Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

Do you need assistance?

Would you like to help?

Request dispute resolution

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.

If you need help:

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

Become a volunteer

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

Volunteers should remember:

Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.

Open/close quick reference

To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Autism	In Progress	Oolong (t)	19 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 18 hours	FactOrOpinion (t)	1 hours
Sri Lankan Vellalar	Closed	Kautilyapundit (t)	17 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 17 hours
Imran Khan	New	SheriffIsInTown (t)	13 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 14 hours	WikiEnthusiast1001 (t)	1 days, 5 hours
Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)	On hold	Abo Yemen (t)	8 days, 3 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 7 hours	Abo Yemen (t)	2 days, 7 hours
Habte Giyorgis Dinagde	New	Jpduke (t)	2 days, 18 hours	None	n/a	Jpduke (t)	2 days, 18 hours
List of WBC world champions	Closed	Blizzythesnowman (t)	1 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	16 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 21:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251, 252

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Current disputes

William Lane Craig

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Squatch347 on 16:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

William Lane Craig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Collapsing all previous discussion and comments about dispute, I've read through it. Let's start with a clean slate. Steven Crossin 15:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Dispute overview

These disputes started initially with the removal of a long standing quote on the William Lane Craig page. This was a quote and topic that had three prior talk page discussions with consensus over the last few years. It became a hotbed issue for a number of editors and resulted in changes being made to the page absent discussion on Talk or consensus. In the last few days it has attracted a number of new editors who have begun removing whole sections of the page absent any discussion on the talk page or clear wiki policy supporting the change.

I have little confidence given the emotion and POV level on the talk page that a rational discussion of these edits will occur. I think a return to status quo ante (say 20 may or so) would be a good place to start discussion on proposed changes.

I should highlight that there is no current "no changes allowed' type arguments here, the request has been for discussion on talk prior to removal of long-standing and repeatedly agreed to content.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have proposed three different suggested text changes to the relevant sections and proposed criteria for the removal of some content as recommended by editors. I have supported removal of several sections for streamlining and published relevant secondary sources when asked. Finally, I've been prompt and courteous in responding to requested changes on the talk page and not escalated discussion with personal attacks, but rather ignored several personal attacks and derogatory comments.

How do you think we can help?

I believe an emphasis on collaborative editing and a reminder of the wiki policies around biographies by Admins would help calm down the topic a bit. The debate appears to focus more on individual editors' attitudes toward the biography's subject than objective editing, so some monitoring of those edits would help as well.

Update: As Robert McClenon prepares to evaluate this case I'd like to update this requested assistance section to be more in line with where, I think, the discussion has evolved to and what the primary matters of contention are. I would propose this [1] as my summary of the issue at hand (specifically the second paragraph onward). The difference seems to be that some editors feel that any discussion of any topic, even in included in a WP:RS, that isn't fully confined to their conception of philosophy should not be included. The question comes down to, if a topic is published by a reputable source, should we be the arbiters of whether it is "vetted" or not?

Secondarily, I think mediation can help us work through the points proposed by [User:GretLomborg|GretLomborg] as points of consensus [2]:

William Lane Craig is a philosopher and a theologian, he is not a scientist.
Philosophy and theology are not pseudoscience.
The ideas of philosophers or theologians do not require the recognition of scientists to be covered in their biographies, even when they reference or comment upon scientific theories.
The article William Lane Craig is not a science article.
The overriding goal of a biography article should be to accurately describe its subject, his life, and his work. Following that goal is what is best for the encyclopedia and its readers.
The article William Lane Craig is a biography.
It is right and proper to directly attribute William Lane Craig's thoughts to himself in his biography.
As a biography of a philosopher and theologian, the article William Lane Craig should cover his thought. Examining the list of featured and good articles from the Philosophers [Biography] Task Force, this is common practice (e.g. Søren_Kierkegaard#Philosophy_and_theology, Bertrand_Russell#Views, and Karl_Popper#Philosophy).
None of William Lane Craig's philosophical or theological ideas should lack coverage, or have their coverage minimized, in his biography because an editor disagrees with them or believes them to be mistaken. That conflicts with the overriding goal of a biography to "accurately describe its subject, their life, and their work." In a biography we describe their ideas (and reactions to them) from a neutral point of view, even when we think their ideas are wrong.
The standard of inclusion of William Lane Craig's philosophical or theological ideas in the article should be: can the idea or position be attributed to him based on WP:RS, keeping in mind WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:PRIMARYCARE. Sources from philosophy and theology are acceptable and sufficient. At one point, though perhaps not now, the William Lane Craig article was in dire need of further secondary sourcing, which I wholeheartedly support.
It's right and proper to reference criticism and critique of William Lane Craig in his biography if it can be reliably sourced and is not given improper emphasis.

Squatch347 (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Theroadislong

The article has been in a VERY poor state for some time, with far too much unsourced or primary sourced POV trumpery. All attempts to remove this have been reverted. This [3] would be a good place to start again as suggested by User:ජපස. Theroadislong (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by ජපස

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I reject this dispute resolution as the summary is not written neutrally. If the proposer would rewrite it WP:Writing for the enemy, I will consider undergoing dispute resolution. jps (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by GretLomborg

I got involved with this article when I noticed nearly every sentence in a basic biographical section was being challenged as "^{[citation needed]}". Many of those facts were already sourced and easily verified in nearby references (sometimes ones even attached to the same sentence). I thought that was odd, so I spent a little time adding relatively easily found references for things like degrees held, etc. I've since been watching the page, and have seen this dispute unfold. My involvement has been limited to some clarifying comments on the talk page, and some reversions of a couple large deletions (one of nearly the entire article content).

The article's subject appears to work extensively in atheism/theism debates, and that's a recipe for conflict as we're seeing now. It appears that some editors object to the subject's ideas [4], and are attempting to excise as much article content as they possibly can, sometimes using spurious Wikipedia policy arguments to do so, or by claiming that sources don't support it without making a serious attempt at verification. I think that, despite whatever anyone thinks of the article's subject or his ideas, they should be summarized and represented neutrally, encyclopedically, and completely in his own biography article.

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

After doing some research, it appears that one of the most disruptive editors in this dispute User:ජපස/jps has previously been topic-banned from a topic that he probably considers similar to the one of this article (see [5] [6]). He is being uncivil and aggressive by being snarky and sarcastic with other editors whom he opposes and not assuming good faith (see [7] [8] [9]). His behavior on this article may be a reprise of his previous problematic behavior. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: As of now [10], pretty much every sentence of the intro, biography, and career sections has one or more supporting cites to either a secondary source or a WP:BLPSELFPUB-acceptable source. This includes sections other editors wanted to WP:TNT. Other sections that were proposed to be WP:TNT'd appear to have always had support via secondary sources in WP:GENREFs (e.g. the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's page on the Cosmological Argument), and I suspect that most if not all of the gaps can be filled in with secondary citations to academic book reviews in theology or philosophy journals, though some of those may only be available in print. I appeal to all the editors involved to make a good-faith efforts to find secondary sources and add inline citations. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2: tl;dr: This dispute has been very fast moving, and I think we're past the WP:TNT stage. However I think it's still necessary to emphasize that in the biography of a philosopher/theologian, the subject's ideas should be summarized neutrally, encyclopedically, and completely. Even if every fiber of an editor's body is opposed to those ideas and their whole field of study, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Writing_for_the_opponent and WP:OPPONENT mean they should still be included, and WP:BIASEDSOURCES means theological and Christian sources are acceptable, at least to outline the subject's views and reactions to them within that part of his academic community. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Bill the Cat 7

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Overall, I agree with Squatch347. The problem would half solved if we just removed the accusation of genocide. One person unjustifiably accusing another person of supporting genocide because they got their panties in a bunch is irrelevant, not noteworthy, and it just doesn't belong in a BLP. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Hob Gadling

It is easy to find out that the claim that the topic "had three prior talk page discussions with consensus over the last few years" is simply not true. There was never a consensus, there were always the same two sides, with various representatives, and the discussion just stopped in each case without anybody changing their stance. There are some users, like the filing editor, who want to keep every inappropriate part of the article that makes the person Craig look good and his opponents look bad, and who achieved that in every case by sheer persistence and by misrepresentation, instead of valid reasoning. For some reason, all except two of the recent editors who were anti-Came-quote (Theroadislong and ජපස) have not have not been notified here: User:AzureCitizen, User:Guettarda, User:FreeKnowledgeCreator and me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by PaleoNeonate

I am not used to DRN but have promised to look at the article so am offering my assessment. Apologetics are currently presented unduly like if they were mainstream scientific breakthroughs. There is no need to expand on what the Kalam argument is, for instance, to say that the author is a notable proponent. Another obvious problem is that most is editor commentary on the author's primary sources, rather than summaries of third party reviews of his work. —Paleo Neonate – 22:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note by Drmies

This article, after the most recent revert by GrettLomborg, is in a terrible condition. jps's cleanup made sense to me. However, if jps wants this to be resolved, he should probably refrain from posting unacceptable personal attacks like this one. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Lane Craig discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I thought the template notified them. I have updated everyone now. Squatch347 (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Note - The filing editor has notified some but not all of the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Note - I will try in the next 24 hours to open this case for moderated discussion, but first:
- - Stop editing the article.
  - Stop the personal attacks.
  - Read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules, although I have not yet started moderated discussion.
  - Stop editing the article.
  - Stop the personal attacks.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by moderator

I will try to moderate this discussion, at least for a little while. The article has been fully protected for a week. Leave it alone. After the full protection expires, leave it alone anyway. Read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules, and comply with the rules. Be civil and concise. Both civility and conciseness have been in short supply on this article. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements are not useful. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Comment on content, not on contributors.

Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think should be done to improve the article?

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First statements by editors

My proposal for article improvement would involve two major areas of focus. 1) Review of the section currently called "Apologetics" to reflect areas of Apologetic positions and philosophical works. The goal of this would be to make the page more consistent with other philosophers' pages. See Alvin Plantinga or Daniel Dennett for example. In that effort each major section should be made concise, covering primarily a brief summary of the position, its notable points, and notable publications on the topic. 2) Referencing notability, a table of public debates and notable talks should be included. This is the main source of Craig's non-professional notability and warrants reference. The table should include; participants, topics, locations, notes. - Squatch347 (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Note: I copied Squatch347's sig up here to maintain readable attribution, as the latter half of his comment was rearranged to be at the bottom. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

The article can be improved by looking for third-party independent sources which discuss Craig's ideas and only including an explanation of the ideas about which third-party independent sources have commented. Furthermore, when an idea of Craig's is in the purview of a particular epistemic community (say, science, for example), the only third-party independent sources which should count are those which are produced by members of that community (say, scientists, for example). If there are no sources which comment upon a particular idea of Craig's from the relevant epistemic community, we should not include the idea in the article. jps (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article can be improved by fleshing out the "Apologetics" section (once more-neutrally labeled "Research" prior to this dispute) to give an appropriately complete account of the subject's thought and work. That is what's best for the readers of the encyclopedia and the article. Other content goals may take priority on other parts of Wikipedia, but not in a biography. The subject is clearly notable as a philosopher and theologian ([11] [12] for a few examples), and per WP:NNC, it's inappropriate force the article content of his biography to be subject to further notability evaluation. Furthermore, it's inappropriate to require some other field (e.g. physics) to validate the subject's thoughts and views in order to include them in his biography: if they can be verifiably attributed to him, they should be permitted to be included, regardless or whether they are correct or incorrect in the judgement of some editor. They're his thoughts, and one reads his biography to learn about them. I think this is the core issue, there are smaller implementation details that I won't get into now. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A small note to the other editors here and the moderator. I will be offline as part of the national guard until 30 June. No issue with continuing resolution without me in the meantime of course, but I didn't want anyone to think I was ignoring them if questions or concerns came up. Sorry for the delay. Squatch347 (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second Statement by Moderator

Okay. I had meant to ask each editor to give specifics about what they want changed in the article, and so I will do that now. However, here is a summary of what the editors have said:

1. Rework the Apologetics section, possibhly renaming it as Research.

2. Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks.

3. Look for independent third-party sources.

4. Compare Craig's article to that on Plantinga. (Plantinga, like Craig, and unlike Dennett, is best known as a Christian philosopher.)

Will each editor please comment on those four points briefly?

Comments about what should not be included are not helpful unless they request to omit something in particular that is in the article.

Will each editor please list one or two specific changes that they think should be made to the article?

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second Statements by Editors

1. Rework the Apologetics section, possibhly renaming it as Research.

Rework? Yes. Rename it "research"? No. That's a POV-push. jps (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks.

I see no purpose to this. WP:NOT#CV.

3. Look for independent third-party sources.

The most important thing we can do. These sources should be organized by their levels of independence and they should be from the relevant epistemic communities if they are talking about Craig's specific ideas.

4. Compare Craig's article to that on Plantinga. (Plantinga, like Craig, and unlike Dennett, is best known as a Christian philosopher.)

No. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good game to play.

jps (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Rework the Apologetics section, possibly renaming it as Research

NO.

2. Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks.

NO.

3. Look for independent third-party sources.

YES the article still needs to be dramatically hacked back to what can be sourced from independent reliable secondary sources. On 12th June, out of the 124 sources, 71 were primary sources to his own book or website, this is not acceptable.

4. NO WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Theroadislong (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rework the Apologetics section, possibly renaming it as Research
If "apologetics" is challenged, possibly that "views" may suit. Research suggests serious (possibly scientific) research and would be misleading.
Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks
Per WP:NOTCV, instead of a table, if some have particular notability they should be mentioned.
Look for independent third-party sources
Absolutely, work about that already started.
Compare to the Platinga article
The other article may itself need work, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS indeed applies. However, WP:BLP and MOS:BLP are more useful. —Paleo Neonate – 15:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rework the Apologetics section, possibly renaming it as Research
Yes rework, but from a starting point closer to the pre-dispute version ([13]) than current version.

I personally think the section should be named something along the lines of "Philosophy and Theology." "Research" is ok (it's not an activity limited to science and science-like activities), but I don't prefer it.
Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks
That seems like too much detail to me.
Look for independent third-party sources
Yes, but in compliance with WP:NNC and understanding that WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD.
Compare to the Platinga article
Yes, and perhaps others. WP:Some stuff exists for a reason.

- GretLomborg (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third Statement by Moderator

One editor proposed four points of work. Those four points have been rejected, so we will not go there. I would like to thank User:GretLomborg. Proposing four changes that other editors don't want was useful. Now we have narrowed the field of changes.

Now, will each editor please identify one or two proposed changes that should be made to the article? List changes that have not already been discussed and that other editors can agree with or disagree with.

Third Statements by Editors

Note to moderator: the previous proposals were made by User:Squatch347, not me. I tried to fix a sig problem with his comments, which may be the source of the confusion. I also think the second round was closed before one side of the dispute could comment (as User:Squatch347 is on vacation and I didn't see the updates until now).

Here are some news proposals:

Re-integrate recently-removed content back into the article from the pre-dispute version [14], so that any issues with it can be discussed in this process. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit," (the matters here aren't "contentious matters related to living people", e.g. "John Doe is a racist axe-murderer"). If we can't do that, I think this process will have difficulties resolving the dispute.
Since it's universally agreed that the article would benefit from more secondary sources. Editors in this dispute should find secondary-source support for at least one sentence in the article that needs it. I've been doing this, and it isn't too hard. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal:

WP:TNT the article and start writing only using third-party independent sources. Sources written by Craig and his acolytes can be worked in later.

jps (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Statement by Moderator

First, I apologize for having misread the authorship of certain comments.

Second, since some of the suggestions were made by an editor who is on temporary military duty, I will put this dispute on hold until the end of the month.

Third, there have been suggestions that the article be stubbified and rewritten from scratch. If a consensus of the editors agree, I will close this dispute with a resolution to stubbify the article.

Fourth, if there is a non-consensus, where at least two editors holding one opinion and at least two editors holding another opinion is a non-consensus, then we will either have to fail this dispute or formulate an RFC, and I would prefer an RFC.

Fifth, within the next week (not 48 hours, due to military leave hold), any editor may propose any change that can be put into an RFC, or can make any recommendations for changes to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Back-and-Forth by Editors

Note to moderator: I think it's highly likely that the user who opened this dispute, User:Squatch347, would disagree with the proposal to WP:TNT. Since it's understandable that he may not return to Wikipedia immediately the day after his military leave ends, I think we should wait until he comments (or at least give him more time) before proceeding with any vote tallying.

I strongly disagree with any proposal to stubify or WP:TNT the article. In the course of making efforts to improve the sourcing of the article, I've been convinced that the pre-dispute version most likely accurately represents Craig's views and the actual level of WP:PUFFERY was minimal to non-existent, so the article is repairable and such drastic action is not called for. I say that as someone who was totally unaware of Craig prior to April and found the pre-dispute version useful to get a sense of him and what his views are. The proposal to WP:TNT is strongly contradictory to the needs of the readers of this encyclopedia, like me.

As for RfC propsals, here are mine:

Is the purpose of a biography of a philosopher and theologian to accurately represent his views as they exist in the epistemic communities in which he is active (philosophy and theology)? If he is known for referencing scientific theories in his philosophy (e.g. claiming the Big Bang model supports the idea that the universe had a beginning; a quantum vacuum is not nothing as in ex nihilo, because philosophically the system of quantum mechanics is a something), should those views be suppressed unless commented on by someone outside his epistemic community (e.g. a scientist)?

- GretLomborg (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I just noticed this page. I would oppose WP:TNT. I don't see that the article is too puffy. It points out that he's been accused of defending genocide, for example. However, I do think that more of the critical reaction to his views could be worked in; it is not hard to find since he debates bazillions of people who criticize him. I think it would be good if such material could be worked into the actual discussion of his views, rather than being in a "reception" section. I also think that Craig comes off in the article as purely an apologist, when in fact he has done work on theology that is not apologetic in nature (e.g., his work on the doctrine of the Trinity), and he has made general contributions to philosophy of time and the topic of Platonism that aren't specifically religious. All that gets lost in the current article, and that gives the reader a wrong idea about the scope of his work. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it is currently written is a marked improvement over what it was. I believe, but am not certain, that GretLomborg and Squatch347 would like to move it back towards the direction of being an exposition of Craig's treatises rather than an attempt to tease out which of his ideas have received third-party reception. As you point out, it should not be hard to find critical reaction to Craig, but the problem has been that although I have tried, it does not look like there is much desire on the part of the other editors to gather third-party sources (and, indeed, there has been some pushback as to whether this is really the most important thing we can do right now). WP:TNT is offered by me as an alternative, but I would much rather engage with source gathering, TBH. I can tolerate WP:TNT. I will not abide by whitewashing. jps (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with jps. Returning to the old hagiography is not what we should do. TNT or adding third-party sources. Any new non-apologetic stuff should be sourced to other people too. If such sources do not exist, if it is not important enough for anybody else, then it is obviously not important enough to include here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What, specifically, was "hagiography" in the previous version? Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe my assessment at the top could be useful to understand, —Paleo Neonate – 21:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't hagiography; most of what was there was accurate. It should not use primary sources, but I think everyone obviously agrees with that, since that's basic WP policy. But Craig is mentioned 90 times in the Stanford Encyclopedia article on the cosmological argument, so we can say as much about his view as we like with that as a source. Some of the stuff from the earlier version was unsourced, such as his view on inflation, and unless sources can be found that should come out of course. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the pre-dispute version a hagiography is an extreme exaggeration, and such exaggerations are very counterproductive. Also, I do not think these statement sections are meant to be discussion forums. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to accumulating more third party sources. Jps had already presented some, I added a few more today and intend to add a few more tomorrow. —Paleo Neonate – 21:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: I believe that this is the section that was set aside for back-and-forth discussion, so I'm going to reply to you here.

I want to be clear that I'm absolutely agreeing that we should not be relying on primary sources. We should instead rely on the best expert discussion we can find, and that's not popular-level stuff. The experts on his scholarly work are other experts who have summarized and commented on it. There's no reason we cannot use those sources. JSTOR alone has over 500 search results for his name. Scores and scores of book reviews will provide professional summaries of those books. Scores of critical articles will provide reactions to his work. There's no need for OR on Craig or Synth of Craig's work. But we do have to summarize the best possible sources, and those are scholarly sources, which are overwhelmingly abundant in this case. Popular-level material is much, much less reliable.

