Talk:William Lane Craig/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Criticism of WCL

I've opened a new thread because the discussions above have become scattered and out of control. The contribution histories of the editors currently trying to change this article show they are mainly special purpose accounts dedicated to Christian apologetics. Craig, the most prominent living Christian apologist, is a kindred soul. This perhaps explains the repetitive and confused original research we see on this page, insisting unconvincingly that Craig's primarily notability is as a mainstream philosopher and masking the importance of his role as a Christian apologist.

Col8lok8, you describe yourself on your user page as an "Australian philosopher". Apparently you have recently received a B.A. in philosophy. If you think that is an appropriate standard for someone to be described as a philosopher, then it is no wonder you think Craig qualifies as a mainstream philosopher. Craig teaches in a theological college and describes himself as a philosopher, yet according to Richard Dawkins, "he parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name...". You also claim Craig is primarily known for reintroducing the "kalam cosmological argument" used in medieval Islamic theology. Google counts are approximate and can be misleading, but if used sensibly they can indicate relative significance. That particularly applies to Google Scholar, where the sources are more reliable and the counts more accurate. The following table shows various Google page counts for "William Lane Craig" using different additional search criteria:

Additional search criteria	Google App				Comment
	Google Scholar	Google Books	Google Web	Google News
-"kalam cosmological argument" -"kalām cosmological argument"	4,030	30,500	457,000	1,740	pages which do not mention the kalam cosmological argument
"kalam cosmological argument" OR "kalām cosmological argument"	592	2,100	28,400	22	pages which do mention the kalam cosmological argument
theologian OR theology	2,790	7,940	157,000	539	pages which mention "theologian" OR "theology" (though not necessarily in relation to WLC)
Christian apologist" OR "Christian apologetics"	648	3,220	63,500	194	pages which mention "Christian apologist" or "Christian apologetics" (though not necessarily in relation to WLC)
evangelist OR evangelism	533	1,710	78,500	67	pages which mention "evangelist" or evangelism (though not necessarily in relation to WLC)
"philosophical theologian" OR "philosophical theology"	517	1,519	25,000	5	etc...
"Christian philosopher" OR "Christian philosophy"	492	1430	19,100	49
"analytic philosopher" OR "analytic philosophy"	370	1,110	6,440	7
"theistic philosopher" OR "theistic philosophy"	47	234	97	2

The results are fairly consistent across the various apps. They speak for themselves and support the status quo. Other supporting material for the status quo are in the sources provided by Jess further up this page, and by Jess and many others in the archives. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Epipelagic, I'm speechless... Richard Dawkins is not at all a reliable and neutral source in philosophy, and google counts do not speak for themselves. I guess you know all that.

My special advice, try to read what thinks a reliable source already mentioned in the in lead of the article: "Well-publicized atheists like Dawkins and Harris are closer to being household names than William Lane Craig is, but within the subculture of evangelical Christians interested in defending their faith rationally, he has had a devoted following for decades. Many professional philosophers know about him only vaguely, but in the field of philosophy of religion, his books and articles are among the most cited. " Nathan Schneider, "The New Theist: How William Lane Craig became Christian philosophy's boldest apostle", Chronicle of higher education, article. Thucyd (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Dawkins is not a reliable source? Why is that, exactly? We don't bar atheists from commenting on matters of religion, and we don't require our sources to be "neutral". We require our content to be neutral, by reflecting all the sources with due weight.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Dawkins is a "well-publicized atheist" (Schneider), and certainly not a professional philosopher.

For example if I had to choose between Dawkins who declares "none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name" and atheist philosopher Quentin Smith who writes: "a count of the articles in the philosophy journals shows that more articles have been published about Craig’s defense of the Kalam argument than have been published about any other philosopher’s contemporary formulation of an argument for God’s existence. Surprisingly, this even holds for Plantinga’s argument for the rational acceptability of the ontological argument and Plantinga’s argument that theism is a rationally acceptable basic belief.", I would prefer Smith (Quentin Smith, Kalam Cosmological Arguments for Atheism, in Michael Martin (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 183). Thucyd (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You are arguing that we represent Craig as a philosopher, and also arguing that we only consult philosophers to make that determination. That's not how wikipedia works. The two quotes you provided are not in conflict (i.e. Smith does not contradict Dawkins), and neither indicates that Craig is not a Christian apologist.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Trying to minimize WLC's credentials is what this is all about. Putting "Christian" in front on anything he has earned, or using Dawkins as a source for how well known he is. If what Dawkins said was true, that none of the philosophers he has spoken with knew him, then he is either a liar or those philosophers are living under a rock. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Another ref. by an atheist philosopher: "Other notable analytic theists have included (in no particular order): William Lane Craig [...]. The above lists [...], though very far from comprehensive, indicate that the analytic philosophy of religion has been an extremely active area of philosophical inquiry for the last forty years." Keith M. Parsons, "Perspectives on natural theology from analytic philosophy" in Russell Re Manning (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology, OUP, 2013, p. 249. Thucyd (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional search criteria	Google App				Comment
	Google Scholar	Google Books	Google Web	Google News
"Christian apologist"	281	944	20,200	109	pages which mention "Christian apologist" (though not necessarily in relation to WLC)
"philosopher"	1,890	2,620	70,300	253	pages which mention "philosopher" (though not necessarily in relation to WLC)

Looking like philosopher comes up more than Christian apologist. By your own methodology, Epipelagic. Looks like Google settles it then. Any objections? BabyJonas (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Craig's main claim to be a "philosopher", and specifically to be an "analytic philosopher", revolves round his attempt to revitalise the Kalam argument. His attempt has received little interest or endorsement from mainstream analytic philosophers. Established philosophers who have examined the argument usually roundly reject it. The handful who have not rejected it, like Alvin Plantinga, are themselves Christian apologists. Even some theists, like "Wes Morriston", reject the kalam argument.[1]. You clearly have not read properly what I said in the earlier threads on this page. I'm not going to keep repeating myself, but as clearly set out above there is no case for characterising him as a "analytic philosopher". If you think there is a case, then you need to find a body of reputable analytic philosophers who regard his arguments as valid. There is perhaps a minimal case for referring to him more generally as a "philosopher". In the interest of compromise and to bring this tedious matter to an close, let us agree to refer to him in the lead sentence as a "philosopher". I have amended the lead accordingly. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your openness to compromise on this contentious issue. However, the disagreement was never over the difference between "philosopher" and "analytical philosopher". Rather, the disagreement was over how this particular biography prioritized aspects of the person's life and work. Your rigorous and comprehensive methodology, when put to use in this dispute, depicted his association with the term "philosopher" far more prominently than his association with the term "Christian apologist". I assume you stand by your methodology and have verified the data. I'll assume, then, that you are on board with these findings, quite aside from your other concerns listed above? BabyJonas (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It is rare something someone says or writes shocks me, but you've succeeded handsomely by referring to my table of Google page views as a "rigorous and comprehensive methodology". It is nothing of the sort. I posted the table merely to set the counts out clearly as an antidote to the sloppy and careless manner Google page views were being used above by another editor. In the light of your subsequent absurd edit to the article, claiming the page views proves Craig functions primarily as a "philosopher", I withdraw my offer of a compromise. That is clearly not possible in the face of behaviour like that. Let us stick to the reality that Craig, first, foremost, and then pretty much all the way to the end, is a Christian apologist. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Google hits are not the way we determine weight, for a very large number of reasons. For one, the number is almost meaningless. For another, it doesn't take into account the reliability, quality or independent nature of the sources. And importantly, it takes the sources entirely out of context; "William lane craig philosopher" would match every source saying "Craig is not a philosopher". We determine weight by looking at the reliable, independent sources we're using and attempt to reflect the significant opinions in those sources accordingly, not from google hits.

The thing you must understand about these labels is that they are overlapping; philosophy, theology and apologetics all overlap one another, so references to one doesn't invalidate the other labels. This isn't a "he's black... no, he's white" thing. This is a "his first name is John, his last name is Smith" thing... both can be true, and to some degree, they apparently are. The problem, which I've laid out repeatedly on this talk page, is that Craig most often refers to himself differently than independent sources refer to him, and we have policies explicitly designed to address that issue, which tell us to favor the independent sources.

It is also relevant that his philosophical contributions are almost exclusively picked up by religious apologists, and often roundly rejected by non-religious philosophers. For instance, Craig's contributions to the philosophy of time are hardly talked about anywhere besides by Craig himself... his contributions to the Kalam Cosmological argument for the existence of God is discussed heavily in Christian and Muslim apologetics, but rarely in non-religious literature. I know that Craig wants to be seen as a non-religious philosopher that sometimes delves into religious matters, but that's just simply not how independent sources see him, and it simply isn't reflective of the body of his work.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Jess, I respect your bias, but your personal opinion is of no interest for us here. Wikipedia is all about neutrality and reliable sources. You have never given us top quality reliable sources from professional philosophers who contradict, for example, Quentin Smith :" a count of the articles in the philosophy journals shows that more articles have been published about Craig’s defense of the Kalam argument than have been published about any other philosopher’s contemporary formulation of an argument for God’s existence. Surprisingly, this even holds for Plantinga’s argument for the rational acceptability of the ontological argument and Plantinga’s argument that theism is a rationally acceptable basic belief." (see above for the complete ref.) Thucyd (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I gather your concern is that Craig usually refers to himself as a "philosopher" while independent sources call him "apologist" (and policies tell us to favor the independent sources). However, your claim doesn't seem true. I'm finding numerous, reliable, independent sources characterizing him as a philosopher.

• University websites list him as a professor of philosophy. Houston Baptist, Biola, Saint Mary, Birmingham
• Philosophical associations treat him as a philosopher. American Philosophical Association, Evangelical Philosophical Society.

• He is even referred to as "Philosopher William Lane Craig" in academic peer-reviewed publications [2],[3], [4]

• Philpapers shows he has authored or co-authored 170 or so articles in academic philosophy. [philpapers.org/search Philpapers Search]

None of your sources meet this level of quality, Jess. Most of your sources: Christianity Today, Christian Daily, The Christian Post are religious publications.

Your four book sources: Sandoval, Morley, McManis, and McFarland are all solidly sources from within the religion/atheism debate subcommunity. None of these sources you cite carry the weight of academic peer-reviewed literature. See WP:BESTSOURCES. Per WP:RELIABLE, our best, most authoritative academic sources characterize him as a philosopher.

Wikipedia's audience is not a religion/atheism debate community. Opinionated sources from within these subcommunities should not be given weight over authoritative academic publications. This applies especially to your assertion that his primary claim to notability is that he is a Christian apologist. This is a view characteristic of the religion/atheism debate community. Wikipedia is not said community. See WP:BIAS.

If you want to want to press the issue, you need more reliable, unbiased sources. The weight of the sources clearly justifies him being first and foremost, a philosopher.

PS- You also said his philosophical contributions are almost exclusively picked up by religious apologists, and you say his views are often roundly rejected by non-religious philosophers. Both these claims sound WP:ORIGINAL. Find reliable sources for them, then we'll move forward. BabyJonas (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Unambiguously, Craig behaviour is that of a Christian apologist. Just about everything he writes or says is directed towards propping up some form of contemporary Christian dogma. That is what a "Christian apologist" does. That he attempts to use rational inquiry to do this does not make him a "philosopher" any more than using rational inquiry makes Dawkins a "philosopher". Look for example at Wikipedia's own article on philosopher, which says in its lead sentence, "A philosopher is someone who is skilled or engaged in rational inquiry into areas that are outside of either theological dogma or science". The lead to the article on Craig already amply recognizes the philosophical aspects of Craig's work when it says, "Craig's theological interests are in historical Jesus studies and philosophical theology, and his philosophical work focuses primarily on philosophy of religion, but also on metaphysics and philosophy of time. What we are seeing here is a (not uncommon) attempt by Christian apologists to introduce Christian apology under some other name as a Trojan horse. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

And what is your best reliable for this (very) personal opinion, that contradicts atheist philosophers Quentin Smith and Keith Parsons, or specialized journalist Nathan Schneider in the chronicle of the higher education (for the complete refs. see above)? Thucyd (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@BJ "Respect my bias"? Keep things civil, please. None of what I said is my opinion, and almost all of this is territory we've been over repeatedly. That you found sources calling him a "philosopher" does not make him not an apologist, as I explained in my very last reply... and citing faculty blurbs are generally not particularly compelling, since those are very unlikely to be independent of the subject. And nowhere in any of our policies are "religious publications" excluded from being considered reliable sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jess I didn't say anything about your bias, that was Thucyd Nobody is denying that some people, particularly those in atheist/theist subcommunities, call him a "Christian apologist". The point is this view is niche (as your own sources illustrate). This BLP article is written for a wider audience than this niche, however, and needs to reflect the interests of the broader audience: His occupation and academic work comes first (including his academic qualifications), and his role in the niche of theism/atheism subcommunities needs to come second. Nobody here is denying he is a Christian apologist in the eyes of these subcommunities. What is being rejected is the attempt to write this BLP primarily for a Christian or atheist audience.

And by the way, I agree with you that we need to accept religious publications seriously. But they are secondary to peer-reviewed, high quality academic publications where Wikipedia is concerned. Academic publications come first, niche religious and atheist books and websites come second. BabyJonas (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Epipelagic, I respect your opinion. You clearly have strong views about this person. You say Craig's behavior is "that of a Christian apologist", "everything he writes or says is directed towards propping up some form of contemporary Christian dogma". And you think "this doesn't make him a philosopher". I respect that, but we go by WP:EOR. A Wikipedia BLP is not the place for an editor's opinions or original research. Wikipedia articles are not to reflect your personal views on philosophical methodology, your views on what someone's work is directed towards, or your suspicions that this or that group is attempting to bring something in as a trojan horse.

We go by the sources. Our best, peer-reviewed, academic sources overwhelmingly characterize him as a philosopher. His academic degrees are in philosophy and theology. His academic publications are primarily in philosophy. He is employed as a professor of philosophy, as he has been at multiple posts. And finally, certain members of atheist and Christian communities (no doubt including you) consider him a Christian apologist. This is what our sources spell out, and the article should say no more than this about his occupation.

I want to emphasize this: I respect your personal opinions towards this person. But Wikipedia BLPs are not for opinion or original research. Per WP:EOR, since your views have no sources behind them (Wikipedia is not a source per WP:WINARS), they are best left out of the article for now. BabyJonas (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Also the issue regards one who is academically qualified and employed working studying or teaching the subject in question. So - is a college lecturer in philosophy a philospher, is a professor of philosphy a philosopher or is only someone who establishes a "new" philosophy the only person who can claim to be a philosopher. Note a very similar arguement can be made for the disciline of theology and 'a theologian'. Also who is acceptable to carry the label changes over time. I know this won't settle the arguement but hopefully could bring some context. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

There's been another attempt to change the order of the lead to list philosopher first. Given that even including philosopher at all is currently under discussion, I don't think that move is wise at this time. I'm also not sure what else to say in this discussion... the contention in an edit summary is that Craig's involvement with Kalam makes him a philosopher foremost, as if to ignore the fact that his contributions in Kalam are heavily identified as Christian apologetics in our sources. Several editors seem to be ignoring that philosophy and apologetics overlap; they are not mutually exclusive. Saying Craig is simply a "philosopher" is less specific for no apparent reason, and appears to have the goal of representing Craig as primarily focusing on non-religious philosophy, when that is clearly not the case. Consensus should be established before introducing this change, not after. I have no stake in whether we should include philosopher at all (though I lean toward including it, despite being somewhat redundant). I'm also fine compromising to leave theologian first (although that is also a shift in the order, and seems to suffer from the same problem).   — Jess· Δ♥ 11:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

A large body of data produced on this talk page point to Craig being, first and foremost, a philosopher. You haven't really addressed these issues or refuted them so far. So I'm struggling to see any reasons on your part for an apparent lack of consensus.

You argue that "his contributions in Kalam are heavily identified as "Christian apologetics" in our sources." But (i) if true, it still doesn't mean he isn't, first and foremost, a philosopher, (ii) you agree "Christian apologetics" and philosophy are not mutually exclusive, and (iii) the sources claiming this are not our best sources, being immersed in the Christian/atheist debate community, which, being a niche audience, ought not to dominate the article. The best sources we have don't make such a claim. We've gone over this before. This is not adequate basis for your conclusion.

It's also worth pointing out that the motivation is NOT to represent Craig as primarily focusing on non-religious philosophy. This attempt to analyze motivations is worrying close to assuming bad faith. Rather, the goal is to represent who this person is, as reflected by their academic training and expertise, their occupation, and their academic research, all of which univocally call him a philosopher. Trying to underplay this is misleading, and trying to fold it into "Christian apologist" turns this into a Christian article.

Part of your concern, you say, is that you don't want to suggest he is primarily focused on non-religious philosophy. But this is not a distinction drawn in contemporary philosophy. You'll be hard-pressed to find any sources to support your distinction (which is probably why you didn't provide any sources). Original research and personal speculation on your part is not an adequate basis for your view.

If you can't provide any good reasons for your claims, let it go. Don't let your original research and speculations carry more weight than the sources on hand, Jess. BabyJonas (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't provided any sources? Nonsense. I've provided numerous sources, and indeed was the first one to do so. I'm simply not interested in repeating myself every time I'm prompted to. I've been considering what method of dispute resolution is likely to be most effective for the last couple weeks, but haven't yet fully made up my mind.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Part of the challenge seems to be a very diverse and quickfire smattering of ad hoc objections to "philosopher". Most of the ones I've seen are obviously implausible, and are made light work of (at least in my opinion). And nevertheless, the vast number of them makes it difficult for one to keep track of which ones are still relevant and which ones have been dispensed with. I've tried to be conscientious, in going over everything you've said in favor of your position, and tried to address everything. If there is something in particular you feel is still unaddressed, look over my responses, and let me know. I'd like to see some specifics, particularly since you say you've provided numerous sources. What are you relying on, for instance, for your view that "philosophy" somehow signals (primarily) "non-religious philosophy"? Who even draws this kind of distinction in the field? Someone in the field would know, for instance, how irrelevant and problematic such a distinction would be- how would you ascertain whether Spinoza or Kant was doing primarily religious or non-religious philosophy? Was Aristotle primarily non-religious or was he religious? Reflecting on these questions would make it obvious why nobody operates on the assumptions you invoke. And this is just touching on one of the issues you argue for without citing sources. BabyJonas (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jess and Epipelagic: Just tagging you guys to my last comment in an effort to forge a consensus. To both of you guys, is there something in particular that you feel has not been addressed so far as reasons not to identify the person in this BLP, foremost by his academic and occupational designation, while leaving his religious activities to the end? BabyJonas (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use

It is quite wrong, in my view, to characterise Craig as an "analytic philosopher". It is easy to demonstrate that the small number of recognised analytic philosophers who have bothered to respond to Craig's position have overwhelmingly rejected Craig's arguments. There is an analytic philosophy task force at Wikiproject Philosophy. I asked there for opinions on the matter, but it seems the task force is either inactive or its members lack enough interest to respond (the former I think). In addition, Jess has indicated he does not support my position. I accepted the situation some time ago and removed Craig's article from my watchlist. That means there is now no resistance coming from me to the pretence that Craig is foremost a professional philosopher, and not foremost a Wesleyan theologian and Christian apologist. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay. It's bittersweet to see you depart. If you do decide to change your mind and continue on in this conversation, I hope we can continue to go over the disagreements and try and find a meeting point. I've appreciated your input. BabyJonas (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: just to be clear, the only position I haven't supported is the notion that Craig is not a philosopher at all. I can't remember if that is a position you advanced, or someone else... but it doesn't really matter. On the question of whether he is specifically an "analytic" philosopher, I don't really have a position. Analytic philosophy isn't an area of interest for me, and I haven't really looked into it. I've tried to stay out of that conversation as best I can because it would require research on my part that I, frankly, just haven't done. I think you likely have a strong argument, based on what I've seen, but I don't really know. I just wanted to comment to clarify that my lack of participation on that particular topic shouldn't be construed as opposition to it. My only knowledge in this debate pertains to the prevalence of Craig's work being religious or nonreligious in nature, so I've focused on that. Anyway, best of luck to you wherever you wind up! :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarification of the Issues involved in this Argument

These are the questions that need to be addressed:

1. Is Craig a philosopher? Yes, his works have about as many citations as any of my philosophy professors do according to philpapers which is reliable for sorting wheat from chaff, and far more than some that are definitely philosophers (albeit of dubious quality) such as Peter Kreeft who is appropriately labelled a philosopher despite having only one published philosophy paper and a lot of pop apologetics.

2. Is Craig primarily an Analytic or Christian philosopher? He's involved with both traditions, he's cited by analytic philosophers and he's indicated as influenced by analytic philosophy, he primarily a Christian philosopher but he only appears to engage analytic Christian philosophy rather than Thomism or Continental philosophy of religion, and the Christian bit is already gotten across by "Christian apologist". Analytic philosopher is acceptable, though there is probably some room for argument over that. He also has work on metaphysics of time which is more cited than a lot of his publications on the Kalam argument.

3. Is he primarily an apologist or a philosopher? Apologist without a doubt. I'm having a hard time believing this is up for argument. For one, if philosopher was put first I'd say we'd be negligent to put him as an analytic philosopher because that leaves out the most publicized and popular aspect of his work as a Christian philosopher. As well, if the person that he did his masters in philosophy of religion under can teach philosophy as a professor and still be primarily labelled a theologian, then Craig who hasn't taught philosophy in decades and runs an apologetics ministry should definitely not be primarily labelled a philosopher first and foremost. For those saying he's educated in philosophy, he's also done a doctorate of theology so that puts his purely theological interests on approximately equal footing with his philosophical ones.

He's an analytic philosopher. He's not primarily an analytic philosopher though. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Ollyoxenfree. I agree with (1), though I want to comment on (2) and (3):

2. I'm not sure there is a tradition called the "Christian philosophy" tradition. I see nobody who categorize prototypically Christian philosophers like Alvin Plantinga or Peter van Inwagen as working in the "Christian philosophy" tradition. Rather my understanding of "Christian philosopher" is that it means "philosophers who are Christian", just as a philosopher who is atheist might be called an "atheist philosopher" without one assuming they work within an "atheist philosophy tradition". If I'm right, then this question becomes moot. Craig would be an analytical philosopher who is a Christian, just like, perhaps, Daniel Dennett would be would be an analytical philosopher who is an atheist.

3. I have some concerns here too. I don't question that his popular work is primarily in apologetics. Rather, what I question is whether in a BLP this ought to come before his academic qualifications and professional career. In addition to his academic qualifications and publications, he is also employed by and teaches at at least two universities. His website's calendar lists him as having taught at "Talbot School of Theology" in Biola University in January 2016, and at Houston Baptist University in February 2016. [5]. Their websites list him as a faculty member. So he is by no means inactive in philosophy as you suggest (at least no more than Richard Dawkins is in biology- and look at whether his lede mentions his atheist activism first).

The other concern is the term "Christian apologist" is a buzzword in the atheist-theist debating scene, and these buzzwords should not be incorporated into articles for a broader audience. Some editors here are obviously very deeply involved in these debates, and take this term to be normal. But the norms of these subcultures shouldn't dictate the language on a Wikipedia BLP, especially in emphasis over ordinary biographical considerations.

By the way, this is how it works with other articles on similar personalities. Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins are all described by their professional and academic qualifications first. Their prolific work in atheist activism follows after that. This is also the case with Noam Chomsky, whose political activism comes after his academic and professional qualifications. So precedence also falls in favor of listing his professional and academic qualifications before his religious involvements.

So while I can see why you might come to your conclusion given certain things, I think the considerations for listing his academic and professional qualifications first carry too much weight. So I'd like to suggest is that we mention his religious involvement in the lede, but after his professional and academic qualifications as BLP precedence dictates above. We can certainly make note of Craig's heavy involvement in the religious community in the rest of the article. This way we can keep to the BLP standard, keep the article's emphasis for the broader audience, and maintain mention of Craig's heavy involvement in the religious community. Does this cover everything? BabyJonas (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised by the Dawkins article's lede since it seems very incomplete, I think the Sam Harris lede should omit him being a philosopher entirely (which has been a point of contention on that article's talk page before), and unlike Craig, Dennett is first and foremost a philosopher unlike Craig. Note also that Sam Harris is listed first as an author, because of his popular works related to atheism. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. What would you say makes Dennett foremost a philosopher, and then an activist (while for Craig he is foremost an activist/apologist, and then a philosopher)? Are we presuming, somehow, that philosophy is, by its nature a non-religious institution, and only if ones foundational beliefs are non-religious do they qualify as being philosophers? Because we've established by all other counts they are philosophers: They both have substantive bodies of work published in philosophy (including peer-reviewed journals), they both hold academic positions as professors in philosophy departments, and they both teach. So I suppose I'm wondering what you think the difference is between the two.

Also, what about your claim about Craig works in the "Christian philosophy tradition"? Do we have any reasons to hold to that, given that we can find no "Christian philosophy tradition", and the alternative interpretation as "Christian philosopher" being merely a philosopher who is a Christian? BabyJonas (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

No, the reason Dennett is foremost a philosopher is because he is employed and has been employed as a philosopher for decades, and his works in compatibilism, and philosophy of mind are regularly taught and lectured upon in undergraduate philosophy courses. As someone in philosophy, Dennett is a regular topic of conversation, not for his paper thin philosophy of religion, but for his beliefs in the aforementioned areas. This wikipedia disagreement is the first time I've ever talked about Craig specifically in the context of philosophy, and this is coming from someone who has taken classes who have touched upon the metaphysics of time with esteemed professors in the field, and yet we still did not talk about Craig.

The tradition of Christian philosophy is so clear, if anarchic, that I'm surprised you're doubtful of its existence. It has a wikipedia page, it starts with the Christian Neo-Platonists, and continues through St Augustine, Thomism (still alive today and conceding to neither analytic or continental philosophy entirely), Calvinism, etc and includes modern movements such as Analytic Thomism and Reformed Epistemology. It's existence is quite sociologically clear as well, in late antiquity there were Christian philosophers who held similar ideas to major traditions such as Neo-Platonism and yet they did not associate with their contemporary non-Christian Neo-Platonists very much at all, this continues up to the present day when Plantinga talks about Craig's arguments despite coming from very different backgrounds (one reformed and interested in epistemology, one evangelical and interested in metaphysics). There are also other philosophers primarily listed as being involved in Christian Philosophy, and rightly so, such as Peter Kreeft mentioned previously.

Despite that I've previously stated that I agree for the most part that Craig should be labelled as an analytic philosopher, just that he should be listed as a Christian apologist first. You seem to want to misrepresent me on this matter because I thought I'd made myself clear on this point. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The university of Birmingham does not offer a degree in "Christian philosophy". Just plain philosophy. So, claiming that he is a Christian Philosopher says nothing about his credentials, but only about some of his activities. It is therefore redundant to refer to him as a both a "Christian philosopher" as well as a "Christian apologist" because those are just two ways of saying the same thing. In order to be neutral, the lead should state his credentials in the order he got them in (Philosophy, theology), and then what he does in a general sense (Christian apologetics). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

If we were listing his credentials in the order he got them, his credentials would be communications, philosophy, theology. Obviously there needs to be a little discernment beyond chronological order. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean to misrepresent you, Ollyoxenfree. I accept that you want him labelled as an analytic philosopher, but you do underweight it relative to Dennett's identity as a philosopher. It wasn't clear to me why Dennett would be labelled first and foremost a philosopher and Craig not the same. So far as employment, Craig seems to have been employed for decades as well, as his CV reports:

• Assistant Professor of Philosophy of Religion Trinity Evangelical Divinity School 1980-1986
• Associate Professor of Religious Studies Westmont College 1986-1987
• Visiting Researcher Université Catholique de Louvain 1987-1994
• Research Professor of Philosophy Talbot School of Theology 1996-
• Professor of Philosophy Houston Baptist University 2014-

Your reasoning is also that Dennett comes up in undergraduate or graduate discussion often, likely because of his relevance to a broad survey of some aspect of philosophy of mind, or free will. Craig, on the other hand, doesn't come up as often, if at all. Is that what you're pointing to? I study at an extremely secular institution, and Craig is not just discussed, he comes up often, and is read in reading groups related to the metaphysics of time relevant to philosophy of religion. But since the metaphysics of time in the context of analytical PoR is not as popular as free will and PoMind, Craig's name wouldn't come up as often. I can grant that. I just can't get from this fact to underweighting his identity as a philosopher relative to Dennett, such that Dennett is firstly a philosopher, but Craig is not. Maybe you can explain more precisely how you get there. BabyJonas (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

HBU doesn't even list him as a member of their faculty (taking away from the value of the CV as a source of what he actually does, I believe), the second and third aren't even in philosophy, at least not from that information. The first is long ago and while in the modern era academia is a necessary condition to be a philosopher, 6 years in the 80s is not a sufficient condition. His position at Talbot is a research position, involving no teaching, presumably to allow him more time to do his work with his ministry, Reasonable Faith. Which lends more support to my assertion I believe. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

He's on the master's program faculty list. 404-errors suggests the site is being upgraded. We know he's been working in philosophy since 1980. 20yrs between 1996-2016. 6yrs between 1980-1986. 1yr in a religious studies department. 7yrs as a researcher. In that time he's been published prolifically, as you yourself note. So what exactly takes away from his primary identity as a philosopher? The fact that he was doing research and publishing for 7 years, but not in a classroom? That can't be it. The fact that for one year in the 80s he was a professor of religious studies? That seems weak. The guy has done 26 years as a faculty member, and 7 years as a visiting researcher. Occupationally, he's done no less than Dennett, barring the fact that Dennett has more years under his belt.

As for his research position allowing him time to work on his religious ministry, we don't have grounds to make these kind of assumptions. I don't know how much hands-on time he needs for his ministry. I don't know if he's just comfortable not teaching. It would be inappropriate to speculate. Unless we have some real reasons to underweight his identity as a philosopher, we can't underweight it in the OP. Keep in mind, this isn't to erase his religious work-- it's to relegate it to its proper place in a BLP. That's something we can find consensus on, right? BabyJonas (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Baby Jonas. Craig is now a faculty member of HBU. No doubt about that.

Moreover, don't forget he has focused in his published work on abstract objects, a topic at the intersection of analytic philosophy of religion and metaphysics. He published in 2015 a review in Philosophia Mathematica (as a member of the department of philosophy of the HBU, see here). His next book will be published on this topic, by Oxford University Press, see here. Thucyd (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not clear which of this shows that Craig isn't most known for his apologetics. This link was provided, but it shows Craig listed under the heading "Master of Arts in Apologetics", while Craig is not listed at this link for the Dept of Philosophy. Frankly, that doesn't mean anything... his appearance in the preponderance of sources, and our coverage of him hear should dictate the weight of the lead, but it certainly doesn't go to show he is most well known as a philosopher, as is being stated above.

Please keep in mind as well, the question is not what Craig is doing or has done with his time (though I'd venture to guess this would heavily point in the direction of apologetics if weighted)... the question is what he's received coverage for. Listing his published papers doesn't tell us that... and again, even so, looking at the totality of his papers paints a clear picture of focus on apologetics. No one is claiming he doesn't do philosophy too... but his one paper on abstract objects that has no coverage in secondary sources I can see doesn't shift our weight in any meaningful way.   — Jess· Δ♥ 09:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

He's best known for a philosophical argument in favor of the existence of God.

He doesn't have just published one article on abstract objects: see Paul Gould (ed.), Beyond the Control of God?: Six Views on The Problem of God and Abstract Objects, Bloomsbury Studies in the study of the philosophy of religion, 2014 ; you could read also his dialogue with Peter van Inwagen and J. Thomas Bridges in the last issue of Philosophia Christi (17, 2, 267-312); not to speak here of his forthcoming book at Oxford University Press, already mentioned above. Thucyd (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems I have to repeat this a lot... philosophy and apologetics overlap. Kalam is philosophy broadly, but apologetics specifically. Craig is best known for Kalam, and Kalam is apologetics. I don't know what you're getting at with the abstract objects. If you're claiming that Craig is well known for his publications on abstract objects, I'd have to see some evidence of that. We only discuss it in a single sentence in this article, and only in the context of theology.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a cumulative case : world famous for a philosophical argument for theism + works on philosophy of time + philosophy of religion.

I think there is no reason to introduce a difference of treatment between the leads of Plantinga, Inwagen, Dennett or Oppy, and Craig. Analytic philosopher should be first.

I think enough has been said. Let's have a vote on it to see where the consensus is.

I am in favor of "William Lane Craig is an analytic philosopher, Christian theologian and Christian apologist" in the lead. Who is for or against?Thucyd (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jess your point has been responded to before. It is not our job as editors to assume that the Kalam is more apologetics than philosophy. First, it is WP:OR. Second, as someone who knows something about both, it is bad philosophy. Trying to draw a such a conclusion is confused. Was Descartes' epistemic appeal to God in his First Meditations apologetics? Or does Kant's Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason make him a Christian apologist? Attempts to draw such boundaries in philosophical ideas are totally misguided. You're welcome to do so, but not in a Wikipedia article. If you have substantive reasons for objecting, I hope they are something other than this.

PS-- his magnum opus on the Kalam was published by MacMillan, and is a characteristically philosophical treatment of the argument with almost no indication of apologetics in it.

@Thucyd I appreciate the desire to get this over with. However, you're going to run into WP:DEM BabyJonas (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Who is assuming Kalam is apologetics? I provided sources. I was, in fact, the first to do so, and many of them have been left entirely unaddressed for months. What you've said may indicate Kalam is philosophy, but it in no way indicates it is not apologetics; Kalam is used almost exclusively in apologetics, particularly in WLC's treatment of it, and the reliable independent sources that cover him and Kalam.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Much of this has been addressed before. That many religious individuals or groups (including Craig) use the Kalam argument in an apologetic context does not take away from its status as fundamentally (and importantly to the general reader) a work of philosophy. As an analogy, the use of multiplication in accounting is significant, but in a Wikipedia article, multiplication is fundamentally a mathematical notion first, and an accounting practice second. Likewise here, the use of Kalam in apologetics may be common, but the Kalam is still philosophy first, apologetics second (if at all).

I have also responded to your sources-claim before. I pointed out that your sources were not of the highest quality, though they were undoubtedly notable. They were, however, primarily religious publications, or sources from within the theist-atheist debating community (Sandoval, Morley, McManis, and McFarland), and did not represent the highest quality sources (see WP:BESTSOURCES). Per WP:RELIABLE, our best, most authoritative academic sources characterize him as a philosopher. I have provided the sources to this effect earlier up in the talk page.

Keep in mind your audience here. The readership of Wikipedia is not a niche of theist-atheist debaters. They are a general readership, and the article has to reflect the general interests of the public, where the person's academic training and occupation comes first, and their activities come second.

Given that the matter of the Kalam being apologetics is immaterial to Craig's career and training and sizable list of publications in philosophy (and him being employed as a professor, and taking part in conferences, etc). Do we have any reasons left NOT to list him first and foremost as a philosopher? BabyJonas (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Your analogy isn't a good one. Multiplication is used in fundamentally different contexts, and identifying a single one to the exclusion of others would be improper. Kalam is philosophy and apologetics at the same time. It is used almost exclusively as apologetics, and Craig is cited using Kalam exhaustively in that single context alone. Kalam is not used in discussing ethics or eugenics philosophically; it is fundamentally an argument for the existence of a god, and fundamentally falls under the scope of apologetics. Your claim about my sources being "religious publications" is both untrue and irrelevant. If it were true, which it is not, you would be dismissing sources on their face solely because they discussed the topic from a different viewpoint than your preference... and that's not how we source things on wikipedia.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Tired of this endless discussion... Baby Jonas and I agree, Jess disagrees. I think we can change the first sentence of the lead. Thucyd (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Descartes uses God for a thought experiment in his first Meditation in a single paragraph, if that's your point of comparison then it is a very poor analogy, and not at all helpful for making your point. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You're strangely discounting other editors who have participated in this very discussion, including Ollyoxenfree and Epipelagic. Either way, vote counting is not how consensus works. Involving outside input, like an RfC, might be useful... but frankly, I'm a little tired of going over the same territory and I'd prefer to move on with my life, so I haven't gotten around to writing anything up.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm seeing many inconsistent claims about the Kalam and apologetics here. Let me try and clear some up.

Notice I'm not excluding the use of the Kalam in apologetics. I'm merely saying its identity is fundamentally as a philosophical argument first. This is the context in which it was originally developed, it takes the form of a philosophical argument, is defended philosophically, and is discussed extensively in the philosophy of religion community as a philosophical argument. This ought to be undeniable. We don't ignore it's role in apologetics, but rather respect the philosophical foundation first, and prioritize it. That's all I'm arguing for. Even if the Kalam is heavily used in apologetics, it doesn't change the fact that at its core, it's a philosophical argument. The philosophical and apologetic aspects of the Kalam are not in competition. They are different categories.

(2) it's worth noting that your notion of 'apologetic' seems vague and inconsistent. For one, nobody is denying the Kalam's use in apologetics. Your argument, if it makes sense, must argue not that the Kalam is used in apologetics, but that it is more characterizable as apologetics rather than philosophy. Ie, apologetics should take more priority than philosophy. You've failed to give us any reasons for this simply by insisting on apologetics. Your arguments simply don't lead to this conclusion. (3) On one hand, you argue that Craig is involved in Christian apologetics specifically, but the Kalam says not one word about Christianity. So there's absolutely no way to infer "Christian apologist" from the Kalam. This is another problem with your argument. (4) You suggest an argument for the existence of a god is fundamentally under the scope of apologetics, but this makes the same mistake above: God is not necessarily the Christian God. Your above claim does great damage to philosophy. It miscategorizes most of philosophy of religion as not PoR, but apologetics. This is a really problematic move for philosophy on Wikipedia. And it's terrible philosophy. I can't overestimate just how much philosophy of religion your move sweeps away into apologetics.

And finally, I'm not dismissing sources because they are religious. I'm saying that certain religious (and atheist) people form a social niche in which apologetics is a big deal. This article cannot make that niche more important than the general audience.

Frankly, Jess, you know I respect your opinion, but a lot of what you're saying about apologetics and the Kalam is monumentally wrong, as shown above. Why can't you just see that your arguments are inadequate and have absolutely no precedent of any kind, philosophical or otherwise? We can work on this further, but I'd like to request that you don't let an attempt at consensus be held hostage by such a self-evidently problematic position. BabyJonas (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, you are rejecting sources because they are religious. You are even rejecting non-religious sources "because they are religious", based on your criteria that sources should be based on philosophy in order to determine if this is a philosophical or religious topic area. That's outright nonsense. There is no such policy or guideline anywhere on wikipedia, and we unequivocally do not and can not dismiss or downplay a source just because its author is an atheist. Your entire criteria for determining reliability is fundamentally departed from wikipedia procedure, and your original research above is no additional help. What little I've said about Kalam is not wrong... at least as far as the sources are concerned... and that's what matters here.   — Jess· Δ♥ 12:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Oy vey. Let me be explicit. I take it that a niche of people (people active in atheist-theist advocacy and debating) have a unique perspective ("apologist") which is not reflected in outside sources. Is this niche the main audience of Wikipedia? No. Are these sources the best available sources describing this LP's life and occupation? No. As a result, we relegate this view as secondary to our best available sources (peer reviewed and other academic sources), and secondary to the broader readership of Wikipedia. That's my view.

It should be clear now that I don't reject religious sources. I prioritize them, based on their quality (per WP:BESTSOURCES), and based on audience perspective (per WP:POV).

Edit: What you've said about the Kalam does not make it not primarily a philosophical argument, and secondly apologetic in nature. It's fully consistent with your argument that Craig is primarily a philosopher, and his main contribution is in fact a philosophical argument that is heavily used in apologetics. Best as I can tell, your argument sits fine with calling Craig a philosopher. So why aren't we approaching consensus on this issue? BabyJonas (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

In other words:

• You mention three groups of sources.
  • One of them disagrees with you. You want them marginalized because you personally think they are not "the best available sources".
  • One of them, "peer reviewed and other academic sources", does not get much of a mention.
  • One of them agrees with you (religious sources). You want those sources prioritized.
• You give as a reason for this type of bias that "the main audience of Wikipedia" is not the first group. So you want Wikipedia not to quote reliable sources, you want it to tell people what they want to hear.

In yet other words: you proudly proclaim you are a POV warrior. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hob Gadling. I don't think the sources disagree with me. That this person is involved in Christian apologetics, both the sources and I are in unison on. Where I fall away is when we want to represent him first as a "Christian apologist" rather than his educational/academic background and profession. But none of the sources say this either, so as far as I am concerned, my view is consistent with what the sources say.

That being said, they are not the best available sources. That's not me saying it, that's WP:SOURCES saying it. So I'm not marginalizing anyone here, I'm simply following appropriate protocol.

The peer-reviewed and academic sources are too numerous to list. But they certainly exist, and I can pull them up from philpapers, jstor and other places if need be.

I don't recall prioritizing any religious sources. I take to be priority what Wikipedia takes to be priority, and that is academic, peer-reviewed scholarly sources.

Hope this gives you a clearer picture of my position. I'm arguing to prioritize the most reliable sources here, and I want the article to reflect the best sources. If you need any further clarifications, feel free to let me know. BabyJonas (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

As I edited and had been reverted - First the general profession

Hello, I have no intention to discuss this (No time or desire) but I do want to say that in my opinion its more objective to first start with anyone's general profession(s) instead of his or hers Religions stances/beliefs and roles.

Thus I just want to say I support writing: "Craig is a Analytic philosopher" and only after that writing something like "And a Christian theologian, a Christian apologist or a Christian whatever".

Please from now and long count me as one who supports starting with the professional title "Analytic philosopher" even if I won't take active part in discussions about this. That's the man's general profession and anything specific should come after this I think. I would say the very same for an Atheist/Agnostic/Deist/Pantheist/Ignostic or whatever. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree Ben-Yeudith. I've provided several reasons for making this change that have not been adequately addressed. I'm hoping some engagement is forthcoming. BabyJonas (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I too agree. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Thucyd (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Also agree, and note, in going thru this wiki-list of modern theologians, that for those who are both philosophers, theologians, or some other profession and Christian apologists, their profession is listed first in their articles and the fact that they are apologists is listed near the rear (e.g., Alister McGrath, "theologian, priest, intellectual historian, scientist, and Christian apologist"). Pleonic (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I firstly apologise for intruding into the discussion. Though i have been a user of wikipedia for a long time (but an editor for only a short while, on an account that has been currently lost) i feel that i could perhaps provide some aid in the form of my layman third opinion. Now the way i see it, the major problem is the fact that Craig, though having an education in philosophy (among other subjects) has been heavily invested in religious matters or apologetics. In light of this it becomes a point of contention o weather these activities can supercede upon him as an (analytic) philosopher and thus make him primarily an Christian apologist. My view is that, though quite heavily involved in philosophy of religion, it is still philosophy, and since Craig also employs analytic philosophy it is analytic philosophy (of religion, among other things). To me, a philosopher who is involved in religious topics, no matter how heavily or lightly, is still primarily a philosopher and in Craig's case - an analytic philosopher. So, for whatever it counts, my vote/voice is also for Analytic philosopher first. I will not be engaging in any further discussion as i have neither time nor energy to do so, and these types of debates can be quite draining. I wish you all well and a successful resolution of this dilemma. Popokatpetl

For what it's worth I too believe Analytic Philosopher should remain first. 2601:C0:C400:2390:E5D8:22B6:2B59:8AFB (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles on people who hold fringe views still have to state the consensus view if they are going to present their subject's view

@GorgeCustersSabre: History cannot be used to prove miracles, because history by definition is the study of what probably happened in the past, and miracles (also by definition) are not probable. Per WP:FRINGE, an article on a person who holds a view in opposition to the scholarly consensus should not present the person's view unless it also clarifies that this view is not widely shared by scholars in the field. How is said clarification, in your words, "entirely unnecessary"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

History is not at all "by definition"(which one by the way?) the study of what "probably" happened. Lots of historical events happened which were a priori and a posteriori highly unlikely... And for miracles and historiography, it is a huge ongoing debate. See for example: John Earman, Hume's Abject Failure: the Argument Against Miracles, Oxford University Press, 2000. here, or Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, hereThucyd (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

When you say Lots of historical events happened which were a priori and a posteriori highly unlikely you are using a sloppy definition of history that professional historians don't like to use. They refer to this as "the past". See [6]. Professional historians, when they talk of "history" are referring to what probably happened in the past, as Ehrman emphasizes here. And even if we take it as an "ongoing debate", that still puts Craig on the fringe when he says in the aforelinked debate that Hume's view has been widely rejected. And if what he says (that Ehrman's view is that of Hume), then (per the Martin lecture I linked, namely "Another--this is another theoretical issue ... people's minds start turning into mud.") he is also wrong, as professional historians all hold to this generally rejected view. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Thucyd: Since when does tagging an obviously UNDUE section require talk page consensus? If anything, removing a tag requires consensus. Additionally, if you repeatedly revert article edits and ignore attempts to discuss on the talk page, that is called edit-warring. If you persist, I will request that you be blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Edited 01:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

By the way, please refrain from communicating in edit summaries, and please refrain from writing as though you were another user. I accidentally assumed you were another user because your edit summary claimed you were that user. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any actual, credible documentation for what you are saying other than a non-timestamped video debate?

Also, do you have any citation for your definition of what history is, and how it precludes miracles? You'll also need to demonstrate, somehow that this is a consensus view among historians, if you can.

Finally, exactly what is being given undue weight in the article? The methodology Craig uses? Craig's own views? BabyJonas (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This is just silly. An article is free to talk about an intellectual's opinions regardless of how unpopular they are. Otherwise the article on Mao Zedong would mention none of his politics and the most articles on philosophers would be nearly empty. Don't change the article if you have such a poor grasp of wikipedia policy. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Reading the section in question and looking at the citations, I believe what @Ollyoxenfree states is correct. The article should talk about Craig's views, works. Perhaps I'm missing something, why is the undue template be needed?

KSci ^(talk) 05:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Both of you did not read what Hijiri said. Read it again. Hijiri is not saying the crackpot's views should not be presented, but that either the crackpot's views as well as the standard view should be presented or neither. And that is right. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's focus on the content and not resort to ad hominem attacks, please. It makes the whole editing experience unpleasant. On the topic at hand, I'd let Hijiri clarify their own position in light of the issue rather than put words in their mouth. Hob Gadling, if you believe the issue Hijiri raises is veridical, could you address some of the questions raised? BabyJonas (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

You still do not seem to get it. So I will copy the relevant sentence and highlight the relevant part for you:

"an article on a person who holds a view in opposition to the scholarly consensus should not present the person's view unless it also clarifies that this view is not widely shared by scholars in the field".

As long as you both misrepresent that sentence as "an article on a person who holds a view in opposition to the scholarly consensus should not present the person's view", dropping the second part, thus arguing against some stupid fantasy reasoning from your own brain instead of what Hijiri really wrote, there is nothing to discuss and there is no point in arguing any further with you, "focussing on content" or "addressing questions". Would you please first acknowledge that you understand the issue better now?

BTW, that sentence I quoted is in accordance with WP:NPOV. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Addition: There is no reason for Hijiri to clarify that. It is as clear as it can get as long as the readers are not too lazy to read more than the first handful of words in a sentence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hob, if you cannot remain civil, it would benefit everyone if you found another article to edit. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. Reading only half of people's sentences and answering as if there were only half of the sentence is much ruder than whatever I wrote. And calls for civility as a response to responses to such things are just dodging the issue. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you think I ignored that clause, Hob. I've taken it into account, and raised follow-up questions about it, which you haven't yet addressed. BabyJonas (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Since you jumped into this part of the discussion, claiming that what I said was "ad hominem", I assumed you were one the two who didn't get it. Now I see you are not, and I am sorry for the confusion. But you could avoid such confusion if you used the right indentation: one more colon than the contribution you are replying to: the "No it wouldn't" paragraph was not about you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I may be confused,but is the criticism that WLC's view are fringe, or that Lüdemann's hallucination theory is fringe. WLC's position has a lot of mainstream Christian support (some named) and isn't at all fringe, but Lüdemann's hallucination theory has very little peer support, though it is commonly in the arguments after the topic in certain POV blogs. The extent of Lüdemann's support in academia should not be misrepresented, as it has very little acceptance. If I'm not on the wrong paragraph, presenting Lüdemann's mass hallucination theory as if it were widely accepted by his academic peers would misrepresent its support and its significance. A credible academic source or two is needed to establish it as more than popular street knowledge. Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding the problem or on the wrong paragraph.

KSci ^(talk) 15:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

That's my general impression too. I understand that Craig's view may be disagreed with, or even considered unpopular. But to describe it as a fringe view? I see no basis for it. Hijiri hasn't been able to support this. If neither Hijiri nor anyone else can support the charge, per WP:DETAG I move to remove the tag. BabyJonas (talk) 08:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I agee with this entirely. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree too. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I just detagged the issue. While we're at it, there's been two tags on the entire article, from Jan 2015. The first one is a BLP Primary Sources tag, and the second is a POV check tag. Can others look over the article for POV issues so we can take care of that tag? That should be relatively easy. BabyJonas (talk) 04:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

At least 30 of the references are primary sources. Theroadislong (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Is that a problem? I gather most analytical philosophers (who are not celebrities) rarely have biographical details or even philosophical views featured in non-primary sources. Could we fix the problem by citing his published work? BabyJonas (talk) 09:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Here are some secondary sources I don't have time to write in at the moment.

Craig wrote for Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/archive/william-lane-craig/index.html

Common sense atheism on Craig http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=538

A publication about him from a third party in higher education: http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-New-Theist/140019/

A theological encylopedia http://www.theopedia.com/william-lane-craig

Debate transcript (there are a lot of these) http://www.bethinking.org/is-christianity-true/the-evidence-for-christianity

I think secondary sources are rather plentiful. Craig is a very well-known "celebrity" figure in philosophy of religion and is a central figure in Christian apologetics. He has many professional and lay published works and there are many responses to them both for and against. He is certainly not a person with "fringe" views, so I'm not sure where that idea comes from (I'm curious about the citations could support that idea). A list of Crags works could be gleaned from secondary sources as could his many public debates at numerous universities. Some of his opposition even hold him in high regard as an debate opponent (definitely not as a fringe figure, but as a formitable opponent). http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392 I hope this helps. BBL

KSci ^(talk) 05:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@babyjonus I don't see a reason for the BLP Primary Sources tag or the POV check tag. If there is POV, it may be from the effect produced by an excessive use of tags giving the impression of questionable content where there isn't any. I think at least the BLP and POV tags should be removed, which would also reduce the POV effect created by an excessive and unnecessary use of various tags. Also, a citation should not be requested for to support every trivial detail of every sentence.

KSci ^(talk) 20:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Since the templates have been discussed on this thread, I will bring this up here. The multiple issues template includes one issue and should be modified to the single remaining issue unless removed, as I propose. The single issue remaining is not contended. Since there is no contention over the material these primary citations support, I propose that the "too many primary sources" template be removed and that any disputed content be resolved if it is challenged (unlikely).

KSci ^(talk) 22:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It does seem to be time to remove that template. What primary citations there still are seem quite appropriate to me. Pleonic (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

William Lane Craig Named in Biola’s First Endowed Chair

"An endowed chair has been established in recognition of William Lane Craig, a world-renowned philosopher and theologian who has been teaching at Biola’s Talbot School of Theology for more than 20 years. Funded through a generous donation, the William Lane Craig Endowed Chair in Philosophy will permanently create a faculty position at Talbot in honor of Craig’s ongoing legacy. It is the first endowed chair established at Biola."

2601:183:8202:3D81:5CB5:3E87:BC26:F69F (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Correct KSci ^(talk) 21:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

References