Talk:Alvin Plantinga

message: I cleaved a sentence from the first paragraph, "Plantinga's works are often considered to be responsible for the resurgence of theist philosophy in recent years," because it violates the weasel terms policy of WikiProject Philosphy. Upon proper citing of those who "often consider" this should be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.206.52 (talk) 09:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim follows from the verifiable fact that his work on his respective interests has either been widely discussed with respect by philosophers, or has become largely normative. Whether it is the argument against naturalism, the free will defense, the ontological argument, discussion of actualism, etc., Plantinga's work has been significant in this regard. Dextris Dei 00:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Influence on Other Theists

message: According to his autobiography, his education was a bit more complex than it is made to seem here. He attended Jamestown College for one semester Fall 1949. Then When his father was offered a job at Calvin he moved there and attended for the following semester before being offered the scholarship at Harvard. I know these details seems trivial, but since he is such a major figure in contemporary Philosophy, it seems as if it should be shown that he did go straight to Harvard.--Bkcraft 19:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Richard Cartwright not Nancy Cartwright  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.175.65 (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: But was that the case in the 40s? — goethean ॐ 20:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Education

message: I have re-added material to this article that was removed from the Naturalism (philosophy) article. Plantinga's paper was deemed "a bad source" by User:Daelin. Of course, this contradicts that fact that Wikipedia is supposed to document, rather than take a side on, philosophical issues. — goethean ॐ 16:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thomas Nagel and William Lane Craig are anti-evolutionists, and Elliott Sober is on the side of science. It is pretty clear where the line is between those who agree with Plantinga's "reasoning" and those who do not: it is between anti-science religion on one hand and science on the other. "Some" is indeed a no-go. See WP:WEASEL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. Plantinga's arguments against evolution are schoolboy howlers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:447F:F0EC:4090:D508 (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary argument against naturalism 

message: I restored this:
:Thus, asserting that naturalistic evolution is true is also asserting that one has a low probability of being right in any of his assertions. 
I believe this is an accurate summary of Plantinga's argument.  Am I mistaken? Al 22:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the sentence is fine, although a bit awkward. The propositions themselves are not the same, but it's true the argument is that the latter follows from the former. That's just a slightly careless formulation, since as I said the assertions themselves are not said to be identical, but are said to follow. Since, however, people read and understand the English language, it should be fine, and probably gets the point accross well since it is terse. Dextris Dei 13:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable sentence. 

message: An article about the Evolutionary argument against naturalism was created yesterday. But it is currently nominated for deletion. If one can contribute to the discussion it would be appreciated. --Leinad ¬  »saudações! 17:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD about Plantinga's argument 

message: I've found it practically impossible to find out if Plantinga is human -- ie, if he's married, has children or single or what. I couldn't find a single source that would tell me, so I eventually gave up.
Some time after I did this, I bumped into the fact that he has a wife and a daughter. He mentioned his wife in one of his talks on www.veritas.org/media's programmes, and his daughter is mentioned here: http://www.truthbook.com/news/labels/Alvin%20Plantinga.html|this. Does anyone know -- and have a good source for -- anything else about his personal life? I think they may be worth at least a mention. Hairouna 18:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A personal detail or two? 

message: Plantinga doesn't claim that it is possible that every person goes wrong in every possible world.  He  claims that there is a possible world where God exists and every person goes wrong at least once.  Think about the debate between Mackie and Plantinga and you will understand why.  Plantinga admits to J.L. Mackie (his chief protagonist on this issue) that there ARE possible worlds where everyone always does what is right--morally perfect worlds.  But Mackie's claim is that God and evil are logically incompatible--i.e. there is no possible world where both exist (just like there is no possible world where square circles exist). All Plantinga has to do to refute Mackie's claim that God and evil are logically incompatible is show that there is at least one possible world where they both exist.  If there is such a possible world, then, contrary to Mackie, it is possible for God and evil to co-exist (again, if there is even one possible world with square circles, then square circles are logically possible).  This difference is important.  Now Mackie replies that if there are worlds where God exists and people always make the moral choices, why doesn't God create those worlds?  Plantinga replies with transworld depravity: it is possible that the pattern of counterfactuals true at the actual world are such that God cannot actualize one of those perfect world.  Anyway, the point is that the way the article stated transworld depravity was wrong in a subtle but important way.  Plantinga only needs to show that there is ONE possible world where God and evil coexist to refute Mackie.  He doesn't have to show that there are NO possible worlds where God exists and everyone makes the right moral choices all of the time.  He doesn't have to make this stronger claim to refute Mackie and he doesn't.  In fact, he concedes up front that such worlds exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.160.226 (talk • contribs) 
:That is a helpful summary. Would you mind prettying it up and adding it to the article? --Flex (talk/contribs) 23:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure but it may take me a few days due to other work.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.160.226 (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Transworld Depravity

message: Does anyone have a pronunciation for the name Plantinga in IPA? Cpk1971 (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The name is Dutch and it is highly doubtful that Plantinga is himself able to pronounce his surname correctly. Therefore any way that seems natural to a native English speaker is just fine.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:447F:F0EC:4090:D508 (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: Plantinga has been tagged as an Intelligent design advocate. I know he is a member of ISCID and I think he's a critical stance towards methodological naturalism. I this enough to be an advocate of intelligent design? What is the definition of this term? I wonder because I have never seen him deny himself theistic evolution or embrace creationism (the idea that god created through several acts of special creation life on earth). When I think of an advocate of ID I have rather people like Behe in mind who deny explicitly evolution (the central claim of ID). I'd like to hear other opinions on this, additional sources are of course welcome.--Student of philosophy (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a couple of quick points.  Firstly, ISCID is viewed as an ID organisation, so this may be the rationale for tagging Plantinga as the same.  Secondly, as far as I'm aware, Behe doesn't deny evolution per se, rather he claims that there are some biological structures that cannot have arisen through normal evolutionary processes.  Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 15:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

text: He is listed by The Creationists (Expanded Edition, p397) as having "lent moral support to the design camp", and by Creationism's Trojan Horse as being a "long time Wedge all[y]" (p213) and one of the 'Ad Hoc Origins Committee' that defended Johnson's Darwin on Trial (p18) (the book that sparked off the intelligent design movement). He also provided a dustcover blurb endorsing it. All that, combined with ISCID membership & participation in numerous ID conferences, would appear to be sufficient to call him an ID advocate. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is quite solid. Maybe the section should be moved to his views? Additional detail about what he supports and what he disagrees with would be useful. I'll see if I can find the time to add it myself. Vesal (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would point out that most prominent ID advocates are not Young Earth creationist Creation science supporters, so the McMullin-sourced material doesn't in fact differentiate him from other IDers. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, I actually saw that problem when writing it. I will remove it for now, perhaps better sources exist, or someone else can work with it. I'll dump it here: Plantinga shares with creation science advocates the view that the best explanation of biological diversity is an interruption in natural processes, a moment when God made the universe behave differently from its normal course. He also relies on critiques of current evolutionary theory to advance his alternative views. However, Plantinga rejects Young Earth creationism and limits divine interference to only guiding evolution, primarily of human beings. Most importantly, he does not attempt to package his views as a scientific theory, nor does he attempt to hide the Christian underpinnings of his position   Maybe just cutting out the part about YEC would make it valid? But ideally this should be done more carefully than I can commit the time to do. Sorry, Vesal (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

text: No, 'guilt by participation' would be more accurate. We have reliable sources both identifying Plantinga supporter, and documenting his activities in support of ID. Do you have any sources substantiating your 'skepticism'? I have changed the title back, per WP:SPADE (and WP:DUCK would also appear to apply). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All we have is an opponent of ID claiming he is a supporter, and the fact that he engages with the people involved. NBeale (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No NBeale, "all we have" is somebody accepted by a Federal court as an expert on the history of the ID movement, the most prominent historian of creationism, defense and endorsement of an ID-polemic book, membership of a pro-ID organisation, and participation in ID-conferences. To your claim of mere 'engagement', I say utter and unmitigated BULLSHIT! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: None of this says that he supports or endorses ID. He thinks that some of the arguments used are poor. Also you should try WP:CIVIL. NBeale (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably more accurate to say that he has supported the ID movement, and from what I recall seeing lately he continues to do that. Calling that "stance re" is weaselly and absurd, sounding like a dog cocking its leg in the air. Of course, there's nothing to prevent you from adding a properly sourced summary of his published thoughts that some of the arguments used are poor, but he shares their basic argument that empirical evidence for evolution is to be dismissed as materialist. Also you should try to remember that WP:CIVIL is not a weapon to use against other contributors. . . dave souza, talk 21:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

text: (ec) Your argument has not the slightest smidgeon of merit. We have Plantinga's own words on the dustcover of DoT endorsing it, and through it the intelligent design movement that this book launched, and we have two WP:RS (Numbers and Forrest & Gross) for his support of it. Further, you have offered no evidence whatsoever differentiating Plantinga from ID. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 21:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:A8AF:DF88:4C28:2656 (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Intelligent design advocates

message: This edit summary states that it is "outrageous intellectual dishonesty" to make it appear Mackie was referring to Plantinga, but I thought Mackie was explicitly referring to Plantinga's theodicy. I don't have the book at hand, but  this source seems to agree. Could someone explain? Vesal (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that what we need is the paragraph it is taken from, so that we can see the context & whether it is talking about Plantinga. I would note that the source that Vesal cites concludes "But whether this offers a real solution of the problem is another question." -- which does rather affect the tone and extent of the 'concession'. The source itself offers this interpretation: "However, Mackie is reluctant to attribute much significance to Plantinga's accomplishment. He expresses doubt about whether Plantinga has adequately dealt with the problem of evil." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that at least makes it clear that Mackie isn't bowing entirely to the mighty Plantinga. That source gives a bit more clarification of the argument, which is lacking in our article at present. It also covers problems with the defense which appear to be unresolved. However, the whole thing is framed as though no-one had thought of the issues before the 1950s, and Plantinga was the first to rescue religion. As Problem of evil makes clear, the argument goes way back and to me it looks as though Plantinga's defense isn't very novel. When asked, Darwin referred to "the problem of Free Will & Necessity which has been found by most persons insoluble". The theodicy of Malthus in Chapters 18 and 19 of his essay cover the issue at length, with the conclusion that "Evil exists in the world not to create despair but activity." Seems logical enough. So, we should make it clear that Plantinga's defense is specifically in relation to 20th century philosophy. . dave souza, talk 11:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Having read the IEP source I really don't think we should be quoting the further para. This is what Bebe thinks Makie might say about Plantinga - we should stick to what he did say. NBeale (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think my modification might help here, although I'm coming late to the party and may have missed the point.  --PLUMBAGO 15:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if we're describing Mackie's first sentence as a 'concession', then we should describe the second one as a 'caveat' or similar, rather than just as an 'addition' -- either that or let both sentences speak for themselves. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the notion of "concession" comes from Mackie's own words.  But I'm not wedded to a particular wording, it should just be clear that Mackie (as one of the major players in this arena) considered Plantinga's defense as successful against a particular logical argument, but that he remained unconvinced that it was the last word on the more general topic.  Anyway, I've already written more than we're quoting, so it's time to stop.  :-)  --PLUMBAGO 16:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but Mackie's own words that his final sentence is "another question" sets it up as a 'caveat' and clearly creates a tension between his second sentence and his 'concession'. I think we need to either accurately characterise that tension, or allow Mackie's own words to speak for themselves on it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

text: If you have the book, could you please quote the paragraph that the quote comes from here on talk, so we can better understand the context. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, what is Mackie referring to when he writes (according to Beebe) "Since this defense is formally [that is, logically] possible"? Is that generally about defenses? Thank you for adding Mackie's more careful thoughts, 271828182. On the other hand, I wish the entire section was somehow simpler. And I tried to remove some of the narrative complained about above, heeding Dave Souza's advice to place it in the context of 20th century analytic philosophy. The paragraph reads a bit clumsily, so please edit mercilessly :) Vesal (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have better things to do than transcribe a lengthy paragraph.  However, I swear on a stack of Hume that Plantinga's name occurs nowhere near this passage. 271828182 (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks to Hrafn for verifying the point: that the "Mackie concession" is thoroughly bogus.  Can somebody tell the anonymous user from IP 75.64.67.36 to stop re-inserting this out-of-context citation? 271828182 (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks 271828182 and Hrafn for clearing this up.  It's pretty clear from this source that Mackie's remarks should not be interpreted as being a concession.  He has clearly processed Plantinga's argument and is questioning its premises.  Apologies for my editing to the contrary — I couldn't access the original text without parting with cash, so digging up this reproduced version has been very helpful.  Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 07:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The same search Hrafn used brings up this book, and while it seems to favour Plantinga's arguments, the preceding page is interesting. P. 74 deals with the argument that natural evil is incompatible with an omnipotent benevolent deity, which Plantinga refutes by arguing it is possible (if not necessarily true) that natural evil is caused by Satan and the like, and God could not have created a world as good as it is without allowing Satan to create such evils. The Methodist theologian William J. Abraham is cited as saying that Plantinga is correct in terms of strict logic, but that the argument is thoroughly implausible and may make the theist appear dishonest or insincere. Worth checking out, and as natural evil is an obvious counter to the free will argument, something that should be mentioned. By the way, it's not a new problem . dave souza, talk 11:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outrageous intellectual dishonesty? 

message: To read the article text, one would think that Mackie had abjectly surrendered to Plantinga -- we get his "concession" quoted, but no mention of the "another question" that this concession was setting up, and we now have his "simply incoherent" quote moved into footnotes. This is not giving WP:DUE weight to the balance of Mackie's views on Plantinga's arguments -- it is outright cherry-picking. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article on Plantinga not Mackie. Mackie is not the only philosopher to disagree with Plantinga. NBeale (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So don't mention him. Also note that Plantinga isn't positively showing the failure of the logical argument, he's arguing that it's possible that it's not within an omnipotent God’s power to create a world containing moral good but no moral evil, and that all so-called ‘natural evil’ is brought about by, say, the devious activities of Satan and his cohorts. A terribly frail omnipotent deity, but that's the argument. . dave souza, talk 21:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imbalance on Mackie 

message: *The External links section of Alvin Plantinga is meant to provide links to further information on the subject of that person, not an indiscriminate set of links to assorted writings by that author. The applicable policies are WP:EL & WP:LINKFARM. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *WP:EL provides prohibitions against overlinking. The links in question do not fall under WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. They are also not to particularly prominent pieces of Plantinga's work (a partisan review, and, indirectly, a piece in some way connected to a grant). The EL section currently contains 9 links, which is not "small". If Dawkins' article contains more then (i) that is an issue for editors or that article & (ii) may be a consequence of Dawkins being more active in public advocacy than Plantinga. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

text: *Given the subject matter and forum, it would appear to be so much 'preaching to the choir' -- so hardly noteworthy. It also fails WP:ELNO #6, in that it requires membership in order to read the full review. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

text: * The full text of the review if on richardawkins.net here.  It's clearly notable, >10k GHits, and should either be a link or perhaps better refed in the article. BTW whether or not God exists, "Prof. Dawkins" does not. He's retired and is plain Dr Dawkins now. NBeale (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Google doesn't appear to agree with you on notability -- a search for "god delusion" & "review" placed this review out of the top 30. ">10k GHits" appears to be par for the course for a review of The God Delusion, so not much notability there. And I will politely ignore (well, sort of) your all-too-obvious Dawkins-envy Mr-never-was-a-professor-Beale. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * I think Prof. Plantinga's review has been in the links section for a while and was initially freely available from Books and Culture. They must have changed their policy at some point. It is available here in pdf format. If that is allowed, then someone who knows how to do it could use that pdf for the links section. I will say that it doesn't follow from the fact that it appears in Books and Culture that is not a prominent piece of Plantinga's writings. And there just doesn't seem to be any WP rule against linking to a few writings by the subject of the article. This really seems to me to be a non-issue; I don't see the problem. What about that pdf file? 
----
I've protected the page for three days to hash out the latest external link addition.  Please stop reverting back and forth and have a discussion here first.  If a conclusion is determined before the protection expires, please let me know and I'll remove it. Kuru (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Those who claim that "Plantinga is against science" should check their own paradigms. Seems that people here have fallen into the trap of setting "science vs religion", something that dates back to the Age of Reason when science was seen as an alternative to religion. The main paradigm in science today stems from a naturalistic viewpoint ; that is that there must be a "natural" explanation to everything. However, the problem is that naturalism cannot itself prove that there is nothing supernatural, thus adhering to naturalism  means adhering to a belief. Prof. Puolimatka argues that the different philosophical viewpoints in science should be allowed to compete freely with each other (naturalism / supernaturalism) and their goodness evaluated in how well they explain the phenomena they study. Furthermore, Puolimatka points out that there has so far been no well-defined and  crisp line between what is science and what is  not. Thus, science that adheres to scientific methods but also does not exclude a supernaturalistic philosophical viewpoint (like Plantinga) cannot be excluded from science without falling into the loop of the inherited problems mentioned above.
(Text above based on the books by Finnish professor Tapio Puolimatka: "Usko, tiede ja Raamattu." Helsinki: Uusi tie, 2007.  and "Usko, tieto ja myytit." Tammi, 2005. ).
Tikru8 9:05, 9 November 2011 (EET)
:Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed: (i) the quoted claim is not made anywhere in the article, so your claim to the contrary is a non sequitor. (ii) Your analysis contains a number of of flaws. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plantinga is not against science but against limiting science to only naturalism 

message: Here is a nice video by QualiaSoup which readily debunks some of his claims on substance dualism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZTCK8ZluEc  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmare (talk • contribs) 18:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting though this is, a YouTube video is not a reliable source. On Wikipedia, we try to represent what reliable sources say. If a similar argument to the one made in the YouTube video is made in the scholarly literature (articles from scholarly journals, books from other philosophers etc.) then they can be included in the article. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Disproof of one of his arguments

message: Are you saying philosophy of religion is the same thing as theology? :Category:Philosophers of religion is its own cat. If you have sources saying he's a theologian, please add it to the article. Categorization should be verifiable based on the article text. --JFHutson (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: His ontological argument for the existence of God constitutes what is called "natural theology" 191.254.134.147 (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theologian categorization 

message: Please compare the existing fragment: Although the argument has been criticized by some philosophers, like Elliott Sober, it has received favorable notice from Thomas Nagel with an alternative such as, for example: Although the argument has received favorable notice from, e.g., Thomas Nagel, it has been criticized by some other philosophers, such as Elliott Sober. Same information, different implications planted. So how about removing the bias from this statement? Thanks, Bansp (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weaselly syntax 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alvin Plantinga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510000000/http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php to http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Alvin Plantinga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725040247/http://www.ccel.org/info/faq.html to http://www.ccel.org/info/faq.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715155841/http://www.rbpchurch.com/RBPC/Our_Staff.html to http://www.rbpchurch.com/RBPC/Our_Staff.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713232024/http://www.londonfirstcrc.com/index.php?%2Ffcrc%2Fmenu_link%2Foutreach%2Fmissions to http://www.londonfirstcrc.com/index.php?%2Ffcrc%2Fmenu_link%2Foutreach%2Fmissions
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426082515/http://americanphilosophy.net/dmap/apa_presidents.htm to http://americanphilosophy.net/dmap/apa_presidents.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is the section about Platinga being on local television a noteworthy event for this page? The fact that someone appeared on a local television show about a mundane news story doesnt seem like it warrants inclusion on an encyclopedia article.
This section was originally made by an IP editor, I removed it and explained why, and another IP editor reverted it without explanation. Im reverting back to the original removal and if anyone would like to say anything in defense of that section they can talk about it here.
Rosencrantz24 (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Conditioning Incident 

message: Plantinga never looks as cool as in that photo in other situations. The article photo should be one in which he does not look that cool, in order to be more realistic. 191.254.134.147 (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo is uncharacteristically cool 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion