographies by organizations with which Craig is affiliated, by his employers such as Biola University or the TV show Closer to Truth, or by organizations of which he is a fellow such as the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the Discovery Institute or ISCID. Since these organizations write about one of their fellows or employees, they are not independent of Craig and are not third-party sources. Also, such author profiles are not known for fact-checking and are probably not subject to editorial oversight. The reliable sources noticeboard agreed with my stance on such sources.

Thus, major parts of the article are currently based on primary sources. While Maiorem contends that we need to avoid only original research, WP:PRIMARY actually says that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. [...] [P]rimary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." Having entire sections based on nothing but primary sources is thus in conflict with WP:PRIMARY; we should shorten the articles and either condense such sections or remove them entirely. Huon (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I need to remind everyone that the reliability of YouTube videos is dependent on the user and cannot be generalized. In addition, of the two YouTube videos referenced in the article, one simply shows William Lane Craig making the statement that he does not fully endorse Intelligent Design, while the other is to simply show that he has debated Daniel Dennett. YouTube videos cannot be denied as a reliable source simply on the basis that they are user-submitted content.

Saying that the Apologetics 315 blog has "No indication of fact-checking or of editorial oversight" is not a valid argument unless proof of such allegation is given.

This is the third time I'm telling you to go and read and understand what a third-party source is. Biographies by employers or by organizations are independent of Craig and are third-party sources. Allegations that "such author profiles are not known for fact-checking and are probably not subject to editorial oversight" are unfounded. Of the contributors to the reliable sources noticeboard, only one of the editors, Nuujinn, states his opinion that the publisher is not independent of the author; a second editor, Brmull, simply states that the Closer to Truth author profile "wouldn't be a RS for BLP", while going on to say that "ordinarily the subject's blog would be a RS for info about himself", in which case the subject's blog is even more personal than the Closer to Truth author profile, though he has mistakenly referred to the Reasonable Faith website as a blog; meanwhile, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz treats Closer to Truth as "self-sourcing" and states that "the profile is far from an ideal source for the material it is cited for" yet at the same time he says that "it is better than similar citations to the subject's own books" so he does not claim that Closer to Truth is not a reliable source. Thus, Huon, you should not misrepresent the reliable sources noticeboard by making the egregious claim that they "agreed with [your] stance on such sources". And I almost forgot that one more editor, Andrew Lancaster, states the following:

To me it seems possible to sometimes use such author notes, but it is not ideal. I think that it makes sense to treat it like information on an author's webpage (indeed author's webpages are often based on the same types of texts that appear on their books) and indeed the main thing to be careful of then is to avoid anything un-duly self-serving or promotional. It seems better than nothing.

So, there you have it. Maiorem (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, remove primary source material - Yes, this article relies too much on sources that are authored by the subject of the article. The WP policies indicate that primary sources (by the subject) are discouraged ... see WP:Primary sources and WP:Secondary sources. Although primary sources are not outright prohibited, they should be used sparingly, usually as a supplement to secondary sources (e.g. a quote from an autobiography to illustrate a point made by a historian). The fact that this article is ~~90%~~ heavily based on primary sources is plain fishy. It smacks of WP:SELFPROMOTE, WP:Conflict of interest, and WP:SPAM. Look at it this way: If there are more secondary sources available, remove the primary-source material, and use the 2ndary. If there are not more secondary sources, that means the material has not been commented upon by others, thus it is not encyclopedic material, and should be removed. --Noleander (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not true that the article is 90% based on primary sources. Out of the 32 references cited, only 13 of them are considered primary sources: 6 references from the Reasonable Faith website, 5 references from books that are authored by William Lane Craig, 2 references from books co-authored by William Lane Craig; that's only 40.625%, if you want to be precise. Even then, 3 of the references from the Reasonable Faith website are redundant for their purpose, i.e. to list the debates that William Lane Craig had been involved in, so once we remove those three redundant references we are left with 10 references from primary sources out of a total of 29 references, which makes it less than 34.5%. Mathematics, ladies and gentlemen. Also, by your reasoning in your last two sentences, primary sources would never be used at all, which is not WP:PRIMARY. Maiorem (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your latest edit, Noleander, what makes the article "heavily" based on primary sources when the primary sources only constitute about 40% of the total number of references? In case you do not know, 40% is less than half. Also, regarding your citation of WP:PRIMARY, it says in the policy section "Do not base articles and material entirely on primary sources." Even if the article is "heavily" based on primary sources it is not policy to remove primary sources. Directing us to WP:Primary sources and WP:Secondary sources suggests that you have not understood them yourself, because they both redirect to the same policy. Meanwhile, primary sources are not necessarily required to act as a "supplement" to secondary sources; nowhere in the letter or the spirit of WP:PRIMARY indicates this. In addition, we have already arrived at a consensus about the notability of William Lane Craig, so citing WP:SELFPROMOTE at this point is rather counter-productive. Citing WP:CONFLICT is also too vague and unhelpful. Accusing this article of WP:SPAM is unfounded. Maiorem (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

WP is a tertiary source, thus good WP articles summarize secondary sources, not primary sources. Relying on autobiographical information is unprofessional and unencyclopedic. When an editor picks-and-chooses material from primary sources, they are synthesizing (see WP:SYNTH) and the product of their editing is, invariably WP:Original research. See also Cherry picking, which is what happens when primary sources are used. This article appears to be self-serving per WP:SELFPROMOTE. The fact that you are spending lots of time typing-in detailed replies on the Talk page, when you could be researching 2ndary sources on this topic, and improving the article, is telling. --Noleander (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Kindly refer back to WP:PRIMARY, under the Policy of Tertiary sources:

Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other.

You are in no position to speak of what a "good" WP article should or should not contain if you are not following WP:POLICY. Unless WP:POLICY or WP:PRIMARY or WP:BLPPRIMARY states it, your opinion that "Relying on autobiographical information is unprofessional and unencyclopedic" is good for nothing and does not refer to anything under WP:POLICY.

I suggest you go and read up on WP:SYNTH yourself to know what is and isn't synthesizing. Based on WP:SYNTH, synthesis is combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Do not introduce your own definition of synthesis which is not supported by WP:SYNTH and then cite it; you are ironically undermining your own exhortation and in fact what you are doing is synthesis of WP:SYNTH. Understand what original research means, which, as defined by WP:OR:

The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.

Again, ironically, you are guilty of cherry picking yourself when you attempt to hand-pick "facts" to drown other information, giving a false impression that your particular bias is well-supported. Cherry picking can happen with any source, not just primary sources, and the use of primary sources does not entail cherry picking. Refer to what is not a coatrack.

That last sentence of yours does not deal with anything about WP:POLICY (in fact, your arguments are totally devoid and ignorant of WP:POLICY thus I will not respond to that in detail. Maiorem (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Maiorem, I'd just like to point out that you are combatively arguing with every editor who's weighed in on this issue, on this talk page, BLPN, RSN, and now this RfC. You may wish to reflect on whether that approach is likely to result in support of your views. Instead, you may find that taking a short break and letting others comment on this RfC, then returning later to reflect on the discussion as a whole, might be more productive. That's all I'll say on the matter. All the best, — Jess· Δ ♥ 20:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that I am arguing on the basis of WP:POLICY of which almost none of you adhered to. Don't even bring up BLPN. While it is not of my concern if my arguments are an effective rhetoric in making others support my views, let it be known that I am working from WP:POLICY, as it is the duty of WP editors, and having any number of people, you included, comment on the matter in blatant disregard of actual policies is not productive at all, if not counter-productive. Now, either argue from the letter or the spirit of WP:POLICY and prove my objections and arguments invalid, or else you are not contributing anything meaningful. I also want to point out to anybody wishing to comment that being able to include WP:THIS or WP:THAT in your comments does not mean that you understood those policies; display your understanding by citing the relevant parts and relate it to how it affects the subject. I will not hesitate to point out failure or ignorance of such policies, and I expect others to do the same for me if I do make such mistakes. This is for the betterment of the editing of WP articles and I trust each one of you to be honest enough with yourselves. Maiorem (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Jess is right. Wikipedia's collegial atmosphere of cooperation and mutual respect is essential to building the encyclopedia, and so conducting yourself toward other editors in a respectful and civil manner is not optional. Your input and opinions are welcome, but your belligerent behavior on this talk page and elsewhere absolutely is not. I suggest you review Wikipedia's core policies, especially civility and etiquette - policies which your behavior here makes clear that you are in no position to lecture others on. I strongly urge you step away from this dispute and allow others to weigh in and discuss the matter without your response to every thread and comment. Regards, causa sui (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to answer two point raised by Maiorem: Firstly, the apologetics315 blog should be considered reliable unless and until proof is offered that it is not reliable. (He argued along similar lines at other times, too.) This is wrong. WP:RS says that blogs are largely not acceptable. WP:BURDEN says that the burden of evidence rests with the editor who wants something included. If Maiorem wants to argue that the apologetics315 blog is one of the comparatively rare blogs which do count as reliable sources, it is he who would have to show some evidence to that effect. Secondly, I am to have misrepresented the WP:RSN replies. Brmull said the profile was not reliable. Nuujinn said it's not independent of the author, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz said "the self-sourcing standards" apply, which indicates he considered it the equivalent of a self-published source, and Andrew Lancaster suggested treating it like material published on the author's website - a primary, self-published source. Now it's technically possible that dozens of other editors agree with Maiorem and consider such profiles reliable third-party sources, but mysteriously none of them bothered to voice their opinion and disagree at the noticeboard. Huon (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.

References used in the article from Apologetics 315:

Content from references: Debate audio

Claims made in sources: 0

Regarding WP:RSN replies, please refer to WP:SYNTH:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.

POV issues in the first paragraph

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I'm sorry to keep coming back to this, but every time I read the first paragraph, I'm struck with out how obviously biased it is. Here are the specifics:

"He is known for his work on the philosophy of time and philosophy of religion, specifically the existence of God and defense of Christian theism."
- We seem to be using two sense of the word "known." In the first, "known" means "famous for." And the second refers to something more like "has been noted for." In this regard, Craig is certain been noted by some people for his work in the philosophy of time. But, he is famous for his work in the philosophy of religion. In either case, he is known for his debates more than either his philosophy of time or religion.
"He has made major contributions to the philosophy of religion..."
- Major? I question this word.
"...his defense of the Kalām cosmological argument is the most widely discussed argument for the existence of God in contemporary Western philosophy."
- Again, I don't think that this claim from Quentin Smith should be represented as a fact in this article.
The selection of books is strange. It contains The Kalam Cosmological Argument, which it should. And it includes three relatively insignificant books. And it excludes 'Reasonable Faith'. 'Reasonable Faith' is Craig's text book on apologetics and can't possibly be omitted.

And finally, it feels like this opening paragraph simply doesn't describe Craig's place in the world. It makes no mention of his conservatism or evangelicalism, both of which seem important. It makes no mention of his reasonable faith ministry. It feels the portrait being drawn here is one of a philosopher who dabbles in apologetics and not an apologists working within philosophy. And I don't mean to suggest that Craig isn't a talented philosophy, but that we seem to be entirely depreciated his work in apologetics, which is tremendous, frankly. Theowarner (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no such distinction between the "two" senses of the word "known". In fact, "famous" is itself a synonym for "noted", and I do not see your argument as based on any existing definition of the word from any reliable dictionary. Furthermore, you do not provide any references to back your claim that "he is known for his debates more than either his philosophy of time or religion." Or are you unaware that his debates are mostly about the philosophy of time and religion anyway?

On what basis do you question the word "major"? On the basis of your unfamiliarity with the volume of his works? On the basis of your unfamiliarity with the number of times he has been referenced by philosophers of religion as well as theologians on related works?

Your opinion regarding what should or should not be represented as fact needs to be backed by additional references for any sort of consideration. Citation needed. Why do you think that the claim from Quentin Smith, an academician highly qualified in his field, on the prominence of William Lane Craig in his academic field, philosophy, shouldn't be represented as fact in this article, apart from your bias?

Please cite the "three relatively insignificant books" that you have mentioned. What appears to be "insignificant" to you may be due to your own unfamiliarity with the books themselves or their relative significance. In addition, the significance of books is not an issue, since the Bibliography section should detail most, if not all, the books that have been authored, co-authored or edited by William Lane Craig. You are right in pointing out that Reasonable Faith should also be included.

Why do the mention of conservatism or evangelicalism seem important to you? In fact, based on the definitions of conservatism and evangelicalism, William Lane Craig is neither in the strictest sense. And no, it would be fairly inaccurate to portray him as "an apologists working within philosophy" because he is both philosopher and theologian at the same time. His work in apologetics is always tied to his work in philosophy. Maiorem (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to think about better responses to many of your points. But, let me say that I would certainly appreciate both a change in your tone towards me and an explanation why 'Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology' (co-authored with Quentin Smith) (1993), 'Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time' (2001), and 'Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity' (co-edited with Quentin Smith) are referenced in the first paragraph. 'The Kalam Cosmological Argument' and 'Reasonable Faith' should be included as we agree. But, those three books aren't especially noteworthy. I would describe them as fairly middle of the road works. They are interesting, competent, and certainly part of the conversation, but to suggest that they should be specifically mentioned apart from his other books and alone with The Kalam Cosmological Argument is simply unsubstantiated. I'll wait for you Maiorem for that substantiation. Theowarner (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sold by your, Mairoem's, response to my objection to the word 'major.' Your response was actually sort of non-responsive. So, let me put more language to my initial thought. That is: "major" is clearly an evaluation about relative importance. If you look at the "philosophy of religion" as an entire discipline, Dr. Craig is certainly one of many scholars who contributes but, I have difficulty accepting that he has made "major contributions." If you look at the wikipedia page on "philosophy of religion," he isn't even mentioned, let along his supposed "major contributions." How can that page omit his "major contributions"? Theowarner (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion that they are "fairly middle of the road works" is not based on any objective criteria. There is simply no reason to not mention these books as part of his works. Your contention about the word "major" is not with me, but with Quentin Smith. You are not in this field of philosophy of religion to make such an evaluation, whereas Quentin Smith is. This is why we accept Quentin Smith's evaluation and reject yours. Maiorem (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

My evaluation that they are "fairly middle of the road works is based on my perspective, of course, and so is your opinion of the same books. Right now, the burden to explain why those books are placed alongside Reasonable Faith and The Kalam Cosmological Argument. You say there in reason not to mention these books, but you've selected them from a list of many. That act of selection is comment and you need to justify it. Once again, when it comes to the word major, you aren't representing it as Dr. Smith evaluation, but as fact. Dr. Smith can no more establish fact than I or you can. Theowarner (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion whatsoever on these books. The burden is on you to explain why these books should not be mentioned alongside Reasonable Faith and The Kalam Cosmological Argument. I never said anything about not to mention these books so I would appreciate it if you do not put words into my mouth. In case you do not know already, I am not the one who put those books there. I am not the one who wrote that paragraph. In fact, I did not write a single paragraph in the article, as I only made minor edits and reverts. Dr Smith's evaluation is fact, and yes, actually Dr Smith has the qualifications to establish facts relating to his field more than you and me. Maiorem (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

1) Distinction without a difference. ‘Known’ here refers to his ‘fame’ within the academic world. That he is known more for his work in philosophy of religion does not change the fact that many philosophers have praised his work in philosophy of time. Marojem mentiomed those philosophers earlier in the discussion.

2)Fine. We’ll change it to ‘made contributions’ if the others agree.

3) I responded to this point already. See my reply here if you missed it.

4) We stated that he works in philosophy of religion and time. The selection of books reflects this. If you wish to shorten it and include Reasonable Faith, I don’t have a problem as long as the others agree. We can work something out.

5) The Reasonable Faith ministry is linked to. However, if you wish to include it, I don’t see why not as long as Marojem and the rest are willing to. --HyperEntity (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible worlds semantics

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The section on philosophy of time contained this half-sentence:

He develops a possible worlds semantics based on the A-theory^[1]^[2]

^ Canadian Journal of Philosophy 36.1 (2006) 1-23, Craig Bourne. "A Theory of Presentism". Retrieved 04/10/2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ p.121, Q Smith, Craig Callender (15 Aug 2002). Time, Reality & Experience. Cambridge University Press. p. 338. ISBN 978-0521529679.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

The first source mentions A-theory only in connection with Ludlow, not with Craig, and while it talks about possible worlds, it again does not do so in connection with Craig. The second source is malformed because it contains two different page numbers; the "pp. 338" must be wrong because the book doesn't have 338 pages. All Smith says on p. 121 is that "Craig holds that future tense sentence-tokens corresponds [sic] to presently existing, abstract states of affairs." I don't see how either source supported our statement; thus I removed it. Huon (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that part is actually helpful to lay readers anyway, so I don't have an issue with the removal of that sentence. Maiorem (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

How editors should make evaluations....

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

Craig's primary contribution to philosophy of religion is his revival of the kalam cosmological argument.

This sentence appears in the article now. And, it is not supported with sources. However, what's interesting about it is that we all, as editors, agree on it. And I suppose that our agreement comes from the fact that we're merely sensitive enough to the topic to know that it's true. We can't seem to use that sensitivity elsewhere, though. Theowarner (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My view concerning it is neutral. I neither agree nor disagree with it, as I do not see any references for either view. This idea of being "sensitive enough" to determine the status of a statement as fact is false. Maiorem (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This idea of being "sensitive enough" to determine the status of a statement as fact is false? What are you trying to say? Theowarner (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your statement, "And I suppose that our agreement comes from the fact that we're merely sensitive enough to the topic to know that it's true." is false. Maiorem (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think that? Theowarner (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Because the statement is factually untrue. It is not based on objective facts. The claim has been disproved by my lack of agreement. The statement relies on false assumptions that all editors agreed upon it because of being "sensitive enough to the topic to know that it's true", which is not a factual claim per se. Shall I provide more reasons? Maiorem (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you certainly have demonstrated that the claim is untrue. Does this mean that we should delete the sentence in question? Without any references, it should certainly not be included, right? Theowarner (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Rather than delete it, why not rephrase it? Maiorem (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. I think the sentence is true as it is. I know you don't care that I do, but I do. Theowarner (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not bothering with it because, as I have stated, my view concerning it is neutral. Maiorem (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

let's debate commas

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

In The Kalam Cosmological Argument he formulates the argument in the following manner...

In this sentence, should there be a comma after "Argument"? I think there should be, and I edited the page to that effect. Maiorem reverted the edit. I argue that commas offset introductory prepositional phrases (with longer prepositional phrases, it's necessary; with shorter prepositional phrases,it's optional). It's purely a judgement call, but my feeling is that it simply lends a little order to the sentence. I can't believe that Maiorem thinks this is worth reverting and frankly, the revert seems petty. But let's all talk about it. (I'd like to point out that I used a comma in my first sentence ("In this sentence, should there...") and if it didn't pain you as you read it, you should probably agree with me.) Theowarner (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your use of a comma in your first sentence is warranted due to your sentence structure, i.e. your question should have been structured thus: "Should there be a comma after "Argument" in this sentence?" The prepositional phrase here is actually quite short, since you only have a preposition (In) and the noun phrase (The Kalam Cosmological Argument, which counts as one noun phrase, not four separate nouns), so two items in the parse tree do not constitute a long phrase. For more information about how to properly utilize commas in introductory phrases, (that introductory phrase was composed of 12 individual lexical items, thus it warrants the comma), please refer to this link. Maiorem (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You probably mean three separate nouns. The is not a noun. Anyway... Why should my sentence have been structured thus: "Should there be a comma after "Argument" in this sentence?" You're right that the prepositional phrase is not long, but it is cumbersome (in my opinion... I know, you hate opinions). That makes the comma optional. I think that a stylistic judgment should be made and I happen to think that it improves the readability of the sentence. Theowarner (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Maiorem here. Let me demonstrate: "In your first sentence you were correct to use a comma." That's the completely analogous construction, and "In your first sentence, you were..." looks very, very strange to me. Admittedly I'm not a native speaker, so don't rely on my feelings overly much. Maiorem's link gives the usual "use a comma after more than three words" rule, though it doesn't say whether a noun phrase counts as one word. Huon (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, in that sentence ("In you sentence you were correct....") I agree... no comma was necessary and it doesn't really improve the readability. Theowarner (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it's better to separate a relative dependent clause from an independent clause using a comma. (Take a look at the first sentence of dependent clause for an example, after "information". :) The discussion of "non-essential" (a term I've not heard before) relative clauses seems to capture it. If that all seems too complicated, the short answer is that in formal English the comma should be included. causa sui (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

More edit warring over youtube. Again.

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Please note the recent reverts, which have reintroduced an edit made by User:79.75.217.115. Maiorem, this has been discussed ad-nauseum. I'm tired of it. BLPN and RSN have both, repeatedly, indicated that youtube is not reliable for these claims. Consensus here has been that youtube is not reliable as well. Please stop edit warring, and actually discuss your proposal, per WP:BRD. As an aside, 79.75.217.115 is edit warring too (ironically, to include content you - Maiorem - wish to exclude). That needs to end as well, or the article will have to be protected. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please quote where BLPN and RSN have both indicated that YouTube is not reliable for such "claims". What was the "claim"? It was a quotation of Sam Harris, and the YouTube video showed the source of the claim, i.e. the Craig-Harris debate. Tell me exactly how is the video uploaded by the University of Notre Dame is not a reliable source for direct quotations? Maiorem (talk) 06:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I've linked to a few already, including this one. We already have a source for the statement anyway, so additional refs aren't necessary to begin with, much less youtube links. I'm happy to discuss this further if you'd like, but I'm not sure what all this battling is doing for the article. I'd encourage you, if you have additional reservations, to raise the issue again on RSN. As the archives show, however, they've been pretty adamant in the past that youtube should be avoided for these sorts of matters. — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jess. At the very best, the YouTube video would have to be considered as self-published by Notre Dame and should not be used in this article. If no one else had written about that statement, we could conclude that it's not all that notable to begin with. But since there actually is a better source, I see no reason whatsoever to use the bad one. Huon (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence

Latest comment: 12 years ago27 comments6 people in discussion

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

Right now, this is how the first sentence reads. We have previously had discussions about the inclusion of the word "analytic," but we seem to have moved past that. I think theologian is probably inappropriate as Craig typically differs to theologians on some questions, suggesting that he doesn't view himself as a theologian. I think there's an argument, nevertheless, to be made about whether he is a theologian. My problem right now is: where as the word "apologist" gone? It used to be there. I would argue that Craig is known throughout the world primarily as an apologist and, to a lesser extent, within his own field as a philosopher. An analogy might be drawn between Craig and Dawkins. Dawkins, a biologist, is known primarily for his advocacy of atheism, and within his own field as a biologist. I think the sentence should be edited to this.

William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is a Christian apologist, American analytic philosopher and theologian.

Theowarner (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Theowarner, did you know that many theologians have different and sometimes conflicting views? The most recent and obvious case would be Mike Licona vs Norman Geisler, and both are regarded as respectable theologians, so in this regard your argument that to call William Lane Craig a theologian is inappropriate because he "typically differs to theologians on some questions" is obviously false. There is no need for an extensive argument about whether he is a theologian since he has already obtained a Doctor of Theology which certifies him as a theologian. In any case, I am fine with the mention of him as a Christian apologist. Maiorem (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine including theologian. Theowarner (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Reasonable Faith describes him as a philosopher and theologian. Biola University describes him as a theologian. Closer to the Truth describes him as a theologian. The EPS describes him a philosopher and theologian. None of these describe him as an apologist. Therefore, I see no reason to add it. However, this article is being edited by almost entirely by antitheists like theowarner who makes YouTube videos ruminating Craig's ability to brainwash children. In the minds of these people, being called an apologist or an Evangelist is an insult. This is why he's determined to add it.

Still, I have no problem with adding it if Theo and friends give us a convincing reason to. However, if added, I will insist that it be placed in following manner:

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

This will ensure that readers know that Craig's focuses primarily on philosophy and theology and not on humiliating atheists in debates.

I think who ever made this comment should be ignored entirely. The edit he/she proposes, therefore, is worth ignoring the question before us remains:

William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is a Christian apologist, American analytic philosopher and theologian.

Theowarner (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that no matter what Craig focuses on, he's primarily known for his apologetics. I'd suggest that the American qualifier, which refers to Craig himself and not to his brand of analytic philosophy, should be moved, though:

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

Huon (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"He has made major contributions to the philosophy of religion and his defense of the Kalām cosmological argument is the most widely discussed argument for the existence of God in contemporary Western philosophy." - The reference cited for this statement is ONLY his paper. No reference has been cited as it being a major contribution. This needs to be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.70.66.229 (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

On what basis are you claiming that he is known primarily for apologetics? Second, The fact that a person is known for debating people does not by itself make them worthy of an article. Being a successful academic is. Craig is primarily an academic. Known was used here to refer to his 'fame' within the academic world. If this was unclear we can make it clearer.

Someone needs to learn to use those four tildas... I often forget, too. Anyway! I think this is an interesting problem... namely: what is he best known for... apologetics or philosophy? Or course, apologetics is a proper subset of philosophy so it's in a way, it's both. I suppose, though, that this is something that it's almost impossible to answer authoritatively. 1) apologetics or 2) philosophy. Anyone who knows Dr. Craig knows him for his defense of the existence of God primarily, that much should be true. And thought seem to be an apologetic. It's done in a philosophical manner, but so is most of apologetics these days. So... I'm inclined to say apologetics. Let's see what other people say. Theowarner (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Claiming 'Christopher Hitchens is a critic of religion' before his work as a journalist or 'Bertrand Russel is a critic of religion' before his philosophical work is absurd. These facts alone does not make them prticularly importnt. Their academic work does.

Well... I'm not so sure. I would say Hitchens probably is known as a critic of religion more so than as a journalist. Russell is probably more a philosopher than a critic of religion, though. I read his history of philosophy long before I was interested in his atheism. And in terms of Hitchens, it is actually his criticism of religion that make him significant, at least, more so than his journalism. Theowarner (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I claim Craig is known for his apologetics on the basis of the article's two secondary sources. One deals with the Kalam argument which certainly belongs to apologetics, and the other is the Fox News piece which focuses on Craig's role as a debater. That's what the secondary sources have to say. If you honestly believe that's not enough to make Craig notable, I won't stop you from proposing the deletion of the article. Huon (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Kalam argument is also a philosophical argument, and Craig's role as a debater is too vague since debates are not always on apologetics. Maiorem (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

While the Kalam argument covers all three of Craig's proposed designations, his debates as discussed in the Fox News piece are pure apologetics. Huon (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. According to the Fox News piece, "In his debates he suggests that the question to ask is not whether science can prove God's existence but rather the philosophy that "science can establish a premise in an argument leading to the conclusion that God exists."" The existence of God is not purely apologetics, but also a philosophical argument. Maiorem (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Huon: I don't think a disagreement over putting 'Christian apologist' merits deletion of the article.

With regard to point about Hitchens : This man spent over 40 years as a literary critic and touring the world as a journalist. He is certainly known as a critic of religion (as is Russel) but putting that before his journalism (or Russel's philosophical career) is a grave mistake.

Again, I stress: 'Known' here refers to his 'fame' within the academic community. If this is unclear we can make it so. Hitchens is journalist, Russell and Craig are philosophers. Their work in these areas merits a Wikipedia article. A one time debate with John Shook or Sam Harris does not. I don't deny he is also known for his debates and I am willing to include it. But we need to consider priorities. HyperEntity (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC).

Then let me stress again: In order to gauge Craig's fame within the academic community, we would need reliable secondary sources. The secondary sources we currently have point towards Kalam and debates. It is not for us to decide that Craig is famous (even among other philosophers) when there are no sources to that effect. And while a disagreement over wording does not merit deletion, a disagreement on whether there are sufficient sources to support Craig's notability may. And regarding Maiorem's objection: It's hard to imagine a part of apologetics that could not be considered either philosophy or theology. But we can probably agree that the sources supporting Craig's notability focus on his apologetics while his philosophical and theological work outside apologetics is not mentioned. Why be less precise than possible? Huon (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Would his debate with Sam Harris at the University of Notre Dame suffice? Or how about his debate with A.C. Grayling? Or his debate with Lawrence Krauss? George Williamson? Peter Atkins? I can list at least 20 more people whom he had debated with on the existence of God alone, and the five arguments that William Lane Craig always presents for the existence of God are all philosophical arguments, not theological arguments. Secondary sources alone are not necessary for gauging his notability within the academic community; his CV speaks for itself. For your information, apologetics does not always involve philosophy or theology; for example, the apologetics of much of the Old Testament is largely based on a study of Ancient Near East sociology, which is neither philosophy nor theology, let alone apologetics from a linguistic aspect. I don't think you know what apologetics actually is. On the other hand, his philosophical and theological works are all within the context of apologetics. Maiorem (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Then let me stress again: In order to gauge Craig's fame within the academic community, we would need reliable secondary sources.

The Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy devotes its discussion of the KCA primarily to Craig's version of it. An atheist philosopher states that Craig's cosmological argument is the most cited argument for God in Western philosophy of religion. Even more than Alvin Plantinga's reformed epistemology argument. These sources are not sufficient to establish notability? Is Fox News now a more reliable source than Cambridge University? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperEntity (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Of the sources currently given in the article, the Cambridge source and Fox News are the only reliable secondary sources, and Cambridge is, of course, the better one. Those sources say Craig is notable for Kalam and for his role as a debater; our article should reflect that sentiment. We can't use those sources to establish notablility and then turn around and claim that he's really notable for something else. We also cannot ignore secondary sources when gauging his notability in the academic community as Maiorem suggests; doing so would violate WP:OR, especially WP:SYN, and WP:V. Huon (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not ignoring secondary sources when gauging his notability; however, you are fixed on the idea that his role as a debater is limited to apologetics; his debates are largely philosophical in nature and not apologetic, even though the two may coincide. Maiorem (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Here the Daily Telegraph describes him as a 'renowned philosopher', here Premier Christian Radio describes Craig as a philosopher (Listen to the full clip and you’ll also hear him described as such at Oxford University), here the BBC describes him as philosopher, here the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy discusses the KCA and focuses exlusively on Craig’s version of it, and here it discusses Craig’s work on relationship between God and time. In addition, the Michael Coren show introduces him as a philosophy professor here.

Finally, I should point out that the majority of Craig’s debates are not simply confined to the truth of Christian doctrines but to the general philosophical issue of whether or not God exists. Most of the arguments that Craig uses in these debates can be used by a Jew, a Mormon, a Muslim or a Deist. Now I’m not against putting ‘Christian apologist’. All I ask is that it be put after ‘philosopher and theologian’. In precisely the same manner that Chritopher Hitchens is called a journalist befiore a ‘critic of religion’, just as Noam Chomsky’s work in linguistics earns him the title ‘linguist’ before ‘political activist’ on his wiki page, in the same way that Bertrand Russell is referred to as a ‘philosopher’ before being a ‘critic of religion’ on his Wiki page, I ask that the same standard be applied to Craig.

User:HyperEntity|HyperEntity]] (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC).

Per WP:Weight, we need to place the items in order of their prominence. I've gotten stuck on this before too, trying to get an article with a short list in the first sentence reordered a way which seemed more logical, but the community consensus on the matter is that weight is essential, particularly within the lede. If Craig is primarily respected within the sources as (for instance) a Christian apologist, then that needs to come first, regardless of his other affiliations, because that is what he is most notable for (at least for our purposes). Now, as for your sources, I'm not sure "Premier Christian Radio" is a reliable source for this purpose. A podcast like this would generally fit into the same category as a blog, so we shouldn't really be using it as a source. I'm also not sure about "bethinking.org" or youtube videos posted by drcraigvideos, and veengle.com also falls into that category. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is, indeed, a good source, but we can't derive that Craig is "foremost, a philosopher" from that, as it makes no such claim. The telegraph article is the best source of the bunch, and could probably be integrated into the article somewhere. However, I'm not sure it carries enough weight to undermine the other sources we have. I suspect that Craig is most known for his evangelism, and if that is true, then it needs to be how we describe him. On the other hand, I see a lot of descriptions of craig as a "Professor of philosophy", and it may be with the complete lack of sourcing we have on Craig, that's the best we can do for now. I don't know. This would be a lot easier with good sourcing - it's a shame we don't have it. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well he have a source from Cambridge describing him as a philosopher and the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy discussing his work. we have the Daily telegraph describing himn as a philosopher and he have Premier Christian Radio (and Oxford University if you listen to the full clip) describing him as a philosopher. PCR is a radio station like any other and the fact that it states Craig is a philosopher (a factual statement) and that it is Christian does not detract from its reliable. On the other side we have Fox News. I don't see the problem here.--HyperEntity (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how there was a miscommunication, but I responded to your list of sources in my reply above, and you just repeated the sources anyway. Some of those are not reliable. Others do not say he is a philosopher. — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

We have three sources stating that he is a philosopher. You gave no convincing reason for the claim that PCR is not reliable. I think it would be reasonable to put philosopher/theologian before apologist based on these sources.--HyperEntity (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's an article which refers to Craig as an apologist and not a philosopher. Theowarner (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a book review which describes him as a philosopher: http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/five-views-of-apologetics/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperEntity (talk • contribs) 19:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No consensus yet... let's try again

Just edit the tables below.

Table to gather opinions

Your name and your vote
Editor	Apologist or Philosopher first
Theowarner	Apologist
Robodude2000	Apologist
Olmeccan	Apologist
your name	your vote

Table to gather evidence

evidence for either side.
Evidence for Apologist first	Evidence for Philosopher first
http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-christian-debate-does-the-judeo-christian-god-in-the-bible-exist-57030/	http://www.christianpost.com/news/science-gives-christians-upper-hand-over-atheists-23538/
cell	cell

Well, if we're gonna be using such sources, might as well include these pieces, too:

Maiorem (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed Christian apologist because the citation used does not make that claim. I've already posted five sources stating that he is a philosopher. Add Marojem's link and that makes it six. Craig's work is discussed in encyclopedias of philosophy, journals of philosopher and books by other philosophers. If no one objects I'm going to put Christian apologist after philosopher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperEntity (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

[1] Helm, Paul (2010). Edward N. Zalta (ed.). "Eternity". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2011-10-01.

[2] Helm, Paul (2010). Edward N. Zalta (ed.). "Eternity". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2011-10-01.

[3] Canadian Journal of Philosophy 36.1 (2006) 1-23, Craig Bourne. "A Theory of Presentism". Retrieved 04/10/2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[4] .121, Q Smith, Craig Callender (15 Aug 2002). Time, Reality & Experience. Cambridge University Press. p. 338. ISBN 978-0521529679.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

Editors	Claims	"they are not independent of Craig"	"not third-party sources"	"not known for fact-checking"	"not subject to editorial oversight"
User:Nuujinn	"No, especially not for a BLP, since the publisher is not independent of the author."	Yes	No	No	No
User:Brmull	"This wouldn't be a RS for a BLP, but ordinarily the subject's blog would be a RS for info about himself."	No	No	No	No
User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz	I think that standard BLP criteria apply, in particular the self-sourcing standards that...Applying those standards carefully, I think the profile is far from an ideal source for the material it is cited for, although it is better than similar citations to the subject's own books, which appear to be OR/synthesis from primary sources.	Yes	Yes	No	No
User:Andrew Lancaster	To me it seems possible to sometimes use such author notes, but it is not ideal. I think that it makes sense to treat it like information on an author's webpage (indeed author's webpages are often based on the same types of texts that appear on their books) and indeed the main thing to be careful of then is to avoid anything un-duly self-serving or promotional. It seems better than nothing.	No	No	No	No