As for detail, I don't really understand how there could be too much detail about the subject of the article. I mean, if relevant info is in RS, why shouldn't we use it? The more well-documented info the better, it seems to me. But I'm open to hearing why this is not the right approach. Can you say what you're worried about with "too much detail" assuming that the detail is in RS? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about this section, thanks. The moderator may of course move my comment (and even restructure it if needed). —Paleo Neonate – 02:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: it's mostly a question of accessibility and weight (with tertiary sources also a good guide there). WP:VNOTSUFF is also relevant, as well as WP:NOTCV. A third party reader with high-school or college level education should be able to have a good idea of the main topic in a few minutes; the sources and/or linked subarticles are extra-material if they need more. If we also consider avoidance of WP:FALSEBALANCE where relevant, there's no need to have extended pro/con material all along... —Paleo Neonate – 02:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: is there somewhere in RS that his views (all of his views? some of them?) are called pseudoscience? Because, if not, it's really not helpful for editors to keep saying or implying that, and it seems to me like a violation of WP:BLP.

I agree that we don't want everything on his CV, and that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. But his work has received a tremendous amount of attention from scholars in philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and theology. I believe that we should include all details of his work that have been discussed at the highest levels within his field. There's no reason we can't summarize those sources at an appropriate level for the general reader. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Statement by Moderator

The rules say that back-and-forth discussion is not permitted, because it hasn't worked before this dispute was brought here. Read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules again. However, continue the back-and-forth discussion above. Since there is a desire for back-and-forth, do it in the area provided, and the Q-and-A can continue separately.

Below, restate whether and why or why not the article should be stubbified and then rebuilt.

Also below, provide any proposed changes that should be the subject of an RFC.

There is agreement to find more third-party sources. If you can do it, that will help. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Statements by Editors

Repeated from above:

Note to moderator: I think it's highly likely that the user who opened this dispute, User:Squatch347, would disagree with the proposal to WP:TNT. Since it's understandable that he may not return to Wikipedia immediately the day after his military leave ends, I think we should wait until he comments (or at least give him more time) before proceeding with any vote tallying.

I strongly disagree with any proposal to stubify or WP:TNT the article. In the course of making efforts to improve the sourcing of the article, I've been convinced that the pre-dispute version most likely accurately represents Craig's views and the actual level of WP:PUFFERY was minimal to non-existent, so the article is repairable and such drastic action is not called for. I say that as someone who was totally unaware of Craig prior to April and found the pre-dispute version useful to get a sense of him and what his views are. The proposal to WP:TNT is strongly contradictory to the needs of the readers of this encyclopedia, like me.

As for RfC propsals, here are mine:

Is the purpose of a biography of a philosopher and theologian to accurately represent his views as they exist in the epistemic communities in which he is active (philosophy and theology)? If he is known for referencing scientific theories in his philosophy (e.g. claiming the Big Bang model supports the idea that the universe had a beginning; a quantum vacuum is not nothing as in ex nihilo, because philosophically the system of quantum mechanics is a something), should those views be suppressed unless commented on by someone outside his epistemic community (e.g. a scientist)?

- GretLomborg (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose TNT or stubify for the following main reason: it won't solve any of the problems. There is a fundamental disagreement about the purpose of the article, and, corresponding to this, a disagreement about appropriate sources. There's obviously a range of options with respect to how much detail we will go into in summarizing Craig's views. There is also a range of options with respect to how much reaction (including critical reaction) we should summarize. Third party reliable sources can and should be found for both of those projects, but we need to decide what sources are appropriate, and how much detail we want. Those problems will immediately afflict the attempt to rebuild the page. Here's my view on these issues. First, it makes sense to focus on the subject of the article, i.e., Craig, rather than his critics. I think we should go into his views in whatever detail is possible with available high-quality sourcing. Second, it also makes sense to include (more briefly) a summary of reactions, including critical reactions, at the end of our summaries of each of his views. Third, I would propose that we focus attention on academic sources that comment on his work. There are plenty of these, and they are going to be the highest quality sources. So not popular discussions, or publications aimed at a general audience, but scholarly work in journals, acdemic presses, and venues that are edited by academics. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion about TNT, other than that technically it would allow to establish a new plan from scratch, possibly through extensive work and consensus. It seems that we were now told that we could reply to eachother before the next round? If so: should those views be suppressed unless commented on by someone outside his epistemic community (e.g. a scientist)? Probably not suppressed, but whenever claims of someone notable touch pseudoscience it is unevitable to find relevant (and appropriate) criticism or commentary, in which case WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE also apply. So not popular discussions, or publications aimed at a general audience, but scholarly work in journals, acdemic presses, and venues that are edited by academics. The danger here is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH using primary sources, where tertiary sources like other encyclopedias or third party reviews can be very useful to establish what should have weight, etc. should go into his views in whatever detail is possible too much details may return to the point where the article did appear to need WP:TNT. But here again, possibly that analysis of other tertiary sources will help for guidance (WP:TERTIARY). I listed a few secondary and tertiary sources at the article's talk page recently. There probably are more, those are in material I'm familiar with and have easy access to. If the epistemic community is philosophy, there may be more relevant encyclopedias of philosophy for reference. This is probably also true for theology. On the other hand, arguments like Kalam venture into wild territory... Philosophy is like math: symbols can be used to describe anything the mind could conceive; whenever something interacts with known reality (outside of the mind), some become hypotheses that may be tested or questioned. This is also a theologian who insisted on meeting key people in their field like Krauss, in attempt to gain extra legitimacy. —Paleo Neonate – 01:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Statement by Moderator

I have extended the time for this discussion to 11 July. (The bot archived this discussion, and I have unarchived it because I don't think it is finished.) If the editors think that it will take longer than that, please so state. This noticeboard is intended primarily for disputes that take no longer than two to three weeks to resolve.

I see that there is disagreement as to whether to stubbify the article and start over. In that case, I would suggest that each editor who thinks that the article contains puffery or undue weight stuff identify paragraphs that they propose be deleted and we will put those to RFC.

Do any editors have any other specific suggestions for improvements to the article? (Specific means specific.)

Back-and-forth discussion may continue in the space for back-and-forth discussion.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Statements by Editors

I do not think there is any true puffery in the article to be removed. Even the pre-dispute version was very light on adjectives of any kind, let alone puffy ones.

It needs to be made absolutely clear that WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI (a.k.a. WP:TINFOILHAT) don't apply to this biography article. Theology and philosophy are in fact their own mainstream fields, regardless if any editor wishes they weren't or has more affinity to another field. Craig's work is well within those fields (e.g. to the point that he's published and his work has gotten much commentary in mainstream philosophy journals, and seems quite active and well cited in the sub-field of philosophy of religion).

As for specific improvement proposals:

The headers should be removed or significantly trimmed down. Some are no longer relevant, and others were most likely inapplicable even when they were added (e.g. logic behind the "the factual accuracy" one seems to be taking issue with Craig himself, not with the accuracy of the biography article itself). In any case, the rational for each of them needs to be justified, in detail.
The section that was recently re-titled "Apologetics" should be again re-titled with less POV, something along the lines of "Theological and Philosophical Work" is probably best. It's descriptive and broad enough to encompass Craig's academic activity.

There are other, more general improvement proposals that I think should be implemented, but will not go into them because the request was for specific ones.

- GretLomborg (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh Statement by Moderator

I wrote: " The article has been fully protected for a week. Leave it alone. After the full protection expires, leave it alone anyway. Read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules, and comply with the rules." What part of that is there an excuse for not complying with? I meant not to edit the article while discussion is in progress.

I will be giving all of the editors of the Craig article a BLP discretionary sanctions warning. This is the last warning.

Resume responding to my questions either in the Sixth section or the Seventh section; it doesn't matter which. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh Statements by Editors

I agree with everything GretLomborg said above. I also strongly support everything in the moderator's last statement. I have made these suggestions: (i) replace primary source references with third-party sources, (ii) all the third-party sources should be professional, academic work, not popular level work, (iii) as much of the pre-dispute version as possible consistent with the first two suggestions should be restored. Perhaps this is not specific enough. If it isn't specific enough, let me look at the section on the Cosmological Argument. In the current version of that section, almost all of the sourcing is good, except for a single primary source reference to Craig (1992). I would support removing that primary source reference, which is gratuitous anyway in the current version. The pre-dispute version had a lot more primary-source material, so it's good that most of that has been removed. However, I would specifically propose reinstating any content from that pre-dispute version--and especially a statement of the Kalam argument itself--that can be sourced in professional academic commentary on Craig's work. The Stanford Encyclopedia, and specifically their article on the Cosmological Argument, is an excellent source for this, and would serve as a source for his version of the argument, and probably more. Nobody can reasonably disparage the SEP: it is funded by NEH and NSF grants, it is published by one of the world's premiere philosophy departments (Stanford), and it publishes blind-reviewed articles. It is absurd to disparage this as a source; the quality of sourcing for our philosophy articles could not get any higher. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that the moderator is not unbiased. I have expressed my concerns on his talkpage. jps (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of this sandbox is prima facie evidence that the user who made it is not participating in this dispute resolution in good faith. jps (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that as of this timestamp, the moderator has only tagged my user page with the discretionary sanctions notification and has not tagged any other participant's page. [15] This seems to be further evidence that the moderator may be compromised in his position here. jps (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Lane Craig discussion - take 2

Alright, I'm a volunteer here and I'm going to reopen this one and take it on board myself. I've collapsed all previous discussion and I will be sending a message to all that have contributed here to ensure that you're all still willing to participate. A bit about me - I've been doing sporadic dispute resolution on Wikipedia for about ten years, so I've done this sort of thing before. I don't have any formal ground rules, nor will I expect editors to comment in a structured way (my style is a little different to some others here, but that's just how I roll).

I do expect everyone here to stay on topic, be as concise as possible, and be polite to each other. I will generally guide the discussion amongst you, and make both suggestions and give directions based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If each editor can confirm they would still like to participate in this discussion, we will proceed from there. The only rule I do have is that I ask the article is left in its current version, no matter how "wrong" it may seem. We will work on the article issues until they are resolved. Sound good. Let's get started with a comment from each editor first please. I'll check this page in 12 hours to see who has commented - for now, please just indicate willingness to proceed and no more. Thanks Steven Crossin 15:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in - still see a few editors I’m awaiting a response on. I’ll give things until tomorrow morning my time (about another 12 hours or so) and then I’ll start framing the discussion from here. Cheers. Steven Crossin 10:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, fantastic, that’s everyone I think. My timezone is a little odd (I’m in Australia but often operate on US eastern time). I’ll open up initial discussion in a few hours. Steven Crossin 17:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation from editors that you are willing to proceed

I'd be happy to participate. Thanks for your help. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Theroadislong (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I accept. I would like to try this again. jps (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. Good luck to you people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, looking forward to moving this forward, thank you. Squatch347 (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am tentatively willing to proceed with another round of this. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try, —Paleo Neonate – 17:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning of discussion

OK, thank you to everyone for your patience. I've been reading through the article as well as some previous revisions. I'd like to start with a brief yardstick check - can each of you please tell me, in less than 100 words, which version of the article, in it's history, you feel is most "correct" - a starting point that we can work from (and provide a link to that revision). If you think there isn't a version that is a suitable starting point for progress, please state that, along with a very brief explanation of what you think needs to be addressed in the article going forward to get to a starting point.

I also note that numerous sources in the article are books - if links to these texts are known by editors and could be provided here, that would be of benefit as well. I appreciate that some of this discussion has happened before, but as I noted, I feel it's best we start off fresh and go from there. No need for the discussion below to be overwhelmingly structured, just keep it brief and for now, please try limit the back and forth - there will be time for that later. Cheers. Steven Crossin 17:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time coming to terms with a decent starting point. I'm willing to go with the current version, but think there are lots of problems with the current version. Previous versions were worse. What we need to do is explain which ideas of Craig's have been noticed by others -- ideas that relate to science noticed by scientists, ideas that relate to philosophy noticed by philosophers, and ideas that relate to theologian noticed by theologians. jps (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this revision from just prior to the current disputes isn't perfect, but it's probably the best starting point for this discussion per WP:NOCONSENSUS. I'm no expert on Craig, but based on my research during this dispute, my sense is it's substantially accurate with regard to him and the content of his work, which should be the focus of his biography. More recent revisions have sourcing and other improvements that should be kept, but the dispute has been too tumultuous to work from one of those revisions. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GretLomborg that this is our best starting point. We should replace primary sources with high-quality independent sources, add some high-quality critical reaction, and trim out any stuff that can only be found in primary sources. By "high-quality" here I mean scholarly publications authored by experts and subjected to blind review. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support the same version as a good starting point [16]. With that said, there has been some good work done and I would include some of the diffs made later as improvements that clarify the article such as, [17] and [18] for starters. This version would be the best starting place because it will be far easier to include the later diffs we can gain consensus on based on a shared understanding of goals and policy rather than having to tease out those edits from a later version. Squatch347 (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think all revisions have problems, but find that improvements were made (difference of old revision with the current one). As such I would prefer to go with the current revision, but as this diff demonstrates no information from previous revisions is lost. The original was too long and seemingly from a fan perspective. Also pinging Theroadislong who seems to be another participant. Adding: Articles may remain a long time with problems without attention. This is how the article recently came back to attention. —Paleo Neonate – 18:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a good starting point version without going back about 12 years, so reluctantly agree to start with the current version, as nuking doesn't appear to be an option. There are far too many primary sources, 70 at last count. Theroadislong (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GretLomborg. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments so far, I'm starting to see a possible starting point suggested by a few of you. @PaleoNeonate:, @Bill the Cat 7:, could you chime in on the question I have asked above. After they've commented, we will likely proceed by going through the version of the article that has the most consensus as a starting point among you, and then I will suggest that we go through the article section by section, discussing each and working on the article content until we reach a version of the article that has a consensus supported by policy. I will also guide that discussion and weigh applicable policies and guidelines when we determine the content of the article, so there may well be times where the "correct" outcome is not one that is supported by a majority. But we will get there! Steven Crossin 17:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's almost everyone. As consensus seems to be split rather evenly on a starting point, I'll take a look through both proposed versions of the article and weigh each on its merits, in line with the Manual of Style, and various other policies and guidelines. This should not be taken as an endorsement of the content in that revision, merely my assessment on the best starting point based on Wikipedia policy (since after all, that is the real decider here). Will comment shortly and then we will break up sections and proceed from there. Steven Crossin 19:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break

Alright everyone, thanks for your patience while I've reviewed the discussion here and both proposed versions of the article as starting points. As I noted, since opinions on the starting point for our progress moving forward was split, I have assessed and made a recommendation on the version that we would work off. After review, I've determined that the best version to start off would be the article in it's current version.

My rationale for this is as follows - while the fact that the current version of the article was noted as not having universal consensus, most of you who supported the alternate version noted that improvements have been made in later versions that should be retained, in particular, improvements to referencing in the article. With verifiability being one of our core policies, I am minded to work on the current, more referenced version. I have weighed other policies in recommending this starting point, specifically our policies on use of primary sources, self-published sources and neutral point of view (specifically, undue weight) - very briefly, primary and self-published sources are OK up to a point, however they should not be the sole source or predominant source in an article. This is a secondary consideration at this stage, however.

The Philosophy Manual of Style will guide us here. While we need to be careful to not make changes or include content just because other articles have the same structure or content, it would be useful to identify a few articles on other philosophers that have a similar article structure that we can use as a yardstick. If suggestions could be made below, I will review them (they need to be a "Good Article" or better, however).

Lastly, I note that this recommendation is not necessarily an endorsement of the current article version, or overwhelming criticism of the alternate, however a weighed decision based on a review of the two versions and your comments here noting improvements made since the dispute started. Content that was previously in the article that has been removed can be re-included after a discussion here, if deemed appropriate.

How will we proceed from here?: We will break the article up section by section. I will post a section below, and we will discuss whether there is unanimous agreement for the content in the section, as is. If there is, great, we will move on to the next section. If there is disagreement, I will guide a collaboration on the content, using a template at this page I've created in the past. It will allow us to identify the current version, and work on proposed alternate text until a version is reached that is agreed to, that is supported by our policies, guidelines, and styles. At times, I will of course interject with comments regarding appropriateness of content based on these policies, but it will largely from here be a relatively collaborative discussion process. I'll give a few hours for comments, and then I will start with posting the lead section of the article here for review and work by all editors.

For the time being (and this will be the format for the discussion on each section of the article), can each editor advise whether there is content in the article infobox that you disagree with (and if so, very briefly - What do you disagree with, Why, and What is your alternative text (with sources provided).

Finally, over the course of this discussion, I reserve the right to re-structure comments for readability purposes, but the content of your edit will remain (however, if discussion is getting too long, I may ask you to trim things down for ease of readability. Thanks everyone, let's proceed. Steven Crossin 19:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hi all. This is just a request for links to sources - specifically links to any books that are cited in the article, if they are available, for verifiability purposes. (I assume most of you have seen electronic or physical copies of some of these books, so this request is mainly for my benefit. Just a URL link below is fine, cheers. Steven Crossin 22:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After asking here, the above list should only include sources currently used in the article, but links to source propositions at the article talk page may be posted here. Here are two collections that I remember: 1, 2. —Paleo Neonate – 01:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most specifically, links to books. Not interested in websites/online news etc - this section is about granting easier access to cited books so all can review the content of the cited works (most importantly in this instance, myself). Steven Crossin 01:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you specifically want a google books link, so you could read the sources themselves? It wasn't obvious to me. If that's what you'd like, I'll try and do that. —Approaching (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, where possible that’s preferable, or any other online viewable copy is fine too. Steven Crossin 00:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on infobox

@ජපස:, @GretLomborg: in line with the need to keep things brief (this discussion will take some time) can I please ask for the content that you've written below to be reduced by half. All, please keep responses around 500 characters for now at a maximum, thanks. Steven Crossin 12:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all - still waiting on a response from a few of you. I'll wait about another 12 hours and then I'll summarise the consensus I see, and then we will proceed with the first section of the article (not the lede section, since that should ideally be a summary of the content of the article). Steven Crossin 14:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Alright, thanks everyone for your input. I think the consensus we have here is that some changes might be warranted, but agree with the assessment that it is best to wait until the article is rewritten, and then the infobox contents can be updated. Steven Crossin 00:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No to Template:Infobox philosopher! Infobox:Theologian is better as he is famous for theology. Unverifed claims: Era, Region, and School. Craig is notably a conservative Christian apologist. Notable work = Reasonable Faith is not sourced. Craig's notability is related to apologetics, not books. "Main interests" are primarily sourced, self-involved, and non-notable. Craig's ideas pretend towards academic philosophy, but he is famous as a shadow academic with an outsider philosophical approach. jps (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox is fine, except his first two Kalam books should be his most notable work (though Reasonable Faith may be his most popular, who knows). Template:Infobox philosopher is appropriate, and I object to changing it. The WP:RS seem to primarily describe Craig as a philosopher first (e.g. [19]). His first Ph.D was in Philosophy, his job is Professor of Philosophy [20], he publishes in philosophy journals e.g. Synthese, Philosophy, Religious Studies, etc. His most well-known work involves nonsectarian religious concepts, which atheist philosophers write about without becoming theologians. Most contemporary philosophers have similar "peculiar identifications" (e.g. Kwame Anthony Appiah). Furthermore, Template:Infobox theologian lacks things that are pertinent to Craig (e.g. advisors). That said, Craig definitely has a foot in theology. I wouldn't object to having two infoboxes, with the philosopher one first and main one. - GretLomborg (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC) - Condensed by request from User:Steven Crossin - GretLomborg (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I prefer to not to take a position about the infobox at current time, since like for the lead, what fits will probably be best determined by reading the "final"/consensus-established article later on. —Paleo Neonate – 23:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No issue with the infobox as currently posted. EDIT: I support the changes recommended by Approaching and Shine. Those edits streamline it a bit and are more accurate. Squatch347 (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One additional note related to applicable other pages to model our edits after. I'd point us back to the original filing, point 8 which references the list of good and featured biographies of philosophers. Specifically Bertrand Russell, Alan Turing, and Soren Kierkegaard. Squatch347 (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me take part. I think the infobox template is mostly adequate except for some minor deficiencies: (i) The infobox should maybe reflect the article's claim that he was at Westmont College, and (ii) the infobox claims his interest is Apollinarism, which is inaccurate. I have a kindle version of the book referenced in citation 102. He rejects Apollinarism. —Approaching (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
List of interests is weirdly specific; I'd cut off at "systematic theology". The Kalam is an ancient idea--maybe don't list it as his idea. His ideas can't be summarized for the infobox; maybe omit this part. Per GretLomborg, WLC is primarily a philosopher of religion. He does theology, but he's famous for defending non-sectarian philosophical arguments for theism. He publishes in top journals and top academic presses. He takes mainstream positions on mainstream topics. Thousands of citations from other academics. Suggesting he's a "shadow academic" is false and violates WP:BLP. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with the infobox as is. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Comments on article content

Alright, thanks everyone. Now, let's proceed with the article content. I'll ask if everyone can try and be more responsive on this thread, as the aim is to try and hash out a workable solution as quickly and as easily as possible. We will skip the lead of the article for now, as that will be a summary of the article content.

Here's how things will work from here.

Each section of the article will be posted here as Version 0 (the current version).
I would then like each editor to either

State that they are satisfied with the current content of the article, and very briefly, why (no more than 500 characters excluding signature) OR
Propose an alternate version of that article section, using the format that is listed on my Mediation discussion template page. Add references, and then after the section, a brief explanation of the exact changes proposed, and then the rationale. Do not edit each others proposals, but suggest alternates.

We will discuss and work on the content until we come up with a version that a consensus is formed on, in line with policy. Once that has been done, we will move onto the next section, and repeat until the article content has a consensus.

Sounds good? Let's begin in the section below. Steven Crossin 00:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just an additional request where possible - is it possible to place in bold and italics in any proposed drafts, changes made compared to the current version, just for ease of reading, wherever this is feasible? Cheers. Steven Crossin 11:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Encouragedto see that we seem to be making some progress so far. This format normally works this way - we start with the content as written, and work on progressive drafts until we find one that works. Steven Crossin 06:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Biography section

Where do we put comments? Here or at the end of the draft 0 section? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I used to use this format when informal mediation existed, so it's a little different here. Lets go with commenting in Draft 0 if you're happy with the version as is, otherwise create an alternate version of the section, and leave your rationale in the comments section for that draft. I'd rather not have each draft section be a long conversation, and prefer proposing an alternate draft if any of you prefer an alternate version, however some back-and-forth is fine. I'll be watching this page closely to ensure we stay on track. Steven Crossin 02:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GretLomborg: I’ve noticed in some sections you’ve suggested changes to drafts. Can I ask you to please propose an alternate text (instructions on how to do so and links to the template are above). I realise it may seem a little rigid, but I’ve used this format for years in these situations and it does work. Cheers! Steven Crossin 19:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft 0

(current version)

Biography

Born August 23, 1949, in Peoria, Illinois, Craig is the second of three children^{[citation needed]} born to Mallory and Doris Craig.^[1]^[2] His father's work with the T. P. & W. railroad took the family to Keokuk, Iowa, until his transfer to the home office in East Peoria in 1960. While a student at East Peoria Community High School (1963–1967),^[3] Craig became a championship debater and public speaker,^[4] being named his senior year to the all-state debate team and winning the state championship in oratory.^[5] In September 1965, his junior year, he converted to Christianity,^[6]^[7] and after graduating from high school, attended Wheaton College, majoring in communications.^[8] Craig graduated in 1971^[4] and the following year married his wife Jan,^[2] whom he met on the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ.^[4]^[9] In 2014, he was named alumnus of the year by Wheaton.^[10]

In 1973 Craig entered the program in philosophy of religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School north of Chicago, where he studied under Norman Geisler.^[11]^[12] In 1975 Craig commenced doctoral studies in philosophy at the University of Birmingham, England,^[13] writing on the Cosmological Argument^[14] under the direction of John Hick.^[4]^[15] He was awarded a doctorate in 1977.^[16] Out of this study came his first book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), a defense of the argument he first encountered in Hackett's work.^[14] Craig was awarded a postdoctoral fellowship in 1978 from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation to pursue research on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus under the direction of Wolfhart Pannenberg at the Ludwig-Maximillians-Universität München in Germany.^[13]^[17] His studies in Munich under Pannenberg's supervision led to a second doctorate, this one in theology,^[10]^[18]^[14] awarded in 1984^[8] with the publication of his doctoral thesis, The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy (1985).^[19]

Comments on Draft 0 (current version)

Comment goes here. This is to specifically note that you are happy with the current version, exactly as written. If not, please propose an alternative. Steven Crossin 02:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section is straight forward. I doubt anyone will have issues with it, but we'll see. By the way, can you please provide a translation of the Latin below? :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. If I were nitpicking, I'd say maybe there are too many numbered inline references popping up too frequently, which interrupts the flow of the text. But that's not important. I'll accept the section in its current state. —Approaching (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the current version. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't verify the information for the first sentence (more info below in my other comment). I agree with Approaching that the inline citations are messy (number and position of citations). The sentence about the second doctorate could probably be shorter. Overall, it could be better but I don't debate any of the contents. —Paleo Neonate – 18:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft 1

Biography

Born August 23, 1949, in Peoria, Illinois, Craig is the second of three children^{[citation needed]} born to Mallory and Doris Craig.^[1]^[2] His father's work with the T. P. & W. railroad took the family to Keokuk, Iowa, until his transfer to the home office in East Peoria in 1960. While a student at East Peoria Community High School (1963–1967),^[20] Craig became a championship debater and public speaker,^[4] being named his senior year to the all-state debate team and winning the state championship in oratory.^[21] In September 1965, his junior year, ~~he converted to Christianity~~ his faculty profile from Biola University says that "he first heard the message of the Christian gospel and yielded his life to Christ",^[6] and after graduating from high school, attended Wheaton College, majoring in communications.^[8] Craig graduated in 1971^[4] and the following year married his wife Jan,^[2] whom he met on the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ.^[4]^[22] In 2014, he was named alumnus of the year by Wheaton.^[10]

In 1973 Craig entered the program in philosophy of religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School north of Chicago, where he studied under Norman Geisler.^[11]^[23] In 1975 Craig commenced doctoral studies in philosophy at the University of Birmingham, England,^[13] writing on the Cosmological Argument^[14] under the direction of John Hick.^[4]^[15] He was awarded a doctorate in 1977.^[16] Out of this study came his first book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), a defense of the argument he first encountered in Hackett's work.^[14] Craig was awarded a postdoctoral fellowship in 1978 from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation to pursue research on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus under the direction of Wolfhart Pannenberg at the Ludwig-Maximillians-Universität München in Germany.^[13]^[17] His studies in Munich under Pannenberg's supervision led to a second doctorate, this one in theology,^[10]^[24]^[14] awarded in 1984^[8] with the publication of his doctoral thesis, The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy (1985).^[25]

Rationale for Draft 1 (current version)

Claiming that Craig "converted to Christianity" is an unreasonable paraphrase of his faculty profile's claim about his altar call moment. Also, we don't need two sources that are copies of each other (and obviously just repeating a single source). jps (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brief feedback on Draft 1. This comment can be replaced. Steven Crossin 02:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this change is necessary, as the original wording reads better and appears accurate. Though perhaps we could tack more refs onto the sentence. The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers in America: From 1600 to the Present states "Craig attributes his life's work to a profound religious conversion when he was sixteen years old." He states on his website "to speak personally, I myself was not raised in an evangelical home, but I became a Christian my third year of high school." [21]. These can be reasonably paraphrased as "he converted to Christianity." - GretLomborg (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that the primary source language is so promotional that the quote is not necessary better... This also unfortunately doesn't address the problematic sourcing of the first line. I can't verify the birth date or parents at the cited sources. The closest book Google shows is [22]. Searching in it seems unsuccessful and the citation doesn't provide the page. —Paleo Neonate – 18:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can verify his birth date in the second inline cite for that sentence, here. The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers in America: From 1600 to the Present also mentions his birth date and location, which is an inline ref two sentences down. His parent's names can be verified here ("Others may know that William Craig is the second child of Mallory and Doris Craig, but I alone can know that I am the second child of Mallory and Doris Craig; no one else can access my first person perspective..."). I personally would like to remove the sentence about his dad's job at the railroad. It's not easily sourceable and it's not worth the effort to do so. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find the current language ("converted to Christianity") reasonable. The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia also uses the language of conversion. I don't see the need for this change, but I would love to hear jps further explain his concerns. —Approaching (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People in the conservative Christian Evangelical world often refer to their response to an altar call as "converting to Christianity" even when they were raised mainline Protestant or Catholic, for example. I don't know if this is what is happening here, but I think the claim that someone converted to Christianity needs to attributed directly as it is really one's personal opinion rather than an identifiable moment. If Craig was, for example, baptized in another church before the age of sixteen (I will not dig into baptismal records out of a respect for privacy, but I submit this as a thought experiment), would it be appropriate to say he only converted to Christianity at that age? jps (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for explaining. When you say that the claim needs to be attributed directly, do you mean that we should hear it from him? I went on his website, reasonablefaith.org, and found some search results where he speaks of his own experience as a conversion. Quote: "So, in a sense, for me my call to full time Christian ministry was simultaneous with my conversion. I soon got into a local church..." (source). Would this resolve this particular issue for you? —Approaching (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think quoting Craig is fine as it makes it clear that it is his opinion about the event. jps (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What should that particular sentence read like, in your view? —Approaching (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I gave one option above. If you wanted to use a different quote, I would be okay with that too, but I'm not sure how to use your quote to do what we would like. jps (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

^ ^a ^b "William Lane Craig" 2007.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Craig, William Lane. "Curriculum Vitae". Reasonable Faith. Archived from the original on June 1, 2017. Retrieved September 29, 2018.
^ Craig, William Lane. "Debating". Reasonable Faith. Archived from the original on May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 8, 2014.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h Robinson & Baggett 2016, p. 211.
^ "Records and History – Original Oratory". Illinois High School Association. Retrieved May 27, 2015.
^ ^a ^b "William Lane Craig". La Mirada, California: Biola University. Archived from the original on August 14, 2014. Retrieved May 5, 2014.
^ "William Lane Craig and Sean McDowell". Fervr. Retrieved May 11, 2014.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Robinson & Baggett 2016, p. 212.
^ Schneider, Nathan (July 12, 2013). "7 Habits of a Highly Effective Philosopher". Killing the Buddha. Retrieved May 10, 2014.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d "Dr. William Lane Craig Named Alumnus of the Year". Wheaton, Illinois: Wheaton College. May 7, 2014. Archived from the original on May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 11, 2014.
^ ^a ^b Robinson & Baggett 2016, pp. 211–212.
^ Craig, William Lane. "Double Doctorates". Reasonable Faith. Archived from the original on May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 10, 2014.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d "William Lane Craig". calvin.edu. Calvin College. Retrieved 9 April 2019.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Cite error: The named reference Schneider 2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cramer, David C. "John Hick (1922—2012)". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002. Retrieved 12 June 2019. Many of [Hick's] former students are now established Christian philosophers in their own right, including ... William Lane Craig...
^ ^a ^b Robinson & Baggett 2016, p. 211; "William Lane Craig" 2007.
^ ^a ^b Sanders, Fred (18 September 2014). "The Strange Legacy of Theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg". Christianity Today. Archived from the original on 21 September 2014. Retrieved 12 June 2019. Accordingly, Pannenberg marshaled the available evidence and argued that the most rational interpretation of it is that Christ actually rose from the dead. That a high-level German theologian would defend Christ's resurrection as a knowable fact was headline news in the religious press of the 1970s. It's no surprise, then, that Pannenberg's emphasis on the historical reliability of the Resurrection attracted students like apologist William Lane Craig.
^ Craig, William Lane (April 28, 2013). "Creation and Evolution (Part 2)". Defenders Podcast. Reasonable Faith. Retrieved October 1, 2018.
^ "The historical argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist controversy". WorldCat. Online Computer Library Center. Retrieved 9 April 2019.
^ Craig, William Lane. "Debating". Reasonable Faith. Archived from the original on May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 8, 2014.
^ "Records and History – Original Oratory". Illinois High School Association. Retrieved May 27, 2015.
^ Schneider, Nathan (July 12, 2013). "7 Habits of a Highly Effective Philosopher". Killing the Buddha. Retrieved May 10, 2014.
^ Craig, William Lane. "Double Doctorates". Reasonable Faith. Archived from the original on May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 10, 2014.
^ Craig, William Lane (April 28, 2013). "Creation and Evolution (Part 2)". Defenders Podcast. Reasonable Faith. Retrieved October 1, 2018.
^ "The historical argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist controversy". WorldCat. Online Computer Library Center. Retrieved 9 April 2019.

Draft 2

Biography

Born August 23, 1949, in Peoria, Illinois. Craig was ~~is the second of three children^{[citation needed]}~~ born to Mallory and Doris Craig.^[1]^[2] His father's work with the T. P. & W. railroad took the family to Keokuk, Iowa, until his transfer to the home office in East Peoria in 1960. While a student at East Peoria Community High School (1963–1967),^[3] Craig became a championship debater and public speaker,^[4] being named his senior year to the all-state debate team and winning the state championship in oratory.^[5] In September 1965, his junior year, he converted to Christianity,^[6]^[7] and after graduating from high school, attended Wheaton College, majoring in communications.^[8] Craig graduated in 1971^[4] and the following year married his wife Jan,^[2] whom he met on the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ.^[4] They have two grown children and reside in Atlanta, Georgia.^[9] In 2014, he was named alumnus of the year by Wheaton.^[10]

In 1973 Craig entered the program in philosophy of religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School north of Chicago, where he studied under Norman Geisler.^[11]^[12] In 1975 Craig commenced doctoral studies in philosophy at the University of Birmingham, England,^[13] writing on the Cosmological Argument^[14] under the direction of John Hick.^[4]^[15] He was awarded a doctorate in 1977.^[16] Out of this study came his first book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), a defense of the argument he first encountered in Hackett's work.^[14] Craig was awarded a postdoctoral fellowship in 1978 from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation to pursue research on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus under the direction of Wolfhart Pannenberg at the Ludwig-Maximillians-Universität München in Germany.^[13]^[17] His studies in Munich under Pannenberg's supervision led to a second doctorate, this one in theology,^[10]^[18]^[14] awarded in 1984^[8] with the publication of his doctoral thesis, The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy (1985).^[19]

Rationale for Draft 2

Happy to accept draft 0 as is, but I thought a few small corrections would be warranted.
I struck the "second of three children" language. Looking around I couldn't find a reference for that data anywhere.
I added that he and his wife have raised two children in line with the biographies of Kierkegaard and Russell. It is referenced both in the linked article and on his CV.
Language difference in draft 1 is fine I guess. It seems a little odd to have the hedging language given that this point is referenced in at least four of our sources the exact same way. Normally the "according to" language serves to hedge the editors from a statement by a source that might be controversial, which this doesn't seem to be. We can add it if there aren't other objections, it just seems an overly complex way of saying the exact same thing.

Squatch347 (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no doubt that Craig heeded an altar call at age 16, calling it a "conversion" to Christianity in Wikipedia's voice is certainly not a universally accepted interpretation of such an event. According to language is used because this is a direct quote and not a paraphrase. jps (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above. One source uses the term "conversion" to refer to the experience, and Craig himself says he "became a Christian" at that time. It's a fair paraphrase of the latter to say he "converted to Christianity." I also think it would be inappropriate to use hedging language here. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, but I would like condense the birth information to "Born August 23, 1949 in Peoria, Illinois to Mallory and Doris Craig." and I would also like to strike "His father's work with the T. P. & W. railroad took the family to Keokuk, Iowa, until his transfer to the home office in East Peoria in 1960." I think the former reads better, and the latter seems not terribly relevant to the biography and I haven't been able to source it easily (beyond him spending his childhood in Keokuk) using Google. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Between the original text and this one, I find both acceptable. I couldn't verify claims of the first sentence. —Paleo Neonate – 19:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Squatch347, you might be interested in GretLomborg's second comment on the previous draft, which found a citation for the claim that he was the second of three children. —Approaching (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

^ "William Lane Craig" 2007.
^ ^a ^b Craig, William Lane. "Curriculum Vitae". Reasonable Faith. Archived from the original on June 1, 2017. Retrieved September 29, 2018.
^ Craig, William Lane. "Debating". Reasonable Faith. Archived from the original on May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 8, 2014.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Robinson & Baggett 2016, p. 211.
^ "Records and History – Original Oratory". Illinois High School Association. Retrieved May 27, 2015.
^ "William Lane Craig". La Mirada, California: Biola University. Archived from the original on August 14, 2014. Retrieved May 5, 2014.
^ "William Lane Craig and Sean McDowell". Fervr. Retrieved May 11, 2014.
^ ^a ^b Robinson & Baggett 2016, p. 212.
^ Schneider, Nathan (July 12, 2013). "7 Habits of a Highly Effective Philosopher". Killing the Buddha. Retrieved May 10, 2014.
^ ^a ^b "Dr. William Lane Craig Named Alumnus of the Year". Wheaton, Illinois: Wheaton College. May 7, 2014. Archived from the original on May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 11, 2014.
^ Robinson & Baggett 2016, pp. 211–212.
^ Craig, William Lane. "Double Doctorates". Reasonable Faith. Archived from the original on May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 10, 2014.
^ ^a ^b "William Lane Craig". calvin.edu. Calvin College. Retrieved 9 April 2019.
^ ^a ^b ^c Cite error: The named reference Schneider 2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cramer, David C. "John Hick (1922—2012)". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002. Retrieved 12 June 2019. Many of [Hick's] former students are now established Christian philosophers in their own right, including ... William Lane Craig...
^ Robinson & Baggett 2016, p. 211; "William Lane Craig" 2007.
^ Sanders, Fred (18 September 2014). "The Strange Legacy of Theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg". Christianity Today. Archived from the original on 21 September 2014. Retrieved 12 June 2019. Accordingly, Pannenberg marshaled the available evidence and argued that the most rational interpretation of it is that Christ actually rose from the dead. That a high-level German theologian would defend Christ's resurrection as a knowable fact was headline news in the religious press of the 1970s. It's no surprise, then, that Pannenberg's emphasis on the historical reliability of the Resurrection attracted students like apologist William Lane Craig.
^ Craig, William Lane (April 28, 2013). "Creation and Evolution (Part 2)". Defenders Podcast. Reasonable Faith. Retrieved October 1, 2018.
^ "The historical argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist controversy". WorldCat. Online Computer Library Center. Retrieved 9 April 2019.

Draft 3

Biography

William Lane Craig was born August 23, 1949 in Peoria, Illinois to Mallory and Doris Craig. [new cites^[1]^[2]^[3]] Craig was is the second of three children^{[citation needed]} born to Mallory and Doris Craig.^[2]^[4] His father's work with the T. P. & W. railroad took the family to Keokuk, Iowa, until his transfer to the home office in East Peoria in 1960. While a student at East Peoria Community High School (1963–1967),^[5] Craig became a championship debater and public speaker,^[1] being named his senior year to the all-state debate team and winning the state championship in oratory.^[6] In September 1965, his junior year, he converted to Christianity,^[7]^[8] [new cites ^[1]^[9]] and after graduating from high school, attended Wheaton College, majoring in communications.^[10] Craig graduated in 1971^[1] and the following year married his wife Jan,^[4] whom he met on the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ.^[1] They have two grown children and reside in suburban Atlanta, Georgia.^[11] In 2014, he was named alumnus of the year by Wheaton.^[12]

In 1973 Craig entered the program in philosophy of religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School north of Chicago, where he studied under Norman Geisler.^[13]^[14] In 1975 Craig commenced doctoral studies in philosophy at the University of Birmingham, England,^[15] writing on the Cosmological Argument^[16] under the direction of John Hick.^[1]^[17] He was awarded a doctorate in 1977.^[18] Out of this study came his first book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), a defense of the argument he first encountered in Hackett's work.^[16] Craig was awarded a postdoctoral fellowship in 1978 from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation to pursue research on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus under the direction of Wolfhart Pannenberg at the Ludwig-Maximillians-Universität München in Germany.^[15]^[19] His studies in Munich under Pannenberg's supervision led to a second doctorate, this one in theology,^[12]^[20]^[16] awarded in 1984^[10] with the publication of his doctoral thesis, The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy (1985).^[21]

Rationale for Draft 3

This is a revision of User:Squatch347's draft. The first couple sentences regarding his birth have been condensed and the refs improved. Citations were added to the sentence about his conversion, and added a mention the he lives in a suburb not Atlanta itself. - GretLomborg (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like this draft the best so far. I agree with the suggested changes for the reasons given. I also think that the language of conversion is appropriate per the RS. No RS I'm aware of refers to an "altar call" so I don't know where that claim is coming from. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that this is the best version so far. The railroad info is interesting and in line with the other bios I referenced for style, but I agree it isn't worth tracking down a source. We might consider readding the second of three children language given you found an acceptable reference. Birth order is standard encyclopedia trivia. Squatch347 (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this draft is the best too. Four minor, entirely negotiable nitpicks:

(i) I don't think it's within the scope of the encyclopedia to track the ages of the children of BLPs, so simply stating the BLP has two children seems sufficient, without determining whether they are grown or not.

(ii) I don't have a problem with the biographical information previously struck out, if we do indeed have adequate sources for them.

(iii) I think the alumnus of the year statement is better suited for the second paragraph, since the first paragraph is focused on his early life and family.

(iv) The BLP has two doctorates, and by extension, would presumably have two theses. Maybe it's worth specifying that the historical argument was his second doctoral thesis. —Approaching (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Robinson & Baggett 2016, p. 211.
^ ^a ^b "William Lane Craig" 2007.
^ Craig, William Lane. "Does the Problem of Material Constitution Illuminate the Doctrine of the Trinity?". Retrieved 10 July 2019. I am the second child of Mallory and Doris Craig...
^ ^a ^b Craig, William Lane. "Curriculum Vitae". Reasonable Faith. Archived from the original on June 1, 2017. Retrieved September 29, 2018.
^ Craig, William Lane. "Debating". Reasonable Faith. Archived from the original on May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 8, 2014.
^ "Records and History – Original Oratory". Illinois High School Association. Retrieved May 27, 2015.
^ "William Lane Craig". La Mirada, California: Biola University. Archived from the original on August 14, 2014. Retrieved May 5, 2014.
^ "William Lane Craig and Sean McDowell". Fervr. Retrieved May 11, 2014.
^ Craig, William Lane (November 5, 2007). "Faith and Doubt". Retrieved 10 July 2019. To speak personally, I myself was not raised in an evangelical home, but I became a Christian my third year of high school.
^ ^a ^b Robinson & Baggett 2016, p. 212.
^ Schneider, Nathan (July 12, 2013). "7 Habits of a Highly Effective Philosopher". Killing the Buddha. Retrieved May 10, 2014.
^ ^a ^b "Dr. William Lane Craig Named Alumnus of the Year". Wheaton, Illinois: Wheaton College. May 7, 2014. Archived from the original on May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 11, 2014.
^ Robinson & Baggett 2016, pp. 211–212.
^ Craig, William Lane. "Double Doctorates". Reasonable Faith. Archived from the original on May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 10, 2014.
^ ^a ^b "William Lane Craig". calvin.edu. Calvin College. Retrieved 9 April 2019.
^ ^a ^b ^c Cite error: The named reference Schneider 2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cramer, David C. "John Hick (1922—2012)". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002. Retrieved 12 June 2019. Many of [Hick's] former students are now established Christian philosophers in their own right, including ... William Lane Craig...
^ Robinson & Baggett 2016, p. 211; "William Lane Craig" 2007.
^ Sanders, Fred (18 September 2014). "The Strange Legacy of Theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg". Christianity Today. Archived from the original on 21 September 2014. Retrieved 12 June 2019. Accordingly, Pannenberg marshaled the available evidence and argued that the most rational interpretation of it is that Christ actually rose from the dead. That a high-level German theologian would defend Christ's resurrection as a knowable fact was headline news in the religious press of the 1970s. It's no surprise, then, that Pannenberg's emphasis on the historical reliability of the Resurrection attracted students like apologist William Lane Craig.
^ Craig, William Lane (April 28, 2013). "Creation and Evolution (Part 2)". Defenders Podcast. Reasonable Faith. Retrieved October 1, 2018.
^ "The historical argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist controversy". WorldCat. Online Computer Library Center. Retrieved 9 April 2019.

List of online encyclopedias

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by PCHS-NJROTC on 22:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

List of online encyclopedias (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

On June 22, 2019, I removed RationalWiki from List of online encyclopedias on the basis that RationalWiki itself states that it is not an encyclopedia. This action was challenged by User:Avernarius, and we discussed on the talk page, coming to the conclusion that RationalWiki should be included despite its own views of itself due to WP:RS coverage, and RationalWiki was re-entered by Avernarius as a science-related encyclopedia per the talk page. User:FuzzyCatPotato, who is a former Board of Trustees member for the RationalMedia Foundation (who has expressed an interest in running for it again in the near future) entered the conversation and proceeded to challenge the move from the "general reference" section to the "science and technology" section, claiming that the WP:RS describe RationalWiki as a general reference. I have reviewed the sources FCP have provided, and I do not see anything stating that RationalWiki is a "general reference encyclopedia," rather I see the sources describing it as an encyclopedic resource covering pseudoscience topics, which seems would solidly put the wiki under science and technology. RationalWiki's mission statement, which explicitly says that it is not a general encyclopedia and does not cover topics unrelated to it's mission, pretty much seals the deal per WP:SELFSOURCE in my opinion. Disclaimer: I am a sysop-lite on Conservapedia.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The three of us have discussed the matter on the talk page, but finding a solution that is acceptable to both me (PCHS-NJROTC) and FuzzyCatPotato seems to be tough at this point.

How do you think we can help?

I am hoping to peacefully establish consensus as to where to include RationalWiki in the list, if at all.

Summary of dispute by FuzzyCatPotato

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Avernarius

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The main task of the list is, to find the wiki at all. The characterization is secondary. The solution could be a note, stating the diverging views. Have fine day! AVS (talk) 05:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of online encyclopedias discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The other editors have been notified. Is this a question that can be resolved by discussion (such as of how to list it)? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean at the talk page, I doubt it. Although I want to keep this about the content and not the editors, part of the reason I decided to go this route was due to previous encounters with FuzzyCatPotato. I'm hoping that discussion will remain more WP:CIVIL and productive here. This is my first time at DRN since joining Wikipedia over ten years ago, so apologies if I seem "new" to this, but I am hoping that some discussion here and uninvolved opinions can resolve the matter. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Note - FuzzyCatPotato do you have any issue with it being classified as science based on the sources included in PCHS-NJROTC's reply on the talk page? SpoonLuv (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sahaja Yoga

– New discussion.

Filed by Freelion on 05:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:Sahaja Yoga (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Freelion (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Another user Alexbrn I believe is editing the article on Sahaja Yoga tendentiously. He has a long history of debunking articles that feature information that does not comply with mainstream medical science. I have been blocked twice for attempting to bring him to heal for ignoring the BRD cycle, removing reliable sources, and skewing the article by cherrypicking content from sources, also he is insisting on certain interpretations of sources that are unbalanced and only promote his view.

I have provided accurate edit summaries, he is very brief. I have documented every one of my changes on the talk page in numbered points. He continues to ignore this and threaten me with being blocked again.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The talk page as mentioned. I also reported him for edit warring.

How do you think we can help?

Provide a referee to insist that he engage properly with the points raised on the talk page.

Talk:Sahaja Yoga discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not listed the other editor. Also, the other editor has filed an inquiry at the fringe theory noticeboard. If the filing editor notifies the other editor properly, they need to agree on whether to have this case discussed here or at FTN. A case cannot be handled in two places at once. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:T. Rex_(band)#RfC_on_Disputed_Reformations_section

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Romomusicfan on 17:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:T. Rex (band)#RfC on Disputed Reformations section (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Romomusicfan (talk · contribs) (also posts while logged out, mainly from IP 62.190.148.115)
Woovee (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Woovee previosuly insisted on deletion of section on disputed reunions of the band such as Mickey Finn's T-Rex and X-T. Rex, on the grounds that the late Marc Bolan *was* the band.

Now matters have escalated and Woovee has deleted the dates/circumstances of deaths of band members other than Bolan, claiming that since they died after the band's existence ended and arwe therefore not relevant, even though such details are normal for a band page.

It seems to me that Woovee is intent on turning the T.Rex (band) page into a second Marc Bolan page, based on the fan POV of "No Bolan, No T.Rex".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Request for Comment - two other members also contributed. Has gone quiet with no further contributions. Woovee tried hard to personalise the discussion accusing me of promoting Mickey Finn's T-Rex and X.T.Rex and accusing me of being somehow fraudulent because I use IP addresses and only occasionally use my account (User:Romomusicfan). Woovee made similar attacks on one of the other two contributors.

How do you think we can help?

What is needed is arbitration of some sort. If this is not the appropriate place then please direct me to the right place.

Summary of dispute by User:Woovee

The ip says "Now matters have escalated and Woovee has deleted the dates/circumstances of deaths of band members other than Bolan". That's wrong, it hasn't escalated as the current version is the same as the one of on "12:43 3 July" right before the ip opens a rfc, about the same topic/section. -- Woovee (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:T. Rex_(band)#RfC_on_Disputed_Reformations_section discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Our rules say : "We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments".... "Continue on article talk page".Woovee (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=905907999&oldid=905896143&title=User talk:Vicgerami

– New discussion.

Filed by Vicgerami on 10:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Vicgerami (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I created a page for Peter Perkowski, the most high-profile LGBT attorney present today, suing the Trump Administration in four class-action lawsuits. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure why or how user: Athaenara accused me of getting paid for creating this page, tagged the profile deletion, ignored my explanation as to why it should remain and subsequently it was deleted. I did NOT, do not and will not be paid to create a Wikipedia page. A baseless accusation should not immediately cause a profile submission to dissapear.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I wrote back to Athaenara and explained why it should not be deleted, but to no avail.

How do you think we can help?

Have several editors read and evaluate the profile of Peter Perkowski. Let them independently decide whether his profile is noteworthy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=905907999&oldid=905896143&title=User talk:Vicgerami discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

[FOOTNOTE"William_Lane_Craig"2007-1] "William Lane Craig" 2007.

[rf-cv-2] Craig, William Lane. "Curriculum Vitae". Reasonable Faith. Archived from the original on June 1, 2017. Retrieved September 29, 2018.

[3] Craig, William Lane. "Debating". Reasonable Faith. Archived from the original on May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 8, 2014.

[FOOTNOTERobinsonBaggett2016211-4] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h Robinson & Baggett 2016, p. 211.

[5] "Records and History – Original Oratory". Illinois High School Association. Retrieved May 27, 2015.

[Faculty_Profile-6] "William Lane Craig". La Mirada, California: Biola University. Archived from the original on August 14, 2014. Retrieved May 5, 2014.

[7] "William Lane Craig and Sean McDowell". Fervr. Retrieved May 11, 2014.

[FOOTNOTERobinsonBaggett2016212-8] Robinson & Baggett 2016, p. 212.

[9] Schneider, Nathan (July 12, 2013). "7 Habits of a Highly Effective Philosopher". Killing the Buddha. Retrieved May 10, 2014.

[Wheaton_College-10] "Dr. William Lane Craig Named Alumnus of the Year". Wheaton, Illinois: Wheaton College. May 7, 2014. Archived from the original on May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 11, 2014.

[FOOTNOTERobinsonBaggett2016211–212-11] Robinson & Baggett 2016, pp. 211–212.

[12] Craig, William Lane. "Double Doctorates". Reasonable Faith. Archived from the original on May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 10, 2014.

[calvin-edu-13] "William Lane Craig". calvin.edu. Calvin College. Retrieved 9 April 2019.

[Schneider_2013-14] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Cite error: The named reference Schneider 2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[iep-cramer-15] Cramer, David C. "John Hick (1922—2012)". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002. Retrieved 12 June 2019. Many of [Hick's] former students are now established Christian philosophers in their own right, including ... William Lane Craig...

[FOOTNOTERobinsonBaggett2016211"William_Lane_Craig"2007-16] Robinson & Baggett 2016, p. 211; "William Lane Craig" 2007.

[ct-sanders-17] Sanders, Fred (18 September 2014). "The Strange Legacy of Theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg". Christianity Today. Archived from the original on 21 September 2014. Retrieved 12 June 2019. Accordingly, Pannenberg marshaled the available evidence and argued that the most rational interpretation of it is that Christ actually rose from the dead. That a high-level German theologian would defend Christ's resurrection as a knowable fact was headline news in the religious press of the 1970s. It's no surprise, then, that Pannenberg's emphasis on the historical reliability of the Resurrection attracted students like apologist William Lane Craig.

[18] Craig, William Lane (April 28, 2013). "Creation and Evolution (Part 2)". Defenders Podcast. Reasonable Faith. Retrieved October 1, 2018.

[19] "The historical argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist controversy". WorldCat. Online Computer Library Center. Retrieved 9 April 2019.

[20] Craig, William Lane. "Debating". Reasonable Faith. Archived from the original on May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 8, 2014.

[21] "Records and History – Original Oratory". Illinois High School Association. Retrieved May 27, 2015.

[22] Schneider, Nathan (July 12, 2013). "7 Habits of a Highly Effective Philosopher". Killing the Buddha. Retrieved May 10, 2014.

[23] Craig, William Lane. "Double Doctorates". Reasonable Faith. Archived from the original on May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 10, 2014.

[24] Craig, William Lane (April 28, 2013). "Creation and Evolution (Part 2)". Defenders Podcast. Reasonable Faith. Retrieved October 1, 2018.

[25] "The historical argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist controversy". WorldCat. Online Computer Library Center. Retrieved 9 April 2019.

[FOOTNOTE"William_Lane_Craig"2007-26] "William Lane Craig" 2007.

[rf-cv-27] Craig, William Lane. "Curriculum Vitae". Reasonable Faith. Archived from the original on June 1, 2017. Retrieved September 29, 2018.

[28] Craig, William Lane. "Debating". Reasonable Faith. Archived from the original on May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 8, 2014.

[FOOTNOTERobinsonBaggett2016211-29] Robinson & Baggett 2016, p. 211.

[30] "Records and History – Original Oratory". Illinois High School Association. Retrieved May 27, 2015.

[Faculty_Profile-31] "William Lane Craig". La Mirada, California: Biola University. Archived from the original on August 14, 2014. Retrieved May 5, 2014.

[32] "William Lane Craig and Sean McDowell". Fervr. Retrieved May 11, 2014.

[FOOTNOTERobinsonBaggett2016212-33] Robinson & Baggett 2016, p. 212.

[34] Schneider, Nathan (July 12, 2013). "7 Habits of a Highly Effective Philosopher". Killing the Buddha. Retrieved May 10, 2014.

[Wheaton_College-35] "Dr. William Lane Craig Named Alumnus of the Year". Wheaton, Illinois: Wheaton College. May 7, 2014. Archived from the original on May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 11, 2014.

[FOOTNOTERobinsonBaggett2016211–212-36] Robinson & Baggett 2016, pp. 211–212.

[37] Craig, William Lane. "Double Doctorates". Reasonable Faith. Archived from the original on May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 10, 2014.

[calvin-edu-38] "William Lane Craig". calvin.edu. Calvin College. Retrieved 9 April 2019.

[Schneider_2013-39] Cite error: The named reference Schneider 2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[iep-cramer-40] Cramer, David C. "John Hick (1922—2012)". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002. Retrieved 12 June 2019. Many of [Hick's] former students are now established Christian philosophers in their own right, including ... William Lane Craig...

[FOOTNOTERobinsonBaggett2016211"William_Lane_Craig"2007-41] Robinson & Baggett 2016, p. 211; "William Lane Craig" 2007.

[ct-sanders-42] Sanders, Fred (18 September 2014). "The Strange Legacy of Theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg". Christianity Today. Archived from the original on 21 September 2014. Retrieved 12 June 2019. Accordingly, Pannenberg marshaled the available evidence and argued that the most rational interpretation of it is that Christ actually rose from the dead. That a high-level German theologian would defend Christ's resurrection as a knowable fact was headline news in the religious press of the 1970s. It's no surprise, then, that Pannenberg's emphasis on the historical reliability of the Resurrection attracted students like apologist William Lane Craig.

[43] Craig, William Lane (April 28, 2013). "Creation and Evolution (Part 2)". Defenders Podcast. Reasonable Faith. Retrieved October 1, 2018.

[44] "The historical argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist controversy". WorldCat. Online Computer Library Center. Retrieved 9 April 2019.

[FOOTNOTERobinsonBaggett2016211-45] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Robinson & Baggett 2016, p. 211.

[FOOTNOTE"William_Lane_Craig"2007-46] "William Lane Craig" 2007.

[47] Craig, William Lane. "Does the Problem of Material Constitution Illuminate the Doctrine of the Trinity?". Retrieved 10 July 2019. I am the second child of Mallory and Doris Craig...

[rf-cv-48] Craig, William Lane. "Curriculum Vitae". Reasonable Faith. Archived from the original on June 1, 2017. Retrieved September 29, 2018.

[49] Craig, William Lane. "Debating". Reasonable Faith. Archived from the original on May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 8, 2014.

[50] "Records and History – Original Oratory". Illinois High School Association. Retrieved May 27, 2015.

[Faculty_Profile-51] "William Lane Craig". La Mirada, California: Biola University. Archived from the original on August 14, 2014. Retrieved May 5, 2014.

[52] "William Lane Craig and Sean McDowell". Fervr. Retrieved May 11, 2014.

[53] Craig, William Lane (November 5, 2007). "Faith and Doubt". Retrieved 10 July 2019. To speak personally, I myself was not raised in an evangelical home, but I became a Christian my third year of high school.

[FOOTNOTERobinsonBaggett2016212-54] Robinson & Baggett 2016, p. 212.

[55] Schneider, Nathan (July 12, 2013). "7 Habits of a Highly Effective Philosopher". Killing the Buddha. Retrieved May 10, 2014.

[Wheaton_College-56] "Dr. William Lane Craig Named Alumnus of the Year". Wheaton, Illinois: Wheaton College. May 7, 2014. Archived from the original on May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 11, 2014.

[FOOTNOTERobinsonBaggett2016211–212-57] Robinson & Baggett 2016, pp. 211–212.

[58] Craig, William Lane. "Double Doctorates". Reasonable Faith. Archived from the original on May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 10, 2014.

[calvin-edu-59] "William Lane Craig". calvin.edu. Calvin College. Retrieved 9 April 2019.

[Schneider_2013-60] Cite error: The named reference Schneider 2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[iep-cramer-61] Cramer, David C. "John Hick (1922—2012)". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002. Retrieved 12 June 2019. Many of [Hick's] former students are now established Christian philosophers in their own right, including ... William Lane Craig...

[FOOTNOTERobinsonBaggett2016211"William_Lane_Craig"2007-62] Robinson & Baggett 2016, p. 211; "William Lane Craig" 2007.

[ct-sanders-63] Sanders, Fred (18 September 2014). "The Strange Legacy of Theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg". Christianity Today. Archived from the original on 21 September 2014. Retrieved 12 June 2019. Accordingly, Pannenberg marshaled the available evidence and argued that the most rational interpretation of it is that Christ actually rose from the dead. That a high-level German theologian would defend Christ's resurrection as a knowable fact was headline news in the religious press of the 1970s. It's no surprise, then, that Pannenberg's emphasis on the historical reliability of the Resurrection attracted students like apologist William Lane Craig.

[64] Craig, William Lane (April 28, 2013). "Creation and Evolution (Part 2)". Defenders Podcast. Reasonable Faith. Retrieved October 1, 2018.

[65] "The historical argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist controversy". WorldCat. Online Computer Library Center. Retrieved 9 April 2019.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards