Talk:William Lane Craig

message: Ok, looking through these additions that were made by the IP that wrote the criticism section I'm starting to be concerned that none of these sources are actually real.  
Setting aside the concerns above where none of the links (except one) worked, looking through the other sources, I can't find a single one that actually supports the claim made.  The section seems to be a personal criticism of Craig's work with some made up sources thrown in as a guise of reliability.
For example, the comment about the Guardian's Sarah Posner seems to be a made up article.  When you search Guardian for William Lane Craig you only get Mr. Dawkins' interview.  When you look through Ms. Posner's published pieces, none of them are the article referenced 
Similarly, the New Republic only has a single article on Craig, and it isn't by the author noted in the reference and isn't critical of Craig.
The Stanford Plato links were my first tip off, those are not written in the critical style the IP implies.  And their philosopher Bios are almost completely limited to those who are already dead.  There is no page for Craig, so this source seems to have been made up of whole cloth.
I'm going to pull the IP's addition off as we discuss since this is a BLP we will need to be careful.   Squatch347 (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Criticism Section additions 

message: Wanted to start a discussion on some of the changes that have happened over the last couple of weeks now that we got that other issue out of the way.  I think most of them are probably good prune/cleanup tasks, but I’d like to get consensus on a few alterations so we don’t lose relevant content.  The first is this diff .  Most of it seems fine, the stuff of Roe v. Wade does seem pretty irrelevant.  I’d like to add the reference to Naturalism and Reformed Epistimology.  These are both professional positions related to his work and ones that generate some discussion in the wide internet about him.  I don’t think they stand as just his personal opinion, but are relevant to his position within philosophy and theology.  Thoughts? ~~~~ Squatch347 (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content Removal 

message: I found out about William Craig's book, The Quest of the historical Adam. Well, if you examine the origin of this story from the Old Testament, and that the Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden story is simply based upon and is a rebooted form of the Enki & Ninhursag in the Garden of Dilmun story, synthesised to fit-in with Jewish Theology. The Book of Genesis obviously wasn't written from the time of the events it describes, and there are scholars who date the book of Genesis to the Hellenistic period (3rd century BC). Therefore, William Lane Craig should practice what he preaches and study the cause of the story of Adam & Eve. Octavius88 (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NOTFORUM. Theroadislong (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Cause 

message: I have fixed some of the long-standing no-target errors in the article, but several remain. They are , , , , , and  . You cant just put an sfn into the text and expect a source to appear magically. DuncanHill (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, those probably have been there for a bit.  I recognize most of the references, I'll try to wrangle them up this week.  Squatch347 (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Copan/Craig fixed. Hasker and Helm fixed. Deng fixed.  I've also updated other references, we should be good now. Squatch347 (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you - there is one still unfixed, "Helm 2010". You've changed it from an undefined sfn to an undefined refname here. DuncanHill (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , great catch.  When I was doing the research I found the original reference on Helm was actually his 2002 article, not a 2010 article so I updated the source, but forgot when I replaced the Ref Names.  Updated.  Squatch347 (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undefined sfn references