Talk:Lee Strobel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Arbitrary section header

It's fairly obvious that Strobel wrote this article. -Anon poster

Certainly not: It if you go through the edit's from the beginning you'll find the page today was developed by several authors and that the article as it stands right now is actually fairly similar to it's beginnings. -SocratesJedi | Talk 09:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel like we're missing some books between 1994 and 1998, but I can't find any others. If you have some time, please verify that. -SocratesJedi | Talk 08:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Biography section reincluded

I resurrected the biography section deleted in December 2006 (I think as part of the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons). This material is currently lacking in sources, but none of it is controversial (his degrees and awards are matters of fact that are likely verifiable) and his conversion to Christianity from atheism and the events surrounding that is discussed in several of his books. I would like to obtain citations for these and will be working to do so in the next few days, but I would welcome anyone else who'd like to help support it. -SocratesJedi | Talk 09:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No sources, eulogy

This article has no sources and indeed reads like an eulogy. It certainly contains unsourced facts that I don't think even can be sourced to a reliable third party, e.g. the story about his atheism and conversion. If taken from his own books, it needs to be both attributed and referenced properly, and in accordance with WP:BLP. I'll put a tag on the article to put it into the proper categories, since I really don't know much about US Christian apologists. --Stephan Schulz 19:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I am suggesting the merger of The Case for a Creator, The Case for Faith & The Case for Christ into this article as:

1. All four articles are very short;
2. With the exception of Creator (which has one reference on a highly tangential point), none of the book articles cite any references;
3. All three book articles probably fail WP:BOOK -- meaning that if they weren't merged, they should probably be AfDed anyway.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That seems a very reasonable suggestion. Rbreen 19:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Given nobody voiced an opinion to the contrary, I've gone ahead and done it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

The Criticism section provides no sources for the criticism, making it count as WP:OR. Remember, Criticism sections on WP are for describing other peoples criticisms, not inserting your own. Someone needs to attribute the criticisms, to avoid their removal. Ashmoo 11:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the references to (uncited) "critics"/"criticism". The statements about the composition of the list of interviewees can probably be substantiated from the list itself (which presumably comes from the book itself). This article (and the pieces recently merged from the individual book articles) is largely uncited -- feel free to cite or delete (as long as you do the latter even-handedly). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. My understanding is that going through the list of interviewees in the book, checking their affliations and then writing in WP that they are all ID proponents would be considered WP:OR. We need to cite a source who has already done this. All commentary on a subject's works/opinions need to be attributed to notable sources, no matter how demonstrably true. Ashmoo 12:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The only way it might be is OR is via WP:SYNTH, and I don't think there is sufficient synthesis involved to be worth worrying about. In any case, by the time you'd get to this you'd have already gutted the rest of the article for lack of even any semblance of substantiation. My opinion is to triage the article -- clear out the least substantiated stuff first. YMMV. If you want to delete everything that isn't directly cited, we should probably delete the entire 'The Case for Faith' & 'The Case for a Creator' sections. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the triage approach. Would you be up for going through the obvious problems one by one and sorting them out? #1 Case for Faith section. I just did a quick search on Amazon and it turns out the 8 objections are actually chapter names from the book. This seems support enough to keep it in the article. Maybe just citing the book itself? Ashmoo 18:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Hrafn, I noticed you made a few edits with the comment: ' Just what this article needs: MORE uncited material -- cite this FAST, or I'll removed it)'. If this is in response to my previous edits, please note that I didn't add any material. I simply added paragraph breaks (and chopped a few words). Ashmoo 13:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes you did (and the second edit-summary was a mistake -- the difs often make a move look like an addition). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. What text do you believe I added? Ashmoo 13:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Argh -- they both were artifacts of the difs -- sorry. :( Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Lee Strobel refs (moved here from my talk page)

The Lee Strobel page currently has only 1 {{Fact}} tag remaining. Would you support removing the 'needs refs' article tag? Ashmoo 23:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Half of the 8 references for the article are for a single paragraph. 'The Case for Faith' does not contain a single reference. I think the article still needs "needs additional citations for verification" (and particularly for rounding out info cribbed directly from the book with verifiable third party sources). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool. The 8 points in the 'Case for Faith' section are just names of chapters in the book. This can be verified at amazon.com. Do you think this suffices as a reference or would you prefer a 3rd party cite? Ashmoo 14:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the chapter names can stay unreferenced (they're hardly controversial), what the section really needs is some WP:RSs saying something about the book. Otherwise we may have to look carefully at the possibility of eliminating the section on it (if nothing significant has been written about it, then its probably not worth mentioning except in the Bibliography). I.e. is it an important book? If so, why? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

"a different Jesus is seen in ancient documents" Could somebody please provide documentary substantiation for this claim. As far as I'm aware, mention of Jesus in non-Christian ancient documents tended to be (1) non-contemporaneous, (2) non-substantive (often to the point of it being unclear if it was the biblical Jesus being discussed) and/or (3) disputed (e.g. a latter Christian interpolation into an older document). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The list or arguments was lifted directly from the book's description in publisher's weekly, so please stop removing the quotes. If you wish to paraphrase the text, the quotes can be removed. Also, I don't mean the text to endorse the argument that "a different Jesus is seen in ancient docments," only that this is an argument that has been posed that Lee attempts to dispute. If you wish to somehow edit the text to make that more clear, then by all means.66.45.147.89 14:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The (current) wording is not "lifted directly from the book's description" -- I rewrote it into paragraph form rather being an unencyclopaedic set of points. I don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys what you "meant" -- the claim that "Jesus is seen in ancient documents" is dubious and most probably fallacious. It needs to be substantiated (that they exist, not merely that Strobel says they exist), or the reference recharacterised (e.g. "purported ancient documents") or removed entirely. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, the text needs to make clear that the list of arguments are what Lee is refuting, which wasn't clear before my last edit, which is why I split it into two sentences.Nimrand 14:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It is clear enough to anybody with the slightest reading comprehension, and closely mirrors the characterisation in the original blurb. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it looked close enough to the original that I didn't think it had been rewritten. As for the claim that "ancient documents that refer to Jesus," I'd have to do research to

know exactly what documents they were referring to. I don't think they're necessarily speaking entirely of non-Christian documents, though. There were around 26 gospels, some of which were quite different than the four canonized gospels. Although the wording could be better, the wording as I put did not state that Jesus is portrayed in ancient documents, it merely described the argument that Lee was arguing against. I have no problem with changing the wording to "purported ancient documents" though. I think that is a better resolution thaN trying to finding a citation to substantiate the validity one of the argument's premises (that such documents even exist), since the text is only meant to describe the arguments.Nimrand 18:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This article confirms that at least some of the documents being referred to are the non-canonical gospels (see chapter 1) [1]. I would guess that all the documents they're refering to are religious, but I don't know if they're all gospels. I'll edit the text to make that more clear, so it should no longer be dubious, as the existence of the non-canonical gospels is pretty well established. I think the paragraph still needs some editing, because its so close to the original text that I don't think its really a proper paraphrase. But, I'll leave it to others to work on since my edits have already caused so much contention.Nimrand 00:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that I had forgotten to consider the apocrypha -- most discussion of "ancient documents" discuss the (lack of) confirmation from non-Christian sources such as Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, etc. It is however good to get this clarified in the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits

"The critics conveniently forget that the book rebuts their unfounded claims which are propagated as "factual"."

Firstly, the claims being forwarded in the criticism is that the evolutionist's position is not fairly presented in the book, largely because only those who disagree with evolution contributed in the book, thus allowing the book to construct straw-men presentations of evolution and construct their own positive arguments for intelligent design without having to respond to rebuttals from evolutionists (except for the ones they choose to respond to because they believe they can fully rebut them). This criticism certainly is not rebutted in the book itself. I've read it, but if you believe it does, then please point me to what you're talking about. Even if it does address this issue, it needs to be stated in an NPOV manner, so the reader can reach his/her own conclusions, since it clearly disputed that Strobel has effectively rebutted such criticisms. Nimrand (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"Critics" of 'The Case for a Creator'

However, Strobel repeatedly belies his claim of "standing in the shoes of the skeptic" by picking "experts" that are not truly experts on the topics at hand, failing to interview any experts skeptical of his viewpoint, and responding only to straw-man skeptical arguments that his "experts" can knock down. An honest review of the evidence--to which I've tried to provide some points of reference for the reader--shows that the "strong case" Strobel constantly refers to is anything but strong.[2]

A journalist would get his walking papers for writing in such a manipulative and biased manner! I began the reading on a hopeful note, expecting a clinical, journalistic presentation, but Strobel's shortcomings as a journalist were clear to me (and, I believe, to any discerning reader) in less than thirty pages. For starters, he states almost immediately that atheism equals immorality and Christianity equals goodness and caring, in a generalization that is not just grossly inaccurate but deeply insulting to ethical people who may or may not be Christians (look no further than the lost and ruined lives of those sexually abused by Christian priests to debunk this ludicrous notion).

(Here he will say that evil entered the world so this isn't god's fault; but wouldn't this "intelligent designer" who is "perfect" have chosen to fix this problem if he is so loving and good? Thus, even if one could buy the conclusion of a creator -- clearly admitted to by Strobel and most of his interviewees as the product of deductive reasoning, and not provable -- why would one feel inclined to conclude that this creator operates out of love? If there is a creator, it is just as likely -- as evidenced by the state of the world today -- that we are just lab rats is a very intriguing and amusing experiment.)

Second, his use of language is stunningly (to borrow one of his favourite words) manipulative. Throughout the book, scientists who support Stroebel's view regularly "chuckle," "grin," are "erudite," etc., while putting forth "eye-opening" views that are "one-two punches" of "genuine evidence"; all the while, they patiently and smugly pick off all challenges put to them (on the contrary, over and over these challenges are shown to actually strengthen the case for a creator!). Conversely, the language used to describe atheist scientists (who have so far been intermittently quoted then immediately dismissed, and have failed to appear in any interview to the point I am at in the book -- though I am still waiting, hopeful that any "journalist" couldn't be planning to interview only theist scientists) includes such terms as "desperate," "outlandish," "clinging to false hope" and engaging in "rank conjecture"! Stroebel regularly comments on how atheist scientists lack any "scientific proof" while seeming to think it perfectly fine to accept the creator version also without proof -- he simply ignores this double standard. And don't get me started on how he editorializes (irritating!), in the vein of "that made a lot of sense to me!". Aren't journalists supposed to leave their personal opinions out of their writing?[3]

Disappointed I am, and quite angry at the distortions presented. I don't think I've ever come across a book as dishonest and disingenuous as this, or full of so many logical fallacies. Quite literally, one third of the book is Lee letting you know how shocked he is by the 'evidence' and the conclusions which must be drawn from these 'facts', another third of the book is spent listing the reasons why (degrees, peer recognition, etc) the various interviewee's should know what they're talking about, and then the actual 'content' is relegated to the final third.[4]

IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR FINELY nuanced argument balancing the accepted scientific evidence of evolution and all its implications against the beauty of the universe and all its intricacies to argue that a creator is behind the laws of nature, don't bother reading this book. Unfortunately, it is nothing more than a creationist screed posing as an honest inquiry. This is evident in the first argument for a creator, which is nothing more than a shallow attack on evolution using old claims recycled countless times since they were originally crafted by the Young Earth Creationists of yore.

Strobel's rhetorical strategy is to pose as a skeptic who presents arguments for evolution and a naturalistic explanation of the Universe to several scientists who espouse creationism or intelligent design. This is the foundation for the book's basic lack of candor. Strobel is not presenting the real arguments for evolution to those skeptical of it. Instead, he only presents a caricature of evolution--a straw mare--as an easy target to those who wish to attack it. That the whole exercise is a sham can be seen by the fact that following the overwhelming majority of these interviews Strobel does not take the arguments of the intelligent design advocates to scientists who oppose their views to see what sort of rebuttal they might give. Thus, there is no debate. In The Case for a Creator, creationists have the first, last and only word, and their arguments are presented as irrefutable.[5]

It really is non-controversial that "Critics of this book accuse it of bias, which they assert is contrary to the book's own claims of being neutral and scientifically rigorous." In fact it should be blindingly obvious from Strobel's choice of "experts" that this accusation would, as a matter of course, be levelled at him. But if people really want, we can clutter up this article with references establishing this banal point. How many do you want? (and should we find somebody to say "the sky is blue" at the same time?) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

PS -- as far as I know there haven't been any notable/prominent reviews of this book. I am only presenting the above reviews as primary sources (per WP:PSTS) as evidence that "critics" say these things (which is the point of contention) -- not as evidence that what they say has any particular weight due to their (unknown) expertise. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree; I think the statement is fairly well substantiated, and it helps identify the section as criticism, which is important to maintain NPOV. (Nimrand) 71.149.201.234 18:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That these critics say this is obvious. Ashmoo 20:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So can we removed the {{who}}, or must we add references first?

Sorry to confuse matters, but I've reread the criticisms and checked were they come from. I now think that they fail the notability test. The 2nd one especially, is a post to an internet forum. If no notable critics have criticised the book, wikipedia must remain silent on criticism. I think it would be better to find the most notable critic and describe what they say (with attribution). This would also avoid any WP:SYNTH problems. Ashmoo 11:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the best solution is to find one or more notable reviews, although I would point out the rest of the paragraph is pretty much factual and already cited. So, I'm not sure what we should do with the rest of it if we can't find a suitable attribution. If there are no notable literary reviewers, maybe there's a notable scientist who's reviewed the book. Nimrand 13:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ashmoo: read my above comment (now bolded)! There are no notable reviews of this book! Therefore none of the "criticism" of it is notable. Strobel is too minor (and too ill-qualified) a figure to warrant attention from a major critic of theistic apologetics. We either take what comment there is, or the article evaporates for lack of anything to say. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Strobel's books

Strobel's modus operandi is to take the arguments of more heavyweight Christian thinkers and repackage them for the popular market. Because of this, he is unlikely to elicit any comment from heavyweights on the other side -- if they have anything to say, they'll say it about the heavyweight Christian thinkers directly, not about the repackaged version. This leaves us with a choice -- either to accept criticism from lightweights for the article, or to simply delete the entire book section as non-notable. Incidentally, the most 'heavyweight' citation for anything in this article is the Daily Herald, whose claim to fame is to be the "largest exclusively suburban newspaper in the Chicago area and the third-largest newspaper in Illinois" -- hardly prominent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Each individual case must abide by wikipedia rules of Notabilty, Verifiability etc. If the criticisms are non-notable then they need to be removed. Forgive me if I misundestand what you are trying to say, but we can't make a choice to violate WP rules to allow criticism so as to allow something else on the other side of the argument.

So, I think these are our current problems:

1. Is the criticism notable?: Both you and I say no.
2. Is the book 'Case for a Creator' notable?
3. Is Lee Strobel notable?

We seem to be agreed on 1, so should be move to discussing 2 & 3?

Ashmoo 15:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a domino effect. The books' notability is reliant solely on these reviews (and ones of similar notability/quality). If the reviews are out, then so are the books. Likewise, Strobel's notability relies on the notability of his books plus the Daily Herald article (which is fairly marginal). So if the books go, then there's a fairly solid argument that Strobel isn't notable. The fact that this whole house of cards rests on these reviews makes me cautious about pulling them -- but it doesn't mean that I disagree with doing so -- in fact I've stated my arguments from the beginning as "if ... then" not "don't ... because" for this very reason. In effect I started this ball rolling when I merged the books articles here, thus concentrating what little notability there is into one place, where it can be evaluated all at once. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree that this article needs to be a lot better, and I think Hrafn's observations of "repackaging" any why there aren't a lot of heavy-hitting reviews are accurate. I will say, from my experience, Lee Strobel seems to be a very popular author among evangelical Christians and to a lesser degree Christians in general. In fact, I wouldn't be suprised if he was more read than most Christian apologists simply because he is so good at packaging it into a narrative that many people find compelling. If that perception can be substantiated, I think that makes him notable, at least enough to warrant an article. I'm really not sure what the article should cover and to what detail. So, I think we should give it some time and see what we can find to establish notability on this topic, and go from there, including examining if the article should even exist. Incidentally, I've noticed at least two of his books made the NYT best seller list. Anyone know where we can find out more specific info (like how long they were on the list)? Nimrand 03:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the books fail the notability standard (certainly for an individual article), but apparently in total they have sold many copies (4 million). I added the Daily Herald cite, and it is a prominent newspaper in the Chicago area (#3 in circulation). Strobel has other coverage in this paper (but the articles are not free) and in the Chicago Tribune (again, the article is not free). That said, if the books warrant coverage within the article, I think there is room for mention of the criticism (even if it isn't from a prominent source). Best regards. Jogurney 03:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

But is this "preaching only to the choir" role notable beyond evangelical Christians? Also, if we are admitting that Strobel is a lightweight (even if we argue that he's a notable lightweight), then is it reasonable (and in keeping with WP:UNDUE) to exclude critical reviews because they aren't heavyweight (particularly the Paul Doland review, which is of known authorage & not self-published)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading Wikipedia's notability policy on books, I think the answer to both those questions is yes, as it is the subject of "multiple non-trivial published works". We have Paul Doland, the Daily Herald Article(s), Earl Doherty's cross examination book, and I think we can find more if the criteria is simply "non-trivial" published works.Nimrand 14:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, as there seems to be consensus that Strobel is notable & Doland is a "non-trivial published work", I'm citing the {{who}}-ed sentence to Doland and moving on. (Thanks to Nimrand for pointing out Doherty as another buttress -- I was the one who added him to the article and then, like a complete idiot, forgot to take account of him in assessing notability.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The case for Christ (according to my copy's front cover) has sold over 2 million copies, this is far more than many other books which have their own article. For example The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, has only sold over 1.25 million copies according to its Wikipedia article. It's just that the media never give much attention to Christian apologist. I would therefore argue that Lee Strobel is notable in his own right and certainly more notable than people like Earl Doherty (who without a doctorate is no more notable in academic circles than Stobel) who has been mentioned in this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.64.181 (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I don't think notability is really in dispute. Its simply a matter of what should be covered in this article, and to what level of detail. While I think the number of copies of a book sold should carry some weight when it comes to notability, its not even listed as an official criteria to establish notability. Its more about the 3rd partly published works about the book that are used to establish notability, the idea being that if a book has had a notable impact, then someone's going to write about it. Furthermore, its those works that serve as sources of information for the article itself. Nimrand (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Summary

As these arguments have been going around and around, I am summarising them in three bullet points:

• Primary source: per WP:PSTS:

For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires another reliable source for that interpretation.

• "Anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that" these individuals are CSC fellows from the source.
• No "interpretation of primary source" is involved.

• WP:SYNTH: there is no implication in this policy that this rule applies to editorial decisions to eliminate facts on the basis of (lack of) relevance. Given such eliminative editorial decisions are ubiquitous within wikipedia, it is unreasonable to expect that this policy does forbid them without explicit statement to this effect.
• Relevance: The section starts "The Case for a Creator consists of interviews with Intelligent design advocates..." and ends "A documentary film based on the book was published by Illustra Media, a company owned by the Discovery Institute." Does that not imply a very immediate relevance to membership of the DI's CSC, whose principal (and arguably sole) role is the advocacy of ID?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

CSC Fellows

Lee, WP:SYNTH is not a guideline about formatting but rather, content. Adding the content individually to each sentence doesn't get around the WP:OR#SYNTH policy, according to my understanding. The only way to include this info and not violate WP policy is to find a 3rd party that has made the point. Ashmoo (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It does when the only arguable "synthesis" was in the formatting itself (i.e. the summarising of the information across the list of advocates). How is saying of each of them, individually, that they are CSC fellows any different than saying that one is a philosopher or another a biochemist? It is simply a relevant fact. There. Is. No. Synthesis. That there ever was, was mere hair-splitting. I have now removed that hair's-breadth, so there is nothing left to split. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If promotion for the book itself, or a 3rd party has highlighted the memberships to CSC, then it is ok. If an editor has researched each interviewee and determined that they are members of CSC that is WP:OR#SYNTH. Of course, I'm not disputing that they are members, but the notability of the fact needs to be established by references to a source.

Utterly fallacious: simple biographical information is not synthesis. Whether or not this fact is in "promotion for the book itself, or a 3rd party has highlighted the memberships to CSC" is utterly irrelevant! If it weren't, then we'd have to cite each article from a single source, to avoid breaking this ridiculously expansive definition of "synthesis"! I am not drawing a conclusion from claims, or even facts, drawn from multiple sources. I am simply stating facts. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I know it is a rather fine point and may well be splitting hairs, but we need to know why this particular affliation is notable, as opposed to many other affiliations the authors may have.

No. You were splitting hairs claiming that the summarised version was synthesis. The current version is. not. even. close. to. synthesis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious that pointing out that most of the interviewees are CSC members is important to you. It would be good to have the article state (with a source) why this fact is important, rather than just have it insinuated. Ashmoo (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The section starts "The Case for a Creator consists of interviews with Intelligent design advocates..." and ends "A documentary film based on the book was published by Illustra Media, a company owned by the Discovery Institute." Does that not imply a very immediate relevance to membership of the DI's CSC, whose principal (and arguably sole) role is the advocacy of ID? In any case, relevance is a very separate issue to WP:SYNTH. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that rather than solving the WP:OR issue by providing a 3rd party source, you have just changed the formatting. You are correct, the way it is formatted now, the CSC info more obviously creates relevance and notability problems, as the Synthesis is now insinuated rather than explicitly stated.

The problem as I see it is that the only problem exists in your own mind. There never was a substantive problem of WP:OR, which is why I simply "changed the formatting" to remove even the perception of OR. Lack of "3rd party source" does not mean the existence of OR, so please stop harping on about this.

But the fact still remains that the links between the interviewees and CSC was discovered through OR rather than a 3rd party. Ashmoo (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

NO! It is a FACT that they are members of the CSC, and as I draw no inference from this fact, I am perfectly entitled to establish this fact from a primary source, per WP:PSTS, no third-party source required! "For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

To be blunt Ashmoo, I am sick to death of vague and woolly claims of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH without providing any detailed analysis, based on specific policy. The statement that these individuals are members of the CSC is no more WP:OR/WP:SYNTH than ANY other statement in this article (or wikipedia generally). So lacking such specifics, I intend to leave these statements where they are. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

OR in the Case for a Creator section

I chopped the following text as it seems to fall under WP:OR#SYNTH, that is, none of the cited sources mention the book CfaC, so it counts as a synthesis. If there is a 3rd party who has made the claim, it should be added as such.

All but one of the advocates interviewed are fellows of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a conservative Christian think tank based in Seattle, Washington, that is the main proponent of Intelligent Design. The remaining interviewee, Robin Collins, is a member of the closely associated International Society for Complexity, Information and Design.

Ashmoo (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

But this is not a "claim" it is a fact established by reference to primary sources. The only thing that is even arguably SYNTH is using "all but one" instead of "Jonathan Wells, Stephen C. Meyer, William Lane Craig, Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Richards, Michael Behe and J.P. Moreland" and "The remaining interviewee, Robin Collins" instead of simply "Robin Collins" -- but these phrasings are equivalent, and the original phrasing is done for reasons of brevity and ease of comprehension. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

While the statement is factual, it it is technically a synthesis of published facts that pretty clearly is intended to advance a position, which is not allowed by WP:SYNTH. In this case, the position being advanced is not explicitly stated within the text we're discussing, but its pretty obvious that an argument is being made, particularly given that it follows the text that discusses Doland's criticism of the book's bias. To fix this, we really need to find a source that uses these facts to argue this position, and then it can be rewritten to something like "So and so have pointed out that the advocates interviewed...". Its probably a rather trivial point, as not only have these facts been argued before (and therefore NOT novel, which is what WP:SYNTH essentially prohibits), but from the critical reviews I've read (mostly from Amazon) I recall that it was a pretty commonly cited fact. Unfortunately, I don't know of any notable sources we can actually cite off the top of my head. It might also be possible to somehow refactor the content so that the information can still be included in the article without directly advancing any particular position. In that case, the citations we already have should be sufficient. Nimrand (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple of questions: (1) what are the sources that are being synthesised between? (2) would the more long-winded version listing the names likewise be synthesis? If so, then between what sources? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

According to my understanding of WP rules: the para is introducing the idea 'all but one of the advocates inteviewed are fellows of the DI'. We need a secondary source that has made that analysis. An editor is not permitted to introduce that idea/analysis and back it up with primary sources. Whether it is true or can be backed up with primary sources is irrelevant to WP:OR. Ashmoo (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I am hard pressed to see simple enumeration as "analysis". Is the following synthesis in your opinion:

Jonathan Wells, Stephen C. Meyer, William Lane Craig, Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Richards, Michael Behe and J.P. Moreland are fellows of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a conservative Christian think tank based in Seattle, Washington, that is the main proponent of Intelligent Design. Robin Collins is a member of the closely associated International Society for Complexity, Information and Design.

If so, what sources is it synthesising between? Would it be synthesis to list each advocate's DI/ISCID affiliation in the list of advocates? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

According to my understand of WP rules, if a 3rd party has noted that all those listed (Wells ... Moreland) are members of DI then it is allowable. If however, we only know that they are all DI-members because an editor has personally checked the DI rosters and discovered that they were, it counts are OR.

To specifically answer your question, it is taking #1 the Case for a Creator's list of interviewees and #2 the DI roster and synthesising the assertion that they are all members of DI. Ashmoo (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No. This is not synthesis, as it is not generating any new information that was not already contained in #2. It is merely paring down the information contained in #2 to that which is relevant to the article by omitting mention of the affiliation of all CSC members not already mentioned in the article. Wikipedia-editing ubiquitously includes such paring-down for relevance. If it didn't, wikipedia articles would be awash with irrelevant information. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the WP:OR#SYNTH policy.

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[4] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article

A = reliable source that shows the list of interviewees for Case for a Creator

B = reliable source that shows the CSC list of members

C = all but one of the interviewees are members of CSC

How does your edit (the full sentence version about) not qualify for this? My understanding is that the SYNTH policy is there to precisely to stop people making a new point using two facts from reliable sources. If the Case for a Creator interviewees / CSC membership connection was so relevant/notable if would be easier to just find a 3rd party who has already made the connection, rather than have us argue over it here. (I have already spent over a hour looking for such a source, so as to avoid this discussion). Ashmoo (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It does not qualify, because the statement contains no information that is not already contained in B! No subset of information contained in B can be synthesis between B and another source. That the subset happens to be the subset relevant for this article is not synthesis, merely good editing practice. I could add the names of one (or ten) more CSC fellows to the list, this would not make the statement any less a subset of B, and thus make no difference per WP:SYNTH, it would merely make it less relevant for the article. If a source provides biographical information on half a dozen scientists, and I only include the information on the two that are mentioned in the article, is that synthesis? No, of course it isn't, it is just good editorial practice. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

*Program Directors

• • Stephen C Meyer

• Associate Directors
  • John G West

• Senior Fellows
  • Michael J Behe
  • David Berlinski
  • Paul Chien
  • William A Dembski
  • David DeWolf
  • Guillermo Gonzalez
  • Michael Newton Keas
  • Jay W Richards
  • Jonathan Wells
  • Benjamin Wiker
  • Jonathan Witt

• Fellows
  • Raymond Bohlin
  • Walter Bradley
  • J. Budziszewski
  • John Angus Campbell
  • Robert Lowry Clinton
  • Jack Collins
  • William Lane Craig
  • Brian Frederick
  • Mark Hartwig
  • Kenneth Hermann
  • Cornelius G. Hunter
  • Robert Kaita
  • Dean Kenyon
  • Robert C Koons
  • Forrest M Mims
  • Scott Minnich
  • J.P. Moreland
  • Paul Nelson
  • Nancy Pearcey
  • Joseph Poulshock
  • Pattle Pak-Toe Pun
  • John Mark Reynolds
  • Henry F Schaefer III
  • Geoffrey Simmons
  • Wolfgang Smith
  • Charles Thaxton
  • Richard Weikart

• Program Advisors
  • Phillip E Johnson

• Staff
  • Robert L. Crowther, II
  • Janine Dixon
  • Casey Luskin
  • Anika Smith
  • Kelley J. Unger[6]

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The SYNTH policy says nothing about new information, just about making arguments. Note that my above comments relate to the quoted sentence in this section starting 'Jonathan Wells...'. The current article (with the affiliations written against each interviewee) is less obviously SYNTH and more a relevancy problem. Like I said, if the CSC/Lee Strobel connection is so relevant, it shouldn't be hard to find a 3rd party who has made the connction. Ashmoo (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Synthesis" is manufacturing new information by logical inference from multiple sources. The word that WP:PSTS uses is "implication". Implication=logical inference=synthesis. No implication and no logical inference (i.e. no "argument") means no synthesis. Third party is IRRELEVANT per WP:PSTS! Any further mention of "third party" will therefore be deleted as WP:DE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What Disruptive Edits? The article as it currently exists contains your version of the disputed edits. I've just attempted to discuss it on the talk page. Can we please keep this discussion civil? (And did you mean 'interpretation' when you said 'implication'?) Ashmoo (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, WP:OR & WP:SYNTH only apply to statements made in the article, not to editorial decisions as to what to include or omit -- otherwise no editor could evaluate the reliability of a source without running afoul of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH in doing so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

To put it another way, facts taken straight from a single source, without any inference or implication added, but simple pruning for relevance, is clearly acceptable under WP:PSTS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Under your definition of synthesis, we cannot mention the fact that "Strobel also hosted a television program called Faith Under Fire on PAX TV" from one article because we leave out the fact that "Two of the top 30 nonfiction books on this week's New York Times best sellers list are 'God is Not Great' and 'The God Delusion'" on the basis that no other article draws any close connection between them and Strobel. Under your definition we have to include everything, no matter how irrelevant, from every source we cite, or nothing at all. Picking what facts are relevant is not a violation of WP:SYNTH. WP:SYNTH determines the contents of an article, not the editorial process of what to include. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In the dailyherald primary source, it directly links Faith Under Fire & PAX TV to the Lee Strobel, the topic of the article. So I have no problem. My objection is that the primary source provided for the CSC stuff mentions neither 'Case for a Creator' or 'Lee Strobel'. Maybe not strictly SYNTH but it does seem to create relevance problems.

Whether or not they link to Strobel, Wells, or Atilla the Hun is a relevance issue, not a SYNTH issue, as you seem to be conceding. Are you then conceding the issue of WP:SYNTH? I have already dealt with the issue of relevance below (from which you immediately bounced back into WP:OR objections). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this discussion has gotten so heated, that definitely wasn't my intention. I actually think we are striving for the same thing here on WP but are just missing each other's point. I'm going to refrain from editing this article for a bit to think about it and let things cool down. Take care. Ashmoo (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Case for Christmas

Lee also wrote Case for Christmas, I didn't see those at the top. RJRocket53 (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's included in the bibliography but, as no WP:RS discussing it has been found discussing it as yet, not in the article's text. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Case for Easter

Same as above, and probably not necessary to keep in the lead paragraph. Although his earlier work, Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary, is less well known, it was quite influential in shaping the "seeker-friendly" movement. I don't have a source for that yet, but as one becomes available, this should be worked into the article. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Case for Easter was included because the sales figure relied upon the following source:

Strobel ... wrote about his faith-finding journey in "The Case for Christ," which uses arguments based on logic to present his belief that Christianity is true.

That book and his follow-ups, "The Case for Faith," "The Case for Easter" and "The Case for a Creator," have sold a combined 4 million copies.[7]

The figure is probably still acceptable as long as we are careful to avoid implying that it is the three books that remain explicitly mentioned in the lead that have "sold a combined 4 million copies" between the three of them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary, I see no reason to include it in the article beyond the bibliography (let alone including it in the lead), until we can find a WP:RS discussing it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I inferred the lead paragraph as referring to his collected works, and made my edits accordingly. I think total sales figures are too dated to be "encyclopedic" and not as critical to establishing notability, and should either be left out or stated in a way that does not make them irrelevant later. For instance, "sold more than one million copies in its first year in print" (I have no idea if this is true for any of the books) will still be true in three months or ten years. So would "was recognized in October 2007 for selling more than 1.5 million copies" (which is true for The Case for Faith). Sales figures through October for just the three books mentioned in the lead paragraph were at least 3,779,713, so it's likely still accurate even with a different interpretation.

The book Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary should be included based on its award (see criterion #2 in WP:NB). By the way, I saw the comment in your edit summary about "spamming" and believe it is an inappropriate characterization of my work. Please assume good faith. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the sales figures are unencyclopedic (I really don't approve of including statistical details in the lead -- its inclusion was probably a compromise with a previous attempt to insert "bestselling" in there).

My memory is that the ECPA reformed their awards in 2005. Prior to that they had ballooned out to 20+ awards per annum. Given that, and the very specialist/niche nature of the ECPA, I don't think a pre-2005 Gold Medallion comes even close to counting as a "major literary award" in the context of WP:NB. As I said above, unless it is discussed by a WP:RS, it would be more appropriate to relegate it to the bibliography (for one thing, the lack of this source tends to make any description of it WP:OR).

You had first introduced repeated mentions of a decidedly minor and marginally-prestigious award, then deleted my mention of the obscure and sectarian source of these awards, which gave these awards context. Such actions will necessarily wear WP:AGF somewhat thin. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The ECPA is represented by more than 50 publishing companies, including well-known names like Thomas Nelson, Baker, Howard Books, NavPress, and Christianity Today. While "specialist/niche" probably fits, "obscure and sectarian" is probably a bit hyperbolic. If you look at the literary awards that have warranted inclusion in Wikipedia, I'm not inclined to buy your definition of "decidedly minor and marginally-prestigious" (see this dissenting opinion, as well as their high profile in Amazon). However, I have no objection to adding the source of the award the first time it's mentioned in the body of the article (although if readers really wanted to know the source, they could follow the wikilink.) I'm just not sure it needs to clutter up the lead - perhaps as an acronym only (with a piped link)? Ἀλήθεια (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The ECPA is not a major literary association by global (or probably even national) standards, and the Gold Medallions are not major awards. None of the names you mention are "well-known" outside Christian literary circles, and a number of them would be unknown outside Evangelical circles. Compare it with the likes of the Whitbread Book Awards, or the Man Booker Prize. It does not even rate a mention on List of literary awards. I would hardly consider your "dissenting opinion" to be from an objective or scholarly source. They are there to sell books, if hyping a minor award will help them achieve that goal, then it is unsurprising that they do so. Also it is an American store, and the ECPA is largely an American organisation, so parochialism may play a part. Can you present any credible evidence that the Medallions are more prestigious than the UK Christian Book Awards, for instance? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If properly sourced in the body, would "several award-winning and best-selling books, including..." be acceptable in the lead? Or would the citation need to go after each potential WP:PEACOCK term - "several award-winning and best-selling books, including..."? I'm trying to summarize without being too wordy. Could we just say "which have sold millions of copies and won several awards"? Ἀλήθεια (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"Best-selling" is right out as pure WP:PEACOCKery. It lacks any objective meaning, so has no place whatsoever in an encyclopaedia. "Award-winning" is nearly as bad. Per WP:PEACOCK it is far better to specify what awards have been won, probably limiting mention in the lead to the highest award. It would thus be legitimate to call him an "Evangelical Christian Publishers Association (ECPA) Christian Book of the Year Award-winning author" in the lead for instance. This is just the same as a lead for an actor which would refer to him as an Oscar/Golden Globe/Emmy/whatever-winning actor, not as an "award winning actor". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to "Can you present any credible evidence that the Medallions are more prestigious...", taking into account that "prestige" is a necessarily subjective concept, I would invite you to google the terms Christian book awards and see which ones come out on top (either in web or news hits). With regard to "parochialism", how would you explain the organization's members in Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, England, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Lebanon, Lithuania, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Russia, Scotland, Singapore, Slovakia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Taiwan, and Ukraine?([8])

However, this trail isn't leading anywhere. The fact that the books received the award is verifiable, sourced, and notable. Including the awards on this or any other author's page helps the reader understand which books have received some critical acclaim, and thus adds to the encyclopedic value of the article. Can we agree on that and drop the whole red herring discussion about how prestigious or how global the awards are? Ἀλήθεια (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Hrafn - you have tagged this article as relying too heavily on primary sources. Which specific facts in the article do you think still need to be cited by a secondary source? Ἀλήθεια (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Descriptions of his books. Some 2ndary source discussion of his writing style, etc would also be useful in producing a well-rounded article. Some articles from outside Chicago (where Strobel would know many of the journalists personally) would also be nice. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

I have done some work on the lead section, most recently an essential change from "award-winning author" to "author of award-winning book", and to remove the quotes from "investigates". The source cited uses the word without qualifying it. I also restored the summary for Experiencing the Passion of Jesus, and added a source for both that and the Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry & Mary summary. You don't have to read or synthesize the books to get that information, it's right on the back cover and in nearly every description of the book, so I removed the {{or}} tag. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Strobel is not a "journalist investigat[ing]" these issues -- he's a religious partisan pushing a purely one-sided view of them (as the article body clearly demonstrates), in a manner that would violate journalistic ethics if he was still a journalist. On Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry & Mary, I point you to WP:PSTS: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Unless you can cite a direct quote from Inside that its purpose is "to provide Christians with an insight into how non-churchgoers think so as to more effectively evangelize them", then it is impermissible WP:SYNTH. Such direct quotes, should they exist, should be included in the citation footnote. I have tagged these problems in the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you are really putting an undue burden on this simple little sentence. I'm not convinced that this is the point of WP:SYNTH. The summary of the book is not trying to interpret anything or "advance a position". It's simply stating what the book is about. However, there are plenty of sources that say basically the same thing:

• "Lee Strobel offers significant insights in his book, Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry & Mary. His work is helpful for Christians to stay current or get reacquainted with how an unbeliever thinks." (in Darren D. Hulbert's Doctoral Dissertation)
• "His primary thesis is that the church must understand the context in which unchurched people live." (in Thom S. Rainer's article Shattering Myths about the Unchurched)
• "Strobel says he wrote Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary to 'help advance your understanding of unchurched people so that your evangelistic efforts and the efforts of your church might become more effective.'" (from CBD's Product Description)
• "Lee Strobel's book shows Christians and Christian leaders how their churches can become effective in evangelism -- only by understanding the perspectives of the unchurched." (from Zondervan's Synopsis)

Also, you've tagged the word "investigates" as dubious. Would you prefer "defends"? I don't think it matters if you don't like his methods or agree with his conclusions. It seems you inserting a POV about this word that simply isn't supported. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• My original point was that either "journalist" & "investigates" (my original choice) or "Case for" needs to be included so that the readers know what series is being talked about. I would accept "a series in which he defends "The Case for..." a Biblically-inerrant view of Christianity."
• If you have secondary sources on Inside, then by all means use them. My point was that you should not be interpreting the book (a primary source) without such sources. This is what WP:SYNTH is all about.
• Could you tell me exactly what facts the Daily Herald article is currently acting as a citation for? No matter what is added or deleted from the lead, people insist on reinserting it. Per WP:LEAD, leads should typically not have or require citations. The only times they should do so is either (1) if they state facts not mentioned in the article body (which they shouldn't do in any case -- a lead is meant to be a summary); or (2) for a direct quote (which clearly isn't the case here).
• And yes, Strobel does annoy me -- I find an author who so blatantly cherry-picks his "experts" to fit his desired conclusion to be intellectually dishonest. I try to keep this annoyance in check, but occasionally it leaks out.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Strobel, nor have I ever read any of his books. However, I object to putting the word "investigates" in quotes, so as to cast doubt on whether he is investigating. In fact, I don't think anything needs to be "in quotes"... the series of books does not need to be explicit any more than the award-winning book (which I moved back down to the body) does. The reason that I reinserted the citation of the Daily Herald source is that it also uses "investigates" in an unqualified way. WP:LEAD does not indicate that leads don't require citations, but rather "that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited." I would gladly leave it out if you would be willing to accept the use of the word "investigates" without it. Do you at least now agree that neither of the two additional one-sentence book summaries (for Inside... and Experiencing...) involve any kind of interpretation or synthesis that would require a secondary source? Ἀλήθεια (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Then you took "investigates" out of context -- the only time it refers to him "investigating" is "The former atheist -- who was an assistant managing editor at the Daily Herald in the mid-1980s -- spent two years skeptically investigating Christianity's claims after his wife turned to the faith." This is clearly not related to the series of books he wrote in the 1990s. It is also a statement that the Daily Herald would have had to take on faith from Strobel -- as it would not be in a position to ascertain that his 20 year old investigation was "skeptical". As far as I can ascertain, "investigates" misrepresents Strobel's books' one-sided presentation, I therefore would object to any use of the word that is not a direct quotation.

Assuming that the Googlebook blurbs are simple quotations of the books' own blurbs (and I see no point in not making that assumption), the Experiencing description is an unexceptional summary. Inside wanders further into synthesis, probably because the blurb itself offers little in the way of concise and objective details to make a summary out of. In both cases, it would be far more preferable to make use of 3rd party sources, but the lack is only seriously problematic for Inside. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why the Smith, Lisa article was removed from the lead paragraph, and now it has been restored but the sentence is supports contains information that is not in the article (i.e., the award). I propose restoring the former sentence (with the sales figures) and unless someone disagrees I will do so. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

While initially cited for the sales figure, the article also provides the source for the description of the book series summary (which Hrafn insists need sources). Sales figures, however accurate they are at the time of publication, change over time and probably shouldn't be included unless they are worded in a way that does not make susceptible to WP:DATED. I have also reverted your edits which moved out of the lead paragraph the books that establish Strobel's notability. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There are two problems with blaming me for citing this article: (1) I have not been pressing for a "source for the description of the book series summary" (merely for a description that matches the facts cited in the body of the article); and (2) the article in question does not describe this series, but only one book in it. As far as I can see, citing this article serves no purpose in its current position. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please

Can we do anything to stop Atheist hate spewing on Wikipedia?

Umm no, at least not totally. The main reason is you can't stop hate-filled vandalism of any kind on an open system like this. You can ask pages be protected, but for a variety of reasons I think only the pages most subject to attack will be protected. A lesser reason is that Wikipedia is disproportionately made up of young men of a technical bent. As a group that segment is disproportionately atheist. To paraphrase something I said elsewhere.

Ultimately, those who promote atheism are fighting against God and running from God at the same time. It is all over Wikipedia. We love them and invite them to repent and turn to Christ as Lord and Savior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.47.221 (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Atheist Wikipedians(797) currently has more names than the following religion categories combined: Category:Eastern Orthodox Wikipedians(30), Category:Roman Catholic Wikipedians (once had 140, has less now due to an improper deletion), Category:Chaldean Catholic Wikipedians (3), Category:Anglican Wikipedians (82), Category:Anglican and Episcopalian Wikipedians (3), Category:Lutheran Wikipedians (14), Category:Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod Wikipedians (5), Category:Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Wikipedians (8), Category:Baptist Wikipedians (15), Category:Born-again Christian Wikipedians (20), Category:Presbyterian Wikipedians (33), Category:Reformed Presbyterian Wikipedians (5), Category:Calvinist Wikipedians (4), Category:Methodist Wikipedians (35), Category:United Methodist Wikipedians (4), Category:Church of the Nazarene Wikipedians (1), Category:United Church of Christ Wikipedians (3), Category:United Church of Canada Wikipedians (3), Category:Pentecostal Wikipedians (6), Category:Charismatic Wikipedians (6), Category:Church of Christ Wikipedians (9), Category:Restorationist Wikipedians (6), Category:Protestant Wikipedians (55), Category:Quaker Wikipedians (10), Category:Christian Scientist Wikipedians (3), Category:Latter Day Saint Wikipedians(17), Category:Creationist Wikipedians (6), Category:Theist Wikipedians (24), Category:Religious Wikipedians (37), Category:Religious Left Wikipedians (17), Category:Wikipedian clergy (6), Category:Sunni Wikipedians (13), Category:Sufi Wikipedians (18), Category:Shia Wikipedians (8), Category:Wikipedians who keep kosher (14), Category:Orthodox Jewish Wikipedians (21), Category:Wikipedian Satmarers (3), Category:Wikipedian Mitnagdim (2), and Category:Deist Wikipedians (59).--T. Anthony 15:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It is required of all editors that they conform to writing in a neutral point of view. In subjects such as apologetics it is inevitable that discussion of atheist critics must be acknowledged which is very different from "spewing atheist hate". So yes, you can prevent non-neutral points of view from interfering with Wikipedia, if that's what you meant. -SocratesJedi | Talk 09:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone knows of the NPOV policy, but it is rarely followed in practice on pages where there is dispute. This should be stating the obvious to anyone who has an open mind, and has looked at a number of WP pages relating to God. A good way to guess the neutrality of a page quickly is to check the external links - you'll find on pages with "pro" bias (e.g. Richard Dawkins, evolution etc), there are very few critical ones mentioned. But with ones with blatant "anti" bias (e.g. Intelligent design, Kent Hovind etc), there are about twice as many anti as pro ones, or even more.

DarthSidious 08:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

Rather than railing against the Atheist Conspiracy on Wikipedia, I think it would be more constructive to provide actual comments to improvements to the Lee Strobel article itself. Ashmoo 11:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Pages like Intelligent Design do 'not' show a "bias" against the subject matter; there is more discussion of what's wrong with ID, for example, because it is demonstrably a crackpot philosophy and not a valid theory. "Teaching the controversy" would actually be giving it a "pro" bias, since it would make it look like it actually had some scientific or academic merit. D. J. Cartwright (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP + Books

How should we deal with the fact that this article is both a wp:blp but also goes into specific details of his writings? This causes issues for RS for living people among other things. Some of the options I can think of:

1. Separate the details bits of writings into their own pages? E.g. a Case for the Creator (book) or something? Or a general page The writings of Lee Strobel?
2. Cut down the detailed content of the single book and streamline it into something like his other writings.

--Ari (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Creationist

• Inclusion of the descriptor creationist was removed from the lead recently as an 'uncited claim'. I reverted it to include the word again, and pointed the discussion here. My feeling is that the context of the article and the prominence of his book The Case for a Creator is sufficient to justify inclusion of the descriptor without further citation. However, I wouldn't be opposed to including citation if that is the consensus. Here is one possible citation source: (link), but there may be others. Does this article require one at all? SocratesJedi | Talk 04:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Does Strobel believe in the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, and that the earth is only six thousand years old? That was how I read the opening sentence of the lead, but I couldn't find anything in the rest of the article to support that assertion, hence why I removed it. If he does, then that's perfectly fair enough - keep the sentence as is (although preferably with a citation). If he's not made any such claim, then I think it should be removed, particularly since this is a BLP. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)