Talk:William Lane Craig/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

The “Slaughter” of the Canaanites Re-visited

Yawn... At the request of [Mann jess] I have created this new section. He does not believe that this piece of information belongs on William Lane Craig's page (and if it does he believes it should be reworded and I agree that it should be reworded). I believe it does belong since Craig's views about the slaughter have evolved and they now include this:

"There is one important aspect of my answer that I would change, however. I have come to appreciate as a result of a closer reading of the biblical text that God’s command to Israel was not primarily to exterminate the Canaanites but to drive them out of the land. It was the land that was (and remains today!) paramount in the minds of these Ancient Near Eastern peoples. The Canaanite tribal kingdoms which occupied the land were to be destroyed as nation states, not as individuals. The judgment of God upon these tribal groups, which had become so incredibly debauched by that time, is that they were being divested of their land. Canaan was being given over to Israel, whom God had now brought out of Egypt. If the Canaanite tribes, seeing the armies of Israel, had simply chosen to flee, no one would have been killed at all. There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples.

It is therefore completely misleading to characterize God’s command to Israel as a command to commit genocide. Rather it was first and foremost a command to drive the tribes out of the land and to occupy it. Only those who remained behind were to be utterly exterminated. There may have been no non-combatants killed at all. That makes sense of why there is no record of the killing of women and children, such as I had vividly imagined. Such scenes may have never taken place, since it was the soldiers who remained to fight. It is also why there were plenty of Canaanite people around after the conquest of the land, as the biblical record attests.

No one had to die in this whole affair. Of course, that fact doesn’t affect the moral question concerning the command that God gave, as explained above. But I stand by my previous answer of how God could have commanded the killing of any Canaanites who attempted to remain behind in the land."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-slaughter-of-the-canaanites-re-visited#ixzz2VJZPfFYc Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is really specific to Christianity, and not to WLC. We need to be careful not to turn this into a piece of Christian apologetics; it is a biography. We already have more information about WLC's views than is necessary (or appropriate), and adding more to it probably doesn't help. Further, the way this was included stated it as though it were a fact, not a view of WLC, and so introduced other issues. See WP:W2W, for instance. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 11:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

My desire was to present his views more completely (since he updated his and his views could be presented better) in order to keep this biography from becoming a piece of Non-Christian Apologetics. I understand your concern about keeping WLC a biography and not a piece of apologetics (our only difference is what piece of apologetics).

If I stated it as a fact, then we could just change it to his opinion. I know my wording could be better and I was hoping someone would word it better. The Slaughter of the Canaanites is not really specific to Christianity. It is a Jewish thing (Old Testament), Atheist thing (argument against God), Muslim thing (argument against Christians and Jews).

The Slaughter of the Canaanites is mentioned in the links. Why not the Slaughter of the Canaanites revisited? Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Rather than introduce more content about WLC's opinions on various things, I'd rather reduce that content if it is out of date. I don't think this new addition really expands on what we have so far. We could probably change the passage to say "William Lane Craig has defended the biblical slaughter of the Canaanite people, and his views on this matter have been criticized..." to keep it succinct. Would that work, or something like it?   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Make the change and we will see how it looks. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

[96.42.107.44] seems to agree with me about the apologetic issue. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me know when you make the edit change you spoke about, so that I could read it. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

[96.42.107.44] made the edit change you spoke about more or less. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

How is this version not an improvement? He has been criticized by Hector Avalos, Colin Howson,[34] Greta Christina,[35] John W. Loftus,[36] Richard Dawkins,[37] and Thom Stark and John J. Collins,[38] for defending the biblical slaughter of the Canaanite people.[39], 96.42.107.44 (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

His defense of the biblical slaughter is the subject of the sentence, it seems weird to tag it onto the end of the sentence?Theroadislong (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Then it seems to just be trivia and should be removed because it seems there are lots of topics that could be added to this article from the subject, but in reality the reason this topic has been included is because atheists have brought up the issue and its inclusion has been made to coat rack their critisms, thus its logical the focus should be on those that make the criticism. Plus the restoration of correct formatting and links to Canaan. 96.42.107.44 (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Also if the subject really is the biblical slaughter, then we need to present his views on the topic.96.42.107.44 (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it could hardly be described as a trivial matter to defend the slaughter of people? The critics are not all atheists either?Theroadislong (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Try to stay on topic:, so we agree that the sentence should be removed or his views need to be fully explained. 96.42.107.44 (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you were referring to me being off-topic or not, but in response to your question my answer is I agree. Choose whichever of the two options you see fit [96.42.107.44]. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The answer is that it should be mentioned if it is notable (i.e. has extensive coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject). If it is mentioned, we should include only parts which are relevant to the biography specifically and directly. It seems to me that this view gets covered quite a bit by our sources, so it should probably be included. It also seems that presenting information about history, the bible, theology and apologetics is not directly relevant to WLC's bio. Remember, wikipedia is not a place to attack and defend ideas; wikipedia is a compilation of coverage we find elsewhere.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

1.) What about adding this link http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-slaughter-of-the-canaanites-re-visited#ixzz2VJZPfFYc which presents his evolved views on the issue? His critics have five links while Craig only has one (which doesn't even present his evolved views).

2.) Does every critic need to be mentioned by name or can we bunch them all together into one name like "opponents" "critics" "philosophers" "theologians" "atheologians" "peers" "colleagues"? William Lane Craig has opponents and critics on every subject. Yet, only in the Slaughter of the Canaanites are 7 critics mentioned by name.

3.) This sentence is conveniently isolated from the "Other Views" paragraph. Can't it be joined with the paragraph? Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

To me the odd thing about the Canaanite slaughter line is the "piling on" effect of listing 7 people who disagree with him. This makes the list of Lane's critics longer than the actual statement of his position. The sentence has become about the criticism (all negative; I'm sure there are people who agree with him) rather than about the view. Not terribly NPOV.

I'd recommend dumping the list, mentioning Craig's current position and then the controversy with a reference to a source (like this one).

Or if we're wedded to the list at least add a balancing list of people who defend his view. Pleonic (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't imagine ANYONE defends his position but if you can find reliable third party references to support it then go ahead and add them.Theroadislong (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Finding 7 supporters does nothing to fix this sentence. It just makes it even longer than "the actual statement of his position". Why not state WLC's position without critics or supporters and make it part of the paragraph above like his view on active homosexuality or Reformed epistemology which doesn't have 7 critcs and 7 supporters? Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible edit (with this reference being added http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-slaughter-of-the-canaanites-re-visited#ixzz2VJZPfFYc):

Craig is a critic of metaphysical naturalism,[24] New Atheism,[25] and active homosexuality[26] as well as a defender of the biblical slaughter of the Canaanites[27] and Reformed epistemology.[28] Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Craig's views on this matter are extensively attested to in a very large number of independent sources, far more so than most other issues in the article, so it seems to me that if we are deciding between either reducing the length of this section, or else expanding it by including the "evolution" of his ideas, then of course we should expand it. This issue has generated more than enough controversy to justify lengthening it. I would like to see this section changed to: "William Lane Craig had defended the Biblical slaughter of the Canaanite people on the grounds that the adults “were corrupt and deserving of judgement” while the children would “inherit eternal life", but has since then argued that the God of the Bible was only ordering the expulsion of the Canaanite people and not the slaughter of those who emigrated willingly His views on this matter have been criticized by..."CurtisNaito (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Craig's views on God's existence and the Resurrection of Jesus are extensively attested to in a large number of sources, but these two views do not have 7 critics attached to them.

I would like to explain his position on the Biblical Slaughter of the Canaanites, but explaining his position is what started this discussion between [Mann Jess], myself, and everyone else. I think it would be best to just state his position only. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Or even better "stating his position and including the evolution of his ideas without mentioning 7 critics". Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You know, when other wiki bio articles have something like this they break it off into a separate "Controversy" section (see Billy Graham or Pat Robertson for example). Maybe that's the course we should take here. Pleonic (talk)

Criticism sections are generally discouraged. See WP:CSECTION. Some articles do it. They shouldn't.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible edit (without 7 critics being attached to his views [like his views on God's existence and the Resurrection of Jesus])(with this reference being added http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-slaughter-of-the-canaanites-re-visited#ixzz2VJZPfFYc):

"Craig is a critic of metaphysical naturalism,[24] New Atheism,[25] and active homosexuality[26] as well as a defender of the biblical slaughter of the Canaanites[27] and Reformed epistemology.[28]" Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No, a list of critics or something like it should be maintained because it demonstrates the point that Craig's stance is widely controversial. When Craig's stance on a certain issue is noted prominently by so many independent sources, we simply can't avoid mentioning this within the article. Currently, no other issue in the article is so widely attested, so we should take that as a sign that it would be worthwhile to go over this controversy in at least a sentence or two.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm also not sure we should be grouping controversial statements in with uncontroversial ones without explanation. I feel like that proposed wording casts Craig in a much poorer light. By the way, Tachyon, could you please indent your posts? Just put a colon before them for each indent level, like other editors here have done. It makes things much easier to read. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This statement "Currently, no other issue in the article is so widely attested" applies to God's existence or the Resurrection of Jesus, but not to the Biblical Slaughter of the Canaanites. Are we going to add 7 critics by name to his view on God's existence, Jesus' resurrection, and the biblical slaughter of the Canaanites? If my wording is poor, then we could re-word it. I just wanted to connect it back to the paragraph. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the subjects on the "Other views" paragraph are controversial, but I should double-check. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think the fundamental issue isn't the wording, in particular, but the structure in general. Imagine reading this: "John is known for being a Christian, celebrating birthdays and killing babies. He also enjoys pie." There's a part of that quote which is out of place. The reason we're including this view at all (frankly, I'd love to just remove it altogether, otherwise) is that it's garnered a lot of attention in reliable sources. (And remember, our only job is to repeat what's covered in reliable sources.) I did trim the list by removing two names that were unsourced. Does that help?   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I give permission to edit this paragraph for proper placement formatting to any editor herein. I was involved in this article early on back in 2008 (simply as background for "who the heck is this guy"). At that time, issues of neutrality came up, as expected. I sought to reach compromise then as now. I am very familiar with Craig and this particular issue of discussion. I have no strong opinion on whether this topic is worthy of mention in this wiki (it could be argued either way as to whether Craig's discussion of the canaanites is wiki-worthy.). But if it remains, I do not think it is worded in a fair and impartial way, as it currently is written. Craig would not himself say "I defend the slaughter of the canaanites." Others frame it that way, and so it may be fair to use that wording in describing his critics. A rough example of reworking might look something like this (and so I am proposing):

"Craig has defended the moral justification of the Old Testament directive to destroy the Canaanites, if the story as it appears in the Bible is assumed to be true. (Citation same as current article, Craig's Canaanites Revisited article). The biblical account of the slaughter of the Canaanites was the subject of discussion among philosophical theologians at the 2010 Society of Biblical Literature Convention in Atlanta, with Craig defending the moral justification of God's directive, if such a directive was given. (Citation again same as current article). Craig's position was subsequently critized by some as defending the genocidal slaughter of the Canaanite people. (Citations here for Richard Dawkins,[35] Colin Howson,[36] Greta Christina,[37] and others[38][39].)

This is my suggesion at least. Adlucem2 (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Adlucem2, I like your suggestion because it tells the "story" from a different viewpoint than what we've been discussing here. Instead of telling it thru the lens of Dawkins' criticism (which some feel is the only important reason to bring it up at all) yours goes back to the scholarly discussion Craig was part of. Starting from there makes much more sense to me since Craig is a prominent Biblical Ethicist and proponent of Divine Command Theory. This points up the fact that even without the Dawkins kerfuffle something on the subject of Canaanites (or more likely violence in the Old Testament) would have to be here simply because the article is about Craig. But at the same time you give I think you give his critics their due. One thing I would suggest is updating Craig's views, which have evolved a bit. Pleonic (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It's good to see more careful wording, but can someone explain why Greta Christina is cited in the discussion? In context, Richard Dawkins is important. I suppose Colin Howson is important, being educated as a philosopher. But Greta Christina seems to be just an internet blogger and atheist activist. Shouldn't we limit the criticisms to more notable individuals than internet bloggers? BabyJonas (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I've questioned the Greta Christina reference too (in the next section). She and Howson were, with Dawkins, part of a much longer list of critics that has been trimmed back because it gave the impression of "piling on" Craig. Howson has a book where he makes a very brief negative mention of Craig on pg. 11, so that was his justification for being here. Christina tho is as you say: a blogger and atheist. Why the trimmers chose to keep her over others, other than that she is somebody who criticized who has a Wiki article, I don't know. Pleonic (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I decided to keep the names of the three individuals who were prominent enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. Another reason why she seemed relevant was that the article she wrote about Craig was exclusively devoted to this very subject and it was published by an independent media outlet which in turn is also prominent enough to have its own Wikipedia article.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at the article and after some thought I think there's a lot of merit to removing her. In the academic literature, Craig is far from the only 'respected mainstream theologian' or even philosopher who holds unusual ethical views. Anyone familiar with the literature will find alarming positions on virtually every aspect of morality from pedophilia, beastiality, and even infanticide. Just ask Peter Singer.

A good guide in a situation such as this would be to restrict criticisms to those in the field who are educated in the subject. In other words, criticism of Keynesianism would be more notable if it came from an economist as opposed to Pauly D, Shaquille O'Neal or Roseanne Barr. Tell me if this seems like a sensible position to take on the issue. BabyJonas (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Are we going to take this sentence to RSN? Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Add reference of evolved views about the Canaanites

[[Mann jess] you wanted to make this edit in the beginning and I wanted to see how it looked like so I agreed (before everyone jumped into the discussion):

"William Lane Craig has defended the biblical slaughter of the Canaanite people, and his views on this matter have been criticized..."

After seeing it, I want to add this reference http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-slaughter-of-the-canaanites-re-visited#ixzz2VJZPfFYc? Either to replace the old one or at least be side by side? His evolved views should be referenced. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yea, we can add that. The thing is, we should strive not to use reasonablefaith.org as a source whenever possible. On this article, it's a very weak source, because it's not independent of the subject. See WP:PRIMARY. It's okay here, I suppose, because our current source is already reasonablefaith.org, so we're not replacing a good source with a bad one. I don't think adding it is really doing the article any favors (citations are for verifying content, and that sentence is already "verified" without adding this link), but I'm not so opposed to it that it's that big of a deal. If you think it's an improvement, then go for it! P.S. Thanks for indenting above, btw :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Though I believe that a secondary source is unnecessary, if there really is some need for it the article by Richard Dawkins quotes all of Craig's opinions, including both his evolved and unevolved stance, so we could use that instead. I do think that some brief explanation of why Craig thinks the way he does should be included.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

A reference by his critic? Don't we have enough references by his critics? I think it is better we let Craig have his own reference since Richard Dawkins already has his own name and reference on WLC. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It's NOT a reference by his critic, it's a reliable third party reference for what Craig said which is preferable to a primary source.Theroadislong (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't shout... Relax... I can read you letters without shouting. Richard Dawkins is a critic. He is referenced as someone who is critiquing his position in WLC. It would have to be someone neutral, a supporter, or Craig himself (if nobody could be found). We already have 5 references from his 6 critics. This hardly leads the reader to an accurate understanding of his position if they decide to look up the references. We want to direct people to good references. The best reference for his evolved view is the Primary reference (a rare exception) unless there is a neutral reference or a supporter reference (that does a good job to counter-balance his 6 critics with 5 references). If the reader wants to see a good reference critiquing his position, well... guess what he has 5 from 6 people. If he wants to see a reference explaining or supporting Craig's view on the issue, he will only have 1 by Richard Dawkins. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

OK I see now that the reference mentioned is a comment piece rather than an article by the Guardian newspaper itself, the reference needs to be a third party reference, Craig cannot be used as a reference for his own article.Theroadislong (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If there is a desire to use reasonablefaith.org as a source I think it would be acceptable. There are a number of featured articles on Wikipedia, including Norman Selfe and James Bryant Conant, which have liberally used primary sources written by the subject of the article and few have objected to this. However, I still feel we need to maintain many or most of the critical columns in order to demonstrate to the reader that the topic is notable by virtue of the widespread controversy it has generated. To balance out the criticism, I am favorable to expanding the description of Craig's own views on the subject to include both his evolved and unevolved position. In addition, I would also be favorable towards mentioning the opinion of a source supportive of Craig, though only if Tachyon1010101010 or someone else can locate such a source.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Two sources supportive of Craig :

Daniel Came (philosopher) in the Guardian: "I am disinclined to defend the God of the Old Testament's infanticide policy. But as a matter of logic, Craig is probably right: if an infinite good is made possible by a finite evil, then it might reasonably be said that that evil has been offset. However, I doubt whether Craig would be guided by logic himself in this regard and conduct infanticide. I doubt, that is, that he would wish it to be adopted as a general moral principle that we should massacre children because they will receive immediate salvation." article

Tim Stanley (historian) in the Telegraph: "Far from using this passage to celebrate the slaughter of heathen, Craig is making the point that the revelation of God’s justice has changed over time. The horrors of the Old Testament have been rendered unnecessary by Christ’s ultimate sacrifice." article Thucyd (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Another supporter of Craig's view (with minor differences) Dr. Matthew Flanagan (Theologian/Analytic Philosopher)

"Before, responding it is important to note that Craig’s own position on the Canaanite issue, the one that the Questioner referred to, Question 16: Slaughter of the Canaanites, is actually largely in agreement with the argument I gave in Atlanta.

Partial quote: "Craig, like me, accepts a divine command theory of ethics whereby an act is obligatory if, and only if, a loving and just God commands it. We also agree that the critic’s appeal to the Canaanites is, contrary to what is often alleged, at best an argument against scriptural infallibility, it is not an argument against a divine command theory of ethics per sé." etc. Pleonic (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am starting to think that the recommendation made in the past by Pleonic is the best course of action we should take. Quote "To me the odd thing about the Canaanite slaughter line is the "piling on" effect of listing 7 people who disagree with him. This makes the list of Lane's critics longer than the actual statement of his position. The sentence has become about the criticism... rather than about the view. Not terribly NPOV.

I'd recommend dumping the list, mentioning Craig's current position and then the controversy with a reference to a source..." End Quote Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia reports what the sources say with due weight. He has been criticised by a number of notable people. The controversy over his comments is a large part of what has made Craig notable recently, certainly in the UK.Theroadislong (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is what I am proposing minus citations. This issue clearly deserves some space so I don't think that it's too long. "William Lane Craig had defended the Biblical slaughter of the Canaanite people on the grounds that the adults “were corrupt and deserving of judgement” while the children would “inherit eternal life", but has since then argued that the God of the Bible was only ordering the expulsion of the Canaanite people and not the slaughter of those who emigrated willingly. His views on this matter have been criticized by Colin Howson, Richard Dawkins, Greta Christina, and others, but supported by the historian Tim Stanley (and the philosopher Matthew Flanagan)." We could include Flanagan if necessary but I'm hesitant to do so because he doesn't appear to be a prominent individual and in that case we should think twice before including the self-published musings he posts on his blog. By contrast, we can't include Daniel Came because he explicitly says that he is "disinclined to defend the God of the Old Testament's infanticide policy" as opposed to Craig who is so inclined. Came's column is a criticism of Dawkins for refusing to debate Craig and not really an attempt to defend "the Old Testament's infanticide policy". I think it's fine to include more critics than supporters if it is true that the number of prominent individuals who have been critical of his stance is greater than the number of supporters, which so far seem to be the case.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a note on Dr. Flannagan. Actually he is rather prominent and well-known in theological circles, if you keep up with those. You may not have heard of him perhaps because he is based in New Zealand but as the beginning of the article I referenced suggests he is quite in the same league as Lane, Paul Copan, John DePoe and other scholars who write on the subject of Biblical Ethics (e.g., the Canaanites). This book should make the same point. For reference here's his page at Academia.edu (listing published papers etc.) and at the Evangelical Philosophical Society.

On the other hand the prominence of Colin Howson and Greta Christina appears rather dubious to me. I have to confess I'm not familiar with either of them but from their Wiki write ups Howson appears to be an unremarkable Canadian Philosophy professor while Christina is mainly just a blogger "self publishing musings on her blog." ;) Neither of them are in the same league as Mr. Dawkins, certainly.

FYI, I can supply the names of several more professors and bloggers who agree with Craig if that's the level of prominence we're looking for. Pleonic (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Both Colin Howson and Greta Christina are prominent enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, and neither of the links cited are blogs. By contrast, your citation of Matthew Flanagan was quoting a blog, and it's technically prohibited to use blogs. I fear that our edits are just going to get deleted by someone else unless we abide by this rule, which as you can see is recorded in prominent bold text. I would like you to supply the name of several more professors who agree with Craig, but it would be useful to use articles and books unless there truly is no other alternative. Without any additional articles or books that are supportive of Craig, I think we are left to assume that his critics do indeed outnumber his supporters, thus justifying the longer list of critics.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The list is a problem. There is no need to have a list of 7 critics in order to convey controversy. Mann Jess brought it down to 6, CurtisNaito is proposing to bring the list down to 3 (summarizing the others by the word "others"), and Pleonic is suggesting that two of the critics are not prominent.. This just goes to show that a list of 7 or 6 is not necessary in order to convey controversy. Otherwise we are going to have 10 references total with 6 critics counterbalanced by 6 supporters each critic/supporter mentioned by name. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As briefly as possible: A.) The rest of the wiki guideline you cite tells us not that blogs are prohibited but that self-published blogs and tweets shouldn't be used as a source for material about a living person, "unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." (See WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source for more info.) That is what the Flannagan reference is. The blog is a professional vehicle for publishing bits of research by him and his wife (a legal scholar).

B.)Given the above, I won't belabor the point that the Greta Christina reference actually is a personal blog post reprinted on AlterNet. ;)

At any rate I would agree with Tachyon1010101010 that strings of names, negative or positive, do make that part of the article look dumb -- i.e., amateurish and non-encyclopedic. They might be appropriate in a WikiNews article but encyclopedias try for perspective. Looked at objectively, the Canaanite dust up is an interesting but not terribly significant event in Craig's overall career (which, after all, is what this wiki article is about). Giving it its due weight the appropriate way to include it here is to do some version of this: A.) Note Craig's current view, with reference, B.) Note that it is controversial, and C.) Include a reference to a reliable, hopefully somewhat neutral, news article describing the controversy just to show future readers it really happened. Pleonic (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Strings of names aren't desirable, but we need to include information that is notable and relevant. I don't know how many of those sources are notable and relevant (personal blogs are not, unless republished or covered in an independent RS). This section does not deserve much weight; it's hardly relevant to Craig's bio, basically amounting to a few critical mentions on the web. Turning the section into a piece discussing theology and biblical history would not be an improvement. The only thing notable is that Craig was criticized, so we only need to (and should only) present the information we have now. There might be a better way to present it, and there might be a way to trim it, but without further references that expand the scope of our coverage, we should not expand it. Finding views supportive of Craig to "balance" the criticism is not the definition of neutrality we use on wikipedia. See WP:WEIGHT.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

With respect, the definition of neutrality we use includes the requirement that "each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints." As this article is about Dr. Craig his is a significant viewpoint in this context. Leaving the misleading impression that there exist only critics of his viewpoint would not be fairly representing it. Hence, indicating here -- by lists of names, quotes, general statements, etc -- that critics exist for Craig's idea while passing over in silence the fact that supporters exist as well (including among his peers) would not be adhering to NPOV.

The notable thing is not just that Craig was criticized but the controversy, the back-and-forth, it generated, as indicated by the "Dawkins is a coward for not debating Craig" headlines quoted in previous Talk page posts. Hence my suggestion that we don't do "Dawkins/Howson/Christina criticized Craig's view but Stanley/Flannagan/Copan defended it," but rather, "Craig put forward this view on the Canaanites (reference) and it generated quite a bit of controversy (reference)." I agree with you Man_jess that it's hardly relevant to Craig's bio. In the context of Craig's life that's about all it deserves, giving it its due weight. Pleonic (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's somewhat more than "a few critical mentions on the web". I should note that the section also cited three published books in addition to Internet articles. My last proposal was only 2 sentences and 84 words which I didn't think was excessive for a topic mentioned by at least six independent books or articles. However, if there is no consensus to expand this section then I guess I advocate leaving it basically the way it is.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

@Pleonic The word "significant", in this context, means "covered significantly by reliable sources". It does not mean "important" or "relevant". We provide coverage only to reflect our sources, not to balance viewpoints. Right now, we have a bunch of reliable sources criticizing Craig, and so it would seem that we have a duty to report that without watering it down to "controversy". I don't like this section, but it's what we're stuck with right now because our sourcing is scarce, and the topic is just shy of irrelevant. That being said, this article has a plethora of issues, and it seems like we're wasting a lot of time on a single sentence which we can't substantially change within the bounds of policy. I don't know if that's entirely productive.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Man_jess, that "significance" (and "importance" and "relevance" for that matter) is indicated by coverage in reliable sources is a NPOV given that I am aware of. My concern is that certain reliable sources indicating significance (i.e., the supportive ones) have been excluded because, in effect, the critical ones got here first and so "we only need to (and should only) present the information we have now." This strikes me as arbitrary and leading to a bias in the article. The "story" here is more than the critical references reflect; references that tell "the rest of the story" should also be admitted.

If the short version I put forward is unacceptable (and I was trying to cut to the bone, I admit) then the most inclusive and unbiased sugestion in my view is the one made by CurtisNaito on June 9th. I believe the objection has been raised that this would expand the section but in a theologian's article "2 sentences and 84 words" is hardly an issue. Pleonic (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm having a lot of difficulty parsing your first sentence. As for the rest, I don't know of anyone that wants to exclude sources just because they got here second. I certainly don't. If you think there's a reliable and independent source which has been excluded, then that's what we should be discussing. I don't think expanding the section further, or delving into history and theology (even if under 100 words) is an improvement.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If that's the standard that you think we should use, we could add the article by Tim Stanley as an alternative opinion and leave the rest the way it is.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes Tim Stanley is a good choice and a good example of the type of reliable sources I mean. I'd add Dr. Flannagan to get a theologian in there but at least including Stanley I view as a big step toward neutrality and will take what I can get. Another reason I like CurtisNaito's 2 sentence proposal because it provides a bit of context to the controversy, which I do think improves it. A little clarifying theology in a theologian's bio isn't abnormal, I don't think.

Man_jess, sorry if my first sentence was hard to decipher. Originally it was, "Demonstrating a view's significance with reliable sources is a given and I'm quite aware of how it works" but I thought that sounded too sharp and snotty so I re-worded it. A bit too much I guess. :) Pleonic (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to expand the sentence and include that Craig thinks "there may have been no non-combatants killed at all". Also, the part about the children inheriting eternal life needs to be worded better.

It would be even better if we could dump the list, state the position, and state the controversy. I understand that people want to give this issue its due weight. If it is true that this issue is just borderline irrelevant (hardly relevant or just shy of irrelevant), then it should be easy to explain the issue without watering it down and without 6 critics/5 references (or 10 references and 12 people). The list gives the false impression that this just shy of irrelevant issue is one of the most important issues in Craig's bio. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The short and sweet version is my preference too Tachyon but other folks think it's too short, apparently. If we have to have a longer version I'd rather it be one that provides a little context and doesn't leave the impression that the whole world universally rose up in horror and condemned Craig's idea -- which CurtisNaito's seems to do. Pleonic (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely comfortable tacking on the Stanley source to the passage, for a couple reasons. Reading it over, it appears to be an opinion piece about Dawkins, so its relevance to an article on Craig is minimal at best. Dawkins is listed here because his opinion on the matter has generated a lot of news coverage. Has Stanley done the same? If not, then by saying "Craig has been criticized by Dawkins, but supported by historian Stanley", we are giving at least equal weight to Stanley over Dawkins. If we're set on continuing this discussion, then I'd really like to get outside opinions. Perhaps posting to RSN would be helpful. Let me mull it over.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If the problem is that it's become a Dawkins opinion piece then the logical move is to remove Dawkins. This would take us back fairly close to my minimalist suggestion: Craig's view (reference), controversy happened (reference). Pleonic (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I mean the Stanley source is an opinion piece about Dawkins. It is commentary posted in the telegraph blog claiming, at length, that Dawkins is a coward. We've discussed this very thing on the talk page before (with more editors participating) and decided against including it. I'm wary against including it now for that reason, its limited relationship to the topic, and because Stanley's analysis hasn't apparently generated much of a splash with other coverage. By including it (and introducing him as a "historian", no less), we're providing equal weight to a lower quality and insignificant source as to higher quality significant ones. Does that make more sense?   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not entirely opposed to your proposal. I'm just concerned that it excludes significant coverage on the subject and downplays the breadth of criticism. The reason this passage is significant to the article isn't because it's a view Craig holds. It is significant to this article only because Craig received swaths of criticism for it. I prefer your wording, but I think your proposal puts the emphasis in the wrong place, so I don't see it as an improvement over what we have now. Anyway, I think going to RSN might be a good move. If you feel that any sources have been excluded from the article, can you list them here? That way we can get some input from other editors.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I also have to point out that Man_jess' criticism above (i.e., that we would be giving equal weight to Dawkins and Stanley)really does not hold water. It's not a case of "Craig has been criticized by Dawkins, but supported by historian Stanley" but Dawkins and all these other referenced and footnoted people criticized him -- which gives Dawkins and his criticism much more weight than Historian Stanley.

In general I'm a bit alarmed at the way the goal posts keep shifting for one to be a supporter of Craig's view. At first they just had to be a reliable source, then they had to be a "prominent" reliable source, then all that plus they don't publish their views on blogs (despite it being well within Wiki policy Blog for Refs here and Self-Published Sources here). Now they must generate as much news coverage as Dawkins. I would say that the constantly morphing requirements is in large part responsible for this section of Talk stretching to it's current length.

Historian Stanley is a qualified reliable source, he is not portrayed as "having equal weight with Dawkins" but clearly represents a minority view (i.e., Craigs view), and as CurtisNaito noted in the change history there is a fair bit of consensus that at least this bit should be added. I'm not terribly happy with the result but at least it's an improvement in fairness and accuracy. Pleonic (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The goalposts haven't shifted. WP:WEIGHT is the goalpost. Giving due weight entails a lot of things. We start with a source, we see if it meets WP:RS, then we assign it weight based on the other sources we have. If there is a ton of coverage for criticism of Craig's view regarding the Canaanites, and one blog post concerning a totally different topic which only tangentially discusses that criticism, then assigning equal weight to both would be inappropriate. You said above that we were excluding sources. Can you please say which sources you think we're excluding? If you do that, we can get outside input. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Mann-jess, thanks for clarifying the "opinion piece" reference. I read that post a little too quickly, I think (I'm doing this at work). Sorry for misunderstanding. Here are some random thoughts about your most recent posts:

A.) I had the same idea as you except I plan to take it (just this one passage) to the NPOV notice board rather than references. It seems to be much more of a NPOV problem to me.

B.) It strikes me that Stanley's defense of Craig being mounted in an opinion piece should not be a problem since Dawkins' and Christina's criticisms are opinion pieces too.

C.) Even if there never had been a controversy I would still have added Craig's view of the "Canaanite slaughter" because Craig is one of the more prominent Biblical Ethicists (who study such things) and this is important stuff in the world of theology. Its part of what makes him notable as a theologian. Knowing this is one reason that I don't see the Dawkins controversy being quite as significant here as you do. Something about this topic would need to be here anyway.

D.) I'm assuming you're referring to my minimalist proposal here and not CurtisNaito's change. If so then we have perhaps a basis for some agreement (Tachyon has preferred that approach as well) and could craft it into something short that is at least marginally acceptable to the consensus. My view is that: First it needs a statement of Craig's position. Everyone seems to agree on on this and getting an up-to-date description is what Tachyon originally started this dialogue for. In the second section I chose "controversy" as the term to use because it can contain the ideas of both criticism and defense. I would let a well chosen reference or references do the heavy lifting, so to speak. Anyone interested in more s detail can click the refs. That is my rationale for that word. Every other word or phrase I can think of breaks the idea apart into "criticism" and "support," which frankly is what I'm trying to avoid with my suggestion in the name of peace and quiet. As soon as the terms are "criticize" and "support" we tend to get immediately into lists of names and which ones and how many are acceptable. I would skip that process altogether.

E.) I may be wrong, reading quickly as I do, but I sensed some skepticism about Stanley ("as a "historian", no less"). But he is indeed a real for sure 'nuff, PhD holding, Oxford teaching and researching, book writing Historian. A highly opinionated historian to be sure, but then Dawkins, Christina, and, from what I've read of his book so far, Howson are also rather opinionated as well.

F.) I just saw your latest post. The sources I'm referring to are the same ones I've been using throughout: Dr. Tim Stanley and Dr. Matthew Flannagan. They're the minority view so I'm not trying to overwhelm with numbers.

My past experience leads me to believe that a majority of Wikipedia users interpret the rules as prohibiting personal blogs so the Flanagan source is not likely to remain. The article by Tim Stanley by contrast should qualify because it is not self-published and it does deal significantly with this issue. Beyond saying that, it's hard to know how we should proceed from here. Though I still prefer my previous proposal, Adlucem2 put forward a new idea which has yet to be discussed. It has some strengths but suffers from weasel words in the last sentence.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You may be right about the Flannagan source CurtisNaito. The policy on citing a source from their self-published blog seems clear to me, but the general ban on blog sources may cause it to be unacceptable to the masses. At any rate if Mann_jess or someone does take it to the reference noticeboard we'll have a wiki ruling on it. I like Adlucem2's suggestion because it tells the "story" from a different viewpoint from what we've been discussing here. Instead of telling it thru the lens of Dawkins' criticism Adlucem2 tells it from the scholarly discussion that was going on before. As I mentioned in my previous post, even without the Dawkins kerfuffle something on the subject of Canaanites (or more likely violence in the Old Testament) would have to be here simply because the subject of the article is Craig. Pleonic (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Are we going to take this sentence to RSN? Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

What does RSN mean? Sorry I'm not an expert. BabyJonas (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm no expert but I guess it's WP:RSN Theroadislong (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're right, then RSN would be irrelevant. The problem is not the reliability of the source, but the relevance. Given controversial positions, criticism can come from a wide variety of people. When selecting which criticism to include, relevance ought to be key. In this case, relevant criticism might come from ethicists, theologians, philosophers, historians, textual critics, etc. If we were to include the criticism of every author, public speaker and internet blogger, the list just becomes bloated, and unfortunately takes on an importance disproportionate to the rest of the article. BabyJonas (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys. This fell off my list of priorities, but it popped up in my watchlist again today. @BabyJonas, the reliability of the sources is certainly relevant. Sources aren't simply "reliable" or "not reliable", and judging reliability requires considering the claim being supported. We're using primary sources (and even more primary sources were suggested for additional content) to back up a controversial claim in a BLP. That hits just about every one of our major policies, so I suppose you could take your pick of noticeboards. Anyway...

On wikipedia, our main concern when including content is only "is it well supported by the sources"? We can't exclude criticism because we, as editors, deem the criticism "irrelevant" (at least in the sense you propose). Our judgement that a critic is "just an author, public speaker, or internet blogger" isn't significant when deciding on content. Weight is, which is determined by prominence in significant reliable sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts on this haven't changed. Given that the controversial position is ultimately a position within ethics and religion, I think more weight should be given to ethicists and philosophers of religion or other individuals whose names bear some familiarity or relevance to the readers of the article. I gave an example earlier of where given a controversial economic policy, the views of economists, academics or other individuals educated on the topic ought to carry more weight than, for instance, any criticism of aforementioned economic policy forwarded by someone like Jennifer Aniston or Justin Bieber, no matter how prominent or significant their voices may be to the general public. I'm sure there are numerous other, more relevant critics of this position more relevant than this Greta Christina. Ideally someone with some expertise or cachet in the relevant subject matter. BabyJonas (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If you have another source to propose including, by all means, please present it. However, we don't typically judge sources the way you're proposing. Wikipedia is like a newspaper: we repeat notable coverage found in other media outlets. Our job isn't to judge the coverage and decide whether we think it's relevant or apt.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the sources as are- Dawkins, Howson and co are sufficient. In fact, Thom Stark's academic specialization make his criticism more relevant than Greta Christina's. Randal Rauser has written(http://randalrauser.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Rauser11.1.pdf) in disagreement with Craig's view. Rauser's academic background confers some academic authority to his views contra Craig. Wes Morriston, professor of philosophy at University of Colorado and well known in philosophy of religion circles disagrees with Craig's view (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/wes/DidGodCommandGenocide.pdf). These are colleagues of William Lane Craig, well-versed in textual criticism whose views are actually credible. BabyJonas (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Properly representing views in this BLP

In order to accurately describe the views of William Lane Craig on the controversial topic of "the slaughter of the Canaanites", I read the source cited for his alleged defense of the alleged event, and upon closer reading discovered that the source does not describe Craig defending an actual slaughter, but a divine command. Repeated references in the article defend not a slaughter, but a command. For example "...should often express such indignation at God’s commands, since..." Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-slaughter-of-the-canaanites-re-visited#ixzz2aSk6EW8u. Furthermore, the article clarifies "I have come to appreciate as a result of a closer reading of the biblical text that God’s command to Israel was not primarily to exterminate the Canaanites but to drive them out of the land..." So is Craig defending a command to slaughter, or a command to "drive them out of the land"? See the quote: "If the Canaanite tribes, seeing the armies of Israel, had simply chosen to flee, no one would have been killed at all. There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples." I started a new section on this, as I'm not sure this has come up before. BabyJonas (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I suppose we could change it to "William Lane Craig has defended God's biblical command to slaughter the Canaanite people". I'm not sure that helps, and I think it's kind of splitting hairs. Most of our sources talk about Craig defending the genocide, not defending God's command. Sure, reasonablefaith.org talks about both. I'm not sure it really matters, and I think that kind of new wording would just complicate things even more... getting us further from our independent sources for no real gain.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I also reverted a change to this section and the lead. A couple issues stood out to me:

1. A lot of our sources discuss Craig as a Christian apologist. This is arguably the biggest reason he is well known. I don't think removing it from the article is an improvement.
2. Craig is a philosopher of religion. Reducing clarity by calling him a "philosopher" probably doesn't help.
3. This section was changed to "...defended the morality of the divine command to drive out the Canaanite people." I don't believe that accurately reflects our sources. No criticism of Craig that we are presenting discusses the "driving out" of the Canaanites. They discuss the genocide of the Canaanites. We need to stick to our sources.
4. A source was removed to Greta Christina, and I'm not sure why. AFAICT, the source deserves some weight since she is a notable commentator and her article was picked up in other sources. Is there another reason she was removed?   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with referencing Craig as a Christian apologist is that given what Christian apologetics refers to (roughly, a defense of Christian theological claims), we would also have to label people like Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, and even Francis Collins, in a roundabout way, as Christian apologists given the nature of some of their work. This is impractical and seems to defer too much weight to the title of Christian apologist. A much better alternative, it seems is to see "Christian apologist" as a term used predominantly within the realm of Christian language. Moreover, "Christian apologist" is not, properly speaking a career or vocation that one can be known for. The other problem is that given the term "apologist" as synonymous for defender, we are put in a situation where consistent use of language requires we call other people apologists. A pro-choice apologist? A PETA apologist? A vegan apologist? Wikipedia isn't ready for that, to be honest. That being said, I think it's useful to mention his work in "Christian apologetics" further in the body of the article, within the context of Christianity, or the Christianity vs Atheism debate.

Greta Christina was discussed earlier. She isn't sufficiently notable given the topic and the angle from which it is described. If we can get ethicists or fellow philosophers disagreeing with the view, that would be much more relevant.

If you look at Craig's academic publications (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig/publications), his work is not limited to philosophy of religion, but touches on physics, cosmology, and the presentism-vs-eternalism debate in philosophy of time. His CV shows he was the president of the Philosophy of Time Society, so describing him as a philosopher of religion doesn't accurately convey the scope of his work. I like how they worded the profile of another well-known philosopher David Chalmers. We could mention his specializations in the lede.

On the Canaanite slaughter, please take a closer look at the source. The title mentions slaughter, but the article itself repeatedly references "God's commands" as what Craig is defending. For what it's worth, I will be reading more about this in the coming weeks.

Thanks for raising these issues. BabyJonas (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

On wikipedia, we go by what the sources say exclusively. Perhaps you're right that other people could be labelled Christian apologists; feel free to argue that on their talk pages, or write about it on your own, but in either case it has no bearing on what our sources say about WLC. The vast majority refer to him as a Christian apologist, so we have to represent that. We cannot include our own personal interpretation of labels, and allow that to inform content decisions.

Your other points follow along the same lines. We need to go by sources, not arguments between editors. The sources I see largely refer to him as a philosopher of religion. What sources do we have that discuss him as a philosopher outside of a religious context? We need to weight those sources alongside the others we have.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying about the Canaanite issue. We have a lot of high quality sources which discuss Craig as defending the "genocide" and "slaughter". We also have a primary source authored by Craig which discusses "God's commands". The primary source doesn't outweigh independent secondary sources. I'm happy to discuss this further, but please don't try to edit war your changes into the article in the meantime. You should read over WP:BRD. Let's talk it over and form consensus, and then make whatever changes are appropriate. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking at a number of credible sources that don't call him a Christian apologist. http://www.closertotruth.com/participant/William-Lane-Craig/24, including his own faculty pages at his institution(s): http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/william_craig/, http://faculty.biola.edu/william_craig/, his bio on amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/William-Lane-Craig/e/B001IOH3GQ, his bio on the Veritas forum http://www.veritas.org/Presenters.aspx?pid=32. His publishing biography in his Blackwell doesn't call him a Christian Apologist either (ISBN-13: 978-1405176576). It seems as though the one source used is a bit of an anomaly so far as using that term.

The other issue is one of proper representation. When we are claiming to represent what someone's views are, it's perfectly fine to quote them directly in their own work. The independent secondary source, in this case an op-ed, doesn't seem to carry more weight if it is, keep in mind, an op-ed. Op-eds, even in prestigious papers can misrepresent one's views. Given two depictions of an individual's views, it seems as though their own claims take priority over others, unless of course, there is some documented evidence of the claim made by a third party. I'm simply not seeing any basis on which to keep it as is. BabyJonas (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Craig is defending genocide? When did he claim this? I think his critics think he defends genocide, but not Craig himself.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could change the Canaanite sentence to something like this. This way allows us to squeze in what Craig is actually defending and what his critics are accusing him of:

"William Lane Craig has defended God's biblical command to drive out the Canaanite people from their land, a position which has been criticized by Richard Dawkins, Colin Howson, Greta Christina, and others as a form genocide.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we would be hard-pressed to find many people who defend genocide openly and as such, even amongst perpetrators of genocide. The fact that Mr. Craig does not think he defends genocide does not necessarily indicate that he does not; I would go so far as to call it irrelevant. siafu (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it irrelevant? He thinks he doesn't defend genocide, but his critics think he does. Why are we going to prefer his critics opinion on the matter? Are we emotionally attached and have already made up are minds that his critics are right and Craig is wrong? No, we should just state the fact that he does not think he defends genocide, but his critics think he does. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tachyon. WLC does not defend genocide. That should be made clear in the article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The question is "what do the sources say?" Why is it relevant to put this view in the article at all? It's relevant because he's been widely criticized in reputable sources. In other words, the criticism is notable, and we need to document that criticism. The sources we have that cover the criticism say that he defends the genocide of the Canaanites, so that's what we should reflect. We don't have to say "Craig defended the genocide...", because this isn't about what Craig did, it's about the attention he attracted. I don't think the current revision is an improvement over what we had, and I don't think either version is really an ideal summary. In either case, we should absolutely not be using Craig's primary source to trump reliable, independent, secondary sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually the issue is not that he's been widely criticized or the attention he's receiving. The subheading is "Other views", and the focus must be on the views, which need to be represented accurately. If we need to include criticism, it has to be of the views, not of the person. With regards to this, WP:SPS suggests that it is appropriate to cite Craig, provided it is done in reference to claims about himself and his own position. There is, per WP:SPS no problem with citing Craig, at least to explain his own views correctly. BabyJonas (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say there was a problem citing Craig. I said we have many reliable independent sources saying one thing, and one primary source by Craig saying another. We prefer secondary sources over primary ones, and independent sources over the author's own work. Further, we place criticism within the body of the article, not in "criticism" sections; it's not relevant that the section title is "other views". The reason it is relevant is because of the secondary, independent, reliable sources discussing it. Those are the ones we are compelled to prefer.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

In this case, it would seem that the primary source is equally relevant, given that it fulfills the criteria listed in WP:SPS. I noticed the Dawkins citation was an opinion piece. Do you believe opinion pieces carry the same weight as news articles? BabyJonas (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I also didn't say it wasn't relevant. I said it was a primary source written by the subject, and does not outweigh multiple independent secondary sources. That's our policy on wikipedia for handling sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The genocide was with relation to the Amalakites - Moses told the Israelites to exterminate them totally. The Canaanites were more ethnic cleansing. PiCo (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Harvard citations

Sorry you rejected them.

— 189.61.0.190 (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey 189. Harvard refs are great - I had some trouble separating out any changes to ref style from the rest of the edits. If you want to make a change to the ref style, by all means. These are the things I was trying to prevent:

• We shouldn't be putting citations inline. For instance: Craig wrote {{Citation book.....
• A reference to Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom was changed to just "Craig", which linked to "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" in the Bibliography. Neither is correct (apparently). If the source is Divine Foreknowledge, then we should keep it as such. I figured the other similar changes followed that same pattern, but it seems they are all correct and that must have just been a typo.

I saw some other issues, but looking over the diffs again, I can probably separate out some of the positive changes better. It's tough since they're all separated out. I must have been looking at an in-between diff before, and missed some of the other citation changes, which I think we definitely do want. Let me see what I can do.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Too many sources showing WLC attracted criticism

We do not need five sources in order to show that WLC attracted criticism.

Quote: As a Divine Command Theorist, William Lane Craig's controversial defense of the moral status of the divine command to slaughter the Canaanite people[34] attracted criticism from Richard Dawkins,[35] Colin Howson,[36] Greta Christina,[37] and others.[38][39] End Quote Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Recommend we reduce the number. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I favor maintaining the critical sources in order to demonstrate the breadth and significance of the criticism which his statement has attracted, but because this section has proven controversial before, I am suggesting two alternative ways we can improve it provided that consensus can be reached for such a change. One possibility is to add a source favorable to Craig's views in order to balance the criticism. It was suggested earlier that this link could constitute a reliable source favorable to Craig's theological position. A second alternative would be to not mention Colin Howson or Greta Christina by name and put both of these citations after "and others."

Oh, and on a related note for this sentence, an additional citation will be needed in the future to demonstrate that Craig is described as or describes himself as a "Divine Command Theorist". It doesn't appear that the citations provided refer to him using this description.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should not mention Colin Howson or Greta Christina by name and I agree we should put both of these citations after "and others.", but I do not agree that we should keep these two citations (mentioned below) after "and others":

Thom Stark, Human Faces of God (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2011), 103.

John W. Loftus, Why I became an atheist: a former preacher rejects Christianity (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2008), 39.

5 citations are not needed in order to "demonstrate the breadth and significance of the criticism" he has attracted. We should bring it down to three. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, provided that the sources are reliable and pertinent, just having five of them doesn't seem to me like a sufficient reason to delete them. Those two sources appear to be reliable, published accounts and though this issue isn't a big deal I don't really think that five is an excessive number of sources for documenting a significant controversy like this. As I mentioned in an earlier discussion, if I could have gotten agreement from others then what I had actually wanted to do is expand this sentence to include more sources, more context, and additional details.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

We just need to document that he received criticism. 5 sources is overkill. Let's talk about your alternatives. If I remember correctly, some editors did not consider alternative 1 as feasible. What about alternative 2? This would be my preference. What's yours?

Happy Thanksgiving - Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with CurtisNaito above. The criticism is very important and needs expansion to include more sources, more context, and additional details, not less. Having more sources is never a bad thing. Theroadislong (talk) 08:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Vague stuff about Kalam argument

I removed this:

The argument has its origins in the early church<ref>{{cite web|last=Wildberg|first=Christian|title=John Philoponus|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philoponus/|publisher=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|accessdate=15 March 2014}}</ref> and was refined by medieval Islamic scholastics.<ref name= "RJVA">{{cite book|last= VanArragon|first= Raymond J. |title=Key Terms in Philosophy of Religion|year= 2010 |publisher=Continuum |isbn= 1-4411-3867-6 |page=127 |url= http://books.google.com/books?id=JyTohO1AMzwC&pg=PA127}}</ref><ref>{{cite book| last= Smith |first= Quentin |authorlink= Quentin Smith|editor-last= Martin |editor-first=Michael| chapter= Kalam Cosmological Arguments for Atheism|title= The Cambridge companion to atheism |year=2007|publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn =978-0-521-84270-9|page=183 |url=http://books.google.com/?id=tAeFipOVx4MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Cambridge+Companion+to+Atheism}}</ref>

because I think it's both too much and too little information for the lead. It doesn't tell what the argument is, so it's too little. It tells a brief history of the argument, which is too much, given that there are two links to click on in the sentence preceding it for readers who don't know how the argument goes. If they don't know, they click on the links and discover the info I deleted. If they do know, they certainly know the info in the sentence I deleted. Hence, why have the sentence? Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Some inline citations I removed from lead

I removed these:

<ref name= "RJVA">{{cite book|last= VanArragon|first= Raymond J. |title=Key Terms in Philosophy of Religion|year= 2010 |publisher=Continuum |isbn= 1-4411-3867-6 |page=127 |url= http://books.google.com/books?id=JyTohO1AMzwC&pg=PA127}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last= Keathley|first=Kenneth |title=Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach |year=2010 |publisher=B&H |isbn =0-8054-3198-5 |page=6 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=uDsKisgT0f0C&pg=PA6}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=De Weese |first= Garrett J. |title=God and the Nature of Time |year=2004 |publisher=Ashgate |isbn=0-7546-3519-8 |page=215 |url= http://books.google.com/books?id=DDPk9eGFpS8C&pg=PA215}}</ref>

since they all support statements which are, as is appropriate per [[WP:LEAD], discussed in more detail in the body of the article. None of them are any longer supporting any other facts, and they don't discuss Craig's work at length (hence not appropriate for "further reading" section), so I think it's best to take them out. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ideas for the lead section

Ideally I'd like to take out the following list of books, as I think it's too detailed for the lead:

Craig has authored or edited a number of books, including The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz (1980), Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology (with Quentin Smith, 1993), Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (with J.P. Moreland, 2003), Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (2008), and The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (with J.P. Moreland, 2009).

But before that, I think it'd be good to have a few paragraphs with info on his early life, his education, and a little bit on each of the subjects he works on, finishing up with his debating career. I'm planning to write these before I take out the book list, though, and want to solicit thoughts and suggestions here as well.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Muslim Scholasticism

The quote about Islamic Scholasticism is not accurate. The Kalam argument, as well as others that Dr. Craig defends existed before the origin of Islam. Mohammad Al-Ghazali, the chief Islamic proponent of the Kalam argument, borrowed most of his material from John Philoponus.2601:0:B080:49C:ADF9:69BF:E51F:4F4 (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's quite reasonable that the reasonable observer would say that WLC has just said it has Muslim roots because he is trying to win over Muslims. Christians and Muslims really are not so different... except Islam believes that Jesus never died on the cross. That it was faked. Islam is a conspiracy spin off, of Christianity. 129.180.136.5 (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

WLC, analytic philosopher

He does work in analytic philosophy, and it does get cited:

• [1] 14 citations per gscholar
• [2] 20 citations per gscholar
• [3] 26 citations
• [4] 18 citations
• [5] 33 citations

It doesn't seem unreasonable to call him an analytic philosopher based on this material. And see the articles he's cited in in the SEP, esp. regarding his critique of McTaggart.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Not only that but his degrees are in philosophy and theology (two separate PhD's). Being a christian apologist, therefore, should not be his primary description. That he DOES do apologetics, is obvious and should be mentioned in the lead. So, I think a more accurate way of stating the first two lines is,

William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an American analytic philosopher and theologian from Peoria, Illinois. He works in the philosophy of religion, philosophy of time, philosophical theology, and Christian Apologetics.

If I remember correctly, the article used to be phrased in a similar way, until someone made edits to paint WLC as primarily a christian apologist, which clearly he is not. What do you all think? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that apologetics is a subfield of theology, not of philosophy, and therefore your proposed sentence is blurring the issue. I also think that it privileges his philosophical work over his theological work to list three separate subfields of philosophy that he's worked on and then put apologetics, which requires expertise in an entirely different field, as if it were on a par with those three. Also, I think that listing out the kinds of philosophy he does in the very second sentence, when they're described in the lead section anyway, gives undue weight to his work in philosophy which, while influential (e.g. per SEP citations), is not the work for which he's most widely known. Also I think it's unreasonable to make "analytic philosopher" (a subfield) and "theologian" (a broad discipline with many subfields) parallel as you do in your proposed first sentence.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm...this is the way he describes himself on his Website.

Reasonable Faith features the work of philosopher and theologian Dr. William Lane Craig in order to carry out its three-fold mission:

• to provide an articulate, intelligent voice for biblical Christianity in the public arena.
• to challenge unbelievers with the truth of biblical Christianity.
• to train Christians to state and defend Christian truth claims with greater effectiveness.

In light of this, how about this for a first sentence in the lead?

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

This has the benefit of ordering the first sentence in the way that he describes himself. Thoughts? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds excellent. We should put this edit into place. --TMD (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No, because saying he's a theologian and an apologist is like saying he's a philosopher and an analytic philosopher. Choose one or the other. If all you really care about is putting philosopher before apologist I suppose I have no objection.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't consider theologian = Christian apologist, since WLC has a PhD in theology (in addition to philosophy) and not apologetics. In other words, Christian apologetics is what WLC does with his training (PhD's). However, if it's one or the other, how about this?

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

Thoughts? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that theologian = Christian apologist, I said that theologian <= Christian apologist in exactly the same way as philosopher <= analytic philosopher. If you say theologian rather than apologist, which is a subspecialty of theology, you're breaking the parallelism with analytic philosopher. It should say either "analytic philosopher and apologist" or "philosopher and theologian" (in either order). I personally prefer the first because as an apologist he's super well known and lauded, whereas as a theologian he's not so highly ranked since, theology being a superset of apologetics, there are more people involved to compare him to. Plus it's better to identify academics by their subspecialties. It's usually how it's done. The fact that his Ph.D. is in theology and he does apologetics is a red herring. His other Ph.D. is in philosophy and he does analytic philosophy. Ph.D.'s are not given in subspecialties even though everyone who gets a Ph.D. has a subspecialty, and sometimes their profession is named after the subspecialty depending on various factors, e.g. if there's a word for it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer the latter ("philosopher and theologian") in the lead and an expansion of Christian apologist in the body as this would move from the general to the specific activities he's engaged in. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, how about this: William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an American philosopher and theologian from Peoria, Illinois. He specializes in analytic philosophy and Christian apologetics. That way we get the most general description in the first sentence, more specific but still general info in the second sentence, and then leave the details of his work to the body of the article? I absolutely agree with you that the section on his apologetics needs expansion. I've been thinking about what else needs to go in there, but there's tons of stuff, clearly.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think that's perfect. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, why don't we wait at least for Mann_jess to weigh in before making the edit, as they've put a lot of thought into this article as well?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That is a well-worded opening sentence. "Philosopher and theologian" sound about right. --TMD (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that works. Sums it up well.--Apologeticsaurus Rex (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

this article seems to lack neutrality

I find this article incomplete to say the least. There are no sections that include criticisms or counter-arguments to his positions (and there are a few..), while in almost all other biographies there is always such a section (as part of the text or in different subheading)...why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.161.233 (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you add some, then?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits have added massive amounts of poorly sourced non neutral content and red links, I hardly know where to begin! Theroadislong (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The dead-end wikified words have been cleaned up. And instead of just asserting it, can you please give examples of "poorly sourced non neutral content" in the article? This article currently has over 100 total references from many different sources. That is really good compared to other articles of this type. Thanks. --Bobby 02:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apologeticsaurus Rex (talk • contribs)

I agree that the recent edits lack neutrality and contain just attacks on William Lane Craig. If they are included then they should not be allowed to stand alone. To be fair they should only stay if the responses of Craig and/or his defenders are added to provide balance (CaptainCS (talk)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainCS (talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any attacks? Theroadislong (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps criticisms is a better work. When I went to Lawrence M. Krauss page I saw no such link to his critics. It seems to me that if we are going to include his critics then we should also include his defenders or make it like Krauss's page where we include neither. CaptainCS (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC) There are no attacks currently on his page, just descriptions of some of his controversial public positions that have provoked debate. This certainly deserves a place on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.248.87 (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Good article criteria

Hello. I noticed this article listed at the Good Article nomination site. I'm not going to quick-fail it because I only glanced at it, but it appears to need more work. If the cleanup banners are valid (I didn't look closely), that is cause for an immediate failure for the nomination. However, it also apparently doesn't adhere to Good Article Criterion 3.b.: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". The sections on Craig's thoughts should only provide a summary of Craig's position regarding them. Please also review the Good article criteria. I recommend withdrawing the nomination at this point and getting a peer review. An experienced editor can help raise the quality of the article regarding Wikipedia's criteria. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)