Talk:Ravi Zacharias/Archive 1

Archive 1

Political stance

Should it be included what political party Ravi Zacharias belongs to? Whether he is conservative Christian? --WongFeiHung 23:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a disingenuous statement. The article already states that he is of the evangelical stripe. Ravi himself has never aligned himself with any political party, although it is clear that he holds conservative values. 24.141.162.244

Disingenuous? I remember a sermon by a Southern evangelical minister who stated " God is not a Republican". You could have heard a pin drop - not even a breathe was taken for some time. The quietest, most shocked parishioners I have ever seen. Unbelieveably, he is still their minister - I thought he was a goner. Conservative values does not necessarily mean "Republican" and/or conservative Christian, though there can be some overlap. I still chuckle when I think of the sermon.

But you see, you just proved the point that it is disingenuous. The original contention was that the second sentence of the OP is a non-sequitur. What party Ravi Zacharias aligns himself to doesn't seem to directly relate to whether he's a conservative Christian or not--those are two different categories. I believe the original poster meant to ask if Ravi was a member of the Christian right.

contradiction

There is an obvious error in the introductory information about Ravi. If he was an atheist until he was 21, how was he preaching in his teens?

Ravi Zacharias tells of being converted at the age of 17, not 21, while in a hospital bed.

Added him to Asian Christians and Indian Christians

Added him to those categories

Mormon contrast?

Why is his speaking at the Mormon event in contrast to his editing the Martin book? I'm about to rephrase it to make it more sensible. Also added links to relevant terms. --ShawnLee 16:39, 8 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom of the Cults

Did Ravi's version include a Word-Faith criticism section?

WAVY 10 22:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Palpable dislike

It seems that an earlier author shows a palpable dislike for this person, Ravi Zacharias. Here are his previous comments, which I will edit,

"Ravi Zacharias (full name Frederick Antony Ravi Kumar Zacharias, born 1946) is a Canadian-American Evangelical Protestant Christian Preacher who prefers to present himself as a philosopher and apologist.

Zacharias is descended from a long line of people who have made their living telling stories about the empirically unverifiable, first Hindu priests (of the Nambudiri Brahmin caste). and later as Christian preachers. "

I don't believe the comments about him being a preacher but preferring to call himself a philosopher and apologist conform to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, and neither do the comments about Brahmin priests and christian preachers making their lives telling stories about the empirically unverifiable. Wikipedia is not the place to throw 'digs' at philosophies we don't care for and to categorize their proponents as preachers rather than philosophers.

I'm going to change these paragraphs to read

"Ravi Zacharias (full name Frederick Antony Ravi Kumar Zacharias, born 1946) is a Canadian-American Evangelical Protestant Christian philosopher, apologist and preacher.

Zacharias is a descendant of two rich religious traditions, first Hindu priests (of the Nambudiri Brahmin caste). and later Christian preachers. "

Unless someone can empirically verify that he is NOT a philosopher and apologist, or that somehow the title of preacher supercedes the title of philosopher and apologist which he lists in the 'about the author' section of his books, these edits should be more in line with the NPOV policy. Also the palpable dislike of religion has been removed and replaced with neutral terms. The fact that SOME religious beliefs and events are empirically unverifiable (while many are empirically verifiable) does not belong in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.101.168.46 (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability?

This article has been tagged as having questionable notability, but given the accomplishments stated (albeit without sources), such as Zacharias' international organization, visiting professorships and honourary degrees from recognized institutions, and a notable speech at the Mormon church, this article seems to be deficient only in citing sources. If the info in this article can be verified from independent sources, I see no reason to question notability.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.21.11 (talk) 30 April 2024

We have no indication as to how substantial this "international organisation" may be -- it may be simply sister organisations or individual friends/followers acting as mail-drops in these countries. Neither visiting professorships nor honorary degrees are notable in and of themselves, and a single speech is too transient an event to confer any lasting notability. Therefore the question over notability remains until the requirements in WP:BIO are met. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Ravi Zacharias is an extremely notable Christian apologist. There is no reason that this article should be deleted or flagged as unnotable. I think it should be given priority to be expanded and have its sources cited. His website rzim.org has extensive information on his ministry (in existence for almost 30 years), books and speaking. There is also lots around the internet about him. Also, he wrote an autobiography in 2006, God In The Shadows. Someone just needs to sit down and expand this article. Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:NOTE: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (emphasis in original) Information from his website, and his autobiography, are not "independent of the subject". Likewise information "around the internet" is only applicable if it is from "reliable sources". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd never heard of this person before coming here, but it appears plausible he meets notability. The Times of India interviewed him.[1]Fox News and The Age[2] mentions him.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The Times of India interview, although of substantive length, is more puffery than probing -- simply letting him ramble on at length in response to three very easy questions. The Age & Fox News pieces only make the briefest mention of Zacharias in passing. Better than nothing, but still far from what is needed to build a solid article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I was thinking about whether he was notable enough to even have an article. I think I was essentially saying "maybe, leaning toward yes." I didn't mean that was enough to make an article, although I've made stubs that survived for years on less.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand. The Age & Fox News pieces definitely wouldn't qualify as "significant coverage". The Times of India piece is in rather a grey area -- ToI is itself a WP:RS, but the format, which simply has Zacharias speaking in the first person for the bulk of it, would appear to render it unreliable except as a primary source that should not be considered to be "independent" of Zacharias himself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an article in the New York Times which devotes a paragraph to Zacharias being a possible alternative to Billy Graham after his retirement. The link is here (this is the last page in the article)[3]. --Wayfaringstranger1976 (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It only devotes a single sentence to him (along with a sentence each to three others), at the end of a five-page article -- again hardly "significant coverage". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification of definition. I'm new to wiki editing. I just updated the Works list, added a picture from the press release on Ravi's website, and will be working on this page this week. I know that he has indeed received significant coverage, so I'll be working on getting that info. Kristamaranatha (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The pic will almost certainly fall prey to wikipedia's Nonfree Image Deletion Police: "Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project."[4] You might want to track down a "free-licensed" replacement before this happens. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this particular press release photo free to use? The website even gives instructions on how to save it (and other pictures from the press release) to your computer. Kristamaranatha (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless the image's owner gives an explicit license allowing free and untrammelled distribution (unlikely, as that would mean that they'd have no recourse on any usage of the image, even if highly negative), I suspect it is only allowing "fair use" not "free use". But again, that's up to wikipedia's Nonfree Image Deletion Police to argue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy regarding biographical information

There have been several attempts recently to introduce policy-noncompliant biographical information into this article. To avoid repetition of this problem, here are some of the most relevant policies:

• WP:BLP (especially WP:BLP#Reliable sources)
• WP:V (especially WP:SELFPUB)
• WP:RS
• WP:COPYVIO

I would suggest that editors familiarise themselves with these policies before attempting to introduce such information. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO

Could editors please stop copying material verbatim out of www.rzim.org. It is a copyright violation, as well as being problematic under WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability

We need to get more sources in line with this, however I think Ravi Zacharias Qualifies under these notability criteria.

Creative professionals

Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

   * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
          -He is frequently mentioned by other well-known authors/speakers in his field
   * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
          -He has his hand in creating the more recent versions of the popular Christian reference book the Kingdom of the Cults.

Academics

If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable:

   * The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.
        - I added a reference to an endorsement by the C.S. Lewis Institute

   * The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course; if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works; or if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature[1].
   * The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.
         - His books have purportedly been endorsed by Billy Graham, Charles Swindoll, R.C. Sproul, Josh McDowell, Leighton Ford, and Norman Geisler according to well-known atheist web-site Infidels.com

--Kraftlos (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

1. "frequently mentioned" is not the same as "regarded as an important figure" or "widely cited"
2. You have presented no evidence that Kingdom of the Cults is a "popular Christian reference book", let alone that he "played a major role in co-creating" it. He is generally listed as the "general editor" of it, not as a co-author.
3. The CS Lewis Society reference is to Zacharias endorsing the Society, not vice versa.
4. Infidels.com list prominent evangelicals that endorse him, it says nothing at all about his prominence in the academic community.

My impression to date is that Zacharias has generated great interest among his devotees, moderate interest from his fellow evangelical apologists, and very little interest from the wider academic and mainstream communities. As WP:GNP states: "For people who meet one of the following criteria, it is typically very likely that substantial secondary sources exist." I have yet to see any evidence of substantial secondary sources on Zacharias.

P.S.: please insert new threads at the bottom of a talkpage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed these were cited sources, at least please recognize the way I framed this information. I was just trying to get things going, I did not claim this was valid information that could go right over to the page; with the exception of the C.S. Lewis institute which I really should have read more carefully (sorry, it was late). The rest of the info in here I outlined as a strategy for establishing notability, if I believed what I had here constituted solid evidence it would have gone onto the page. This was to say, I or someone else working on this could start there to find a source.

As it appears that you are the one who tagged this page for notability and have been the main one editing this page; what types of information would YOU accept as "substantial"? There are no biographies on the man. Please do not refer me to the guidelines when answering this question, I have already read them.

P.S.: sorry about the placement of the thread. I really had no idea that anyone cared, but I do see that there are guidelines for this that I was not previously aware of. --Kraftlos (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Working on the article

I'm working on rewriting this article to reflect Ravi's notability and academic noteworthiness, it's just taking a bit more time than I thought it would. If you would like one reference to start things off, Prison Fellowship's Chuck Colson refers to Ravi Zacharias as the most influential apologist of our time.

I propose removing the notability warning at the top of the article. Any thoughts? Kristamaranatha (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Colson has co-written a number of books with Zacharias, so is hardly an independent source (per WP:NOTE). Also if Colson's hyperbolic characterisation of Zacharias as "the most influential apologist of our time" were accurate, we would expect to see far more mainstream attention of him than we do, so it is difficult to accept Colson as a WP:RS. Additionally Colson has been convicted and disbarred for grossly dishonest behaviour, further undercutting his reliability. As yet there is no grounds for accepting Zacharias' notability, so removal of the template would be disruptive editing. Please establish his notability first, with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as I requested a month ago. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Both before and after his conversion, Colson has clearly demonstrated that he values loyalty above honesty. As such, he will always tend to be a grossly unreliable source where his loyalties (whether to Nixon or to his fellow evangelical apologists) come into play. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/135261 for a news article published about him when he came to speak at Tech following the Virginia Tech massacre. I wouldn't put him on the order of Billy Graham or anything, but he is definitely one of the top 10 best known evangelical preachers (best known within evangelical circles, anyway). --B (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there has been some media coverage here an there. No biographies about him. I doesn't exactly go around flashing his credentials; he appears to be pretty humble man. I don't see him making any effort to get into the spotlight, aside from going places and speaking. He is well known among evangelicals, and I think we have at least shown that MIGHT be notable.

I agree, we need better sources. This article has been a mess for quite some time; but I think deletion would be unwarranted.  :::--Kraftlos (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Colson was disbarred for his role in the Watergate scandal, something that happened before his conversion. Since then he has become an upstanding member of society and a contributor to progress in the prison system. I don't think you're justified in saying he is not a reliable source for said reason. You're going to have to provide some sources yourself if you still insist he is unreliable. He's quoted in Christianity Today among other places for the comment about Ravi Zacharias. Kristamaranatha (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No -- "since then he has become" a hatchet-man for the Religious Right. He has hypocritically criticised Mark Felt for the Deep Throat leaks, when he has admitted to leaking information on Nixon's orders. He has parroted the Discovery Institute's dishonest smear campaign of Republican-appointed Judge John E. Jones III.[5] He is also frequently cited by Religious Right-watchers for his distortions. He seems to have 'converted' from being a liar-for-Nixon to being a liar-for-Jesus. In any case, I don't need to "insist [that] he is unreliable" -- as I have proven that he isn't independent of Zacharias, and as his hyperbolic claim that "Ravi Zacharias as the most influential apologist of our time" is prima facie absurd. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it annoying that Colson played up Zacharias to that degree, but a source does not become non-credible simply because it is a religious. You cited an example where Colson was claiming the judge in the ID case was not fairly applying the law. He is entitled to his opinion, it doesn't make him a liar; or at least you didn't demonstrate that he was an unreliable source simply by showing us something he wrote that you disagree with. And what about these "Religious Right-watchers", who are they? What is your source? --Kraftlos (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect an "independent" source to be from outside the heavily interconnected evangelical Christian echo-chamber. That fellow evangelical Christian & frequent co-author of Zacharias sings his praise is an over-the-top fashion in an evangelical newspaper, all seems much to incestuous to be credible. That the newspaper in question was founded by evangelical Billy Graham, who shared with Colson a close connection to Nixon, makes it seem even more so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to have more sources "outside the heavily interconnected evangelical Christian echochamber" as you put it; but in order to establish notability we merely have to establish that he is "regarded as an important figure by independent notable academics in the same field." under Academics or "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" as a creative professional.

This has been demonstrated as we have shown a number of other Christian apologists and organizations who clearly recognize him; and this has been shown through reliable sources outside of RZIM. For this purpose, we don't need the kind of sources you have been demanding; we only need demonstrate that his peers regard him as a notable person.

It doesn't matter what you think about his peers. It doesn't matter how much you like the publications that are being cited. Notability is not about your personal opinion of the man or your opinions of evangelical Christianity, for which you have demonstrated a clear disdain. --Kraftlos (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Famous for being famous?

As far as I can tell Ravi Zacharias is 'famous' primarily for being a famous evangelical apologist rather than for anything specific he has done. Lists of apologists frequently include him, but rarely say anything about his achievements. It could be that he is simply a minor, but very well-connected, apologist. In which case, he probably does not deserve an article of his own -- as it amounts to JAEA (Just Another Evangelical Apologist), born somewhere, grew up somewhere, educated somewhere, wrote some books, gave some talks (which were generally notable for where and/or when they were given rather than the fact that he gave them).

So my question is: what is he famous for? Has he written a particularly famous book? If so, then what was it, and where are the WP:RS secondary source reviews and discussion of it? Has he originated a novel and prominent form of apologetics or apologetic argument? If so, again, then what was it, and where is the WP:RS secondary source discussion of it? And for that matter, where are the prominent atheists and/or apologists for other Christian viewpoints who disagree with him? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

He is the founder of an organization that has offices in six countries; has travelled and spoken in dozens of countries, including Cambodia before it fell; this ministry has spanned 30 years; RZIM has a budget of over $5,000,000/year; was a visiting scholar at Cambridge University; current visiting professor and senior research fellow at Wycliff Hall at Oxford university; has spoken at such ivy league universities as Harvard and Princeton; has spoken twice at the National Prayer Breakfast at the United Nations; also spoken at the National Day of Prayer in Washington, DC; his speaking at the Mormon Temple was the first time an evangelical Christian has been allowed there since D.L. Moody one hundred years ago; has also spoken at Lenin Military Academy in Moscow (largely atheist at the time, not sympathetic to Christianity); he has a radio program that airs on over 1500 stations worldwide; he has authored over 20 books, published by such respectable houses as Zondervan and Multnomah, and including Can Man Live Without God, which won the Golden Medalion. I think all these things add to the case of Ravi Zacharias' notability. Kristamaranatha (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

His organisation, travels, speeches, etc don't really add much to his notability unless they had a notable impact. A big organisation and a large number of speeches that few have heard about is far less notable than a small organisation and a few speeches that everybody has heard of (contrast Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda). With satellite radio, it is extremely easy for even non-notable people to get wide coverage. What is this "Golden Medalion [sic]" award? I could find no evidence of it online. Where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

References that help establish his notability include:

• This October 2007 story from a campus ministry at Virginia Tech, which refers to him as "a much sought after speaker".
• This March 2007 story in a radio segment called "Business Matters" by Francis J. Kong, which refers to him as "the internationally famous Christian philosopher and evangelist..." and mentions "To say that his credentials are impressive is a grave understatement."
• This August 2004 notice in the Chattanoogan, which calls him a "world-renowned Christian apologist".
• This July 2003 article in The Washington Times, which calls him "one of the first Christian apologists to come out of the Third World" and goes on to say "his expertise on comparative religions has earned him audiences from Capitol Hill to Harvard".
• This March 1997 article from The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution, which includes the title "Defender of the Faith" in its headline.

I think clearly he "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." HokieRNB (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

1. A number of these sources appear to be 3rd-4th tier and seem to have a conservative/religious slant.
2. The reports seem to be of the form of "he came here, he gave a speech/interview, oh and here's his pre-canned bio" rather than containing any in-depth coverage of his life and career.

However, I've gotten more than a little sick of all this -- work the Washington Times & Atlanta Journal-Constitution pieces into the article & I'll accept them as establishing notability. I will however delete anything that is not substantiated by these meagre offerings. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it, the best characterisation of the verifiable coverage of Zacharias is that he's a notable public speaker who just happens to be a Christian philosopher/apologist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also note that the only sources currently listed in the article that are independent of Zacharias are the Deseret Morning News and The Roanoke Times -- hardly first tier sources, and each only for a single speech (so likely to run afoul of WP:NOTE#Notability is not temporary). To be blunt you were decidedly premature in taking off the notability template. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I must be missing something here. Whenever he goes somewhere to speak, it makes the local news - that doesn't happen with non-notable people. We're not talking about a random guy on local Christian radio - we're talking about one of the more sought after Christian speakers, who has authored a number of books and has a nationally syndicated radio show. --B (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You are missing something -- local news outlets tend to focus on local-interest stories, so would tend to cover 'celebrities', no matter how minor, who turn up in their locality. Given the vast number of such local news outlets, if we were to set them as the bar for notability, we would be flooded with articles on people, events and the like that possess no real notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I give up. He's so obviously notable, it isn't worth discussing. If you google his name, it gets 376K g-hits. PBS considered him enough of an expert to include him on a program on Hindu-Christian relations in India [6]. Infidels.org detests him enough to review his book [7]. The Daily Utah Chronicle calls him a modern day CS Lewis [8]. The Valdosta Daily Times reviewed one of his books [9]. Christianity Today interview [10]. You can look through the google hits yourself and find plenty of other sources of information independent of the subject. --B (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>No. You never actually tried and have "obviously" not read WP:NOTE & WP:BIO. You dump yet another compost heap of fourth-tier trivia, which you have not even managed to work into the article, and expect me to be impressed. If the bar is set this abysmally low then I could probably establish notability for a local footbridge. I don't give a pair of fetid dingoes kidneys if you can find a dozen more student papers/local rags that mention him, or if he was once a talking-head in some obscure radio discussion. I'm tired of swatting at midges -- and will not respond to any more pseudocitations that you cannot, or cannot be bothered to, work into the article (thereby establishing that they actually have something substantive to say about Zacharias). If Zacharias is "so obviously notable" then why is he [almost] never mentioned, let alone discussed in detail, in first-tier sources? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC) [Updated Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC) ]

Ignoring for the moment that "first-tier sources" is a completely new standard, does the New York Times count as one? [11] --B (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal quoted him in a brief piece on the King James Bible [12]. The Boston Globe felt that his appearance in Utah was significant enough to mention [13] because it tells us who "Standing Together Ministries" is. The Times of India interviewed him [14] twice [15]. You can look through the 302 stories in Google's news archive to find whatever suits you [16] and I would bet that if you have access to a university library, you could find more from Newsbank or something similar. --B (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, I "will not respond to any more pseudocitations that you cannot, or cannot be bothered to, work into the article (thereby establishing that they actually have something substantive to say about Zacharias)." If you think they have something to say then work them into the article. Otherwise I don't give a pair of fetid dingoes kidneys about them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was a "standard", I just thought that it was strange that if Zacharias was meant to be "so obviously notable", that I was being bombarded by fouth-tier sources (which would most probably also report things like the town's 'Fireman of the Year', prize-winning pumpkins, and other excessively notable events). And as a matter of interest, the NYT piece is indeed a bare mention at the very end of the article, with no discussion in detail. Is there anything in this brief mention that can be worked into the article? If not, then how does it count as in any way "significant coverage"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

compost heap of fourth-tier trivia and fetid dingoes kidneys are hardly within the spirit of Wikipedia:Civility. Ravi Zacharias meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability. Please remove yourself from the discussion if you find that so difficult to swallow. If one man was reported in 17 cities and 8 major universities as their "Fireman of the Year", you'd have more than enough for a Wikipedia article. He doesn't have to be front-page news. He doesn't even have to make the news. The fact that he does in so many places merely demonstrates that he is notable. HokieRNB (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

Could somebody tell me:

• How being being "honorary chairman of the 2008 National Day of Prayer task force" is in any way a significant/substantive position? It gives every impression of the sort of meaningless honour that might bestow on somebody to curry their favour.
• How giving speeches at Virginia Tech six months after the Virginia Tech massacre is in any way significant? Are we saying that nobody of any importance gave a speech there in the intervening six months? That seems somewhat unlikely.

All this serves only to confirm my previous opinion of his being barely notable and famous primarily for being famous. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Classes end for the summer in May and resume in late August. So for a good chunk of that six months, there wouldn't have been very many students for him to talk with. --B (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's how:

• Being named "honorary chairman of the 2008 National Day of Prayer task force" establishes Zacharias as a prominent figure in the evangelical community, alongside former people who held that title such as Charles R. Swindoll (2007), Henry Blackaby (2006), and Max Lucado (2005).
  • You failed to mention Oliver North (2004) -- hardly a theological heavyweight. Neither Swindoll's, Lucado's nor Luis Palau's (2003) articles bother mentioning this position. And Blackaby is so prominent a "figure in the evangelical community" as to not warrant an article at all. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Being a keynote speaker at such events like the one in Blacksburg, or the University of Georgia's Stegeman Coliseum ([17]), or the University of Michigan's Rackham Auditorium ([18]), or Penn State's Eisenhower Auditorium ([19]), establishes Zacharias as a noted lecturer outside the evangelical community, much like being a keynote speaker at the Future of Truth conference in 2004 ([20]), or the largest Christian Communications Convention in 2005, ([21]), or the National Conference on Christian Apologetics in 2006 ([22]), or the largest missions conference in Central Canada ([23]) does so within the evangelical community.
  • These citations you provided are to very minor local papers (do any of them even warrant a wikipedia article?), which tend to almost exclusively cover local-interest stories, and are extremely easy for even the most minor and transitory of celebrities to get into, if they happen to turn up in the locality in question. As such, they have far less weight in establishing notability than a source that actually has some chance of being heard of outside their home city. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

How many pieces of the puzzle do you need to understand the picture that Zacharias is notable? HokieRNB (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"How many" is irrelevant when we are dealing with "pieces of the puzzle" that are so ephemeral in establishing notability that they might as well be grains of sand. That is why I suggested that if you could Washington Times & Atlanta Journal-Constitution pieces into the article, I'd stop arguing the point. Although not internationally known newspapers, they at least have reasonable national prominence. But you failed to work them in, so the argument goes on. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Further on the subject of trivia, the Gold Medallion Book Award was awarded in a total of 22 categories in 1995 (and continued with a similar number of categories until 2005, after which it was reformed down to six categories -- meaning that this award has had hundreds of recipients). The main award is the 'Christian Book of the Year', which Zacharias did not win. According to Special:Whatlinkshere/Gold_Medallion_Book_Award, only a handful of articles on recipients bother to mention the Gold Medallion. Trying to establish Zacharias' notability using this sort of trivia is exactly what makes me so skeptical about the subject. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

On several points -

• I didn't find a reference for Oliver North, but if that's true, it's further evidence that the honorary title, however meaningless in practice, still points to notability. None of those people are "theological heavyweights", but that doesn't matter, since it's not intended to to make that argument. It merely points to esteem within the evangelical community. Since Wikipedia doesn't establish notability, the fact that Blackaby doesn't have an article is meaningless.
• On local papers, I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why you would exclude them? Zacharias is not some local preacher that gets in the local news in one location - he lectures to thousands at a time on university campuses and in churches and other forums around the world.
• On Gold Medallion Book Awards, see how The Departed is listed as an Academy Award winning film, even though it didn't win "best picture"? However, inclusion of an author's award is not necessary to establish notability. Notability has already been established.

HokieRNB (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1. The Departed won best picture.
2. It won a total of 4 Oscars, so listing them individually in the lead would be unwieldy.
3. Everybody knows what the Oscars are, and that they are awarded for multiple categories (often for the same film), few would have heard of the Gold Medallion or whether it was a singular or multiple award. Best Christian book is one thing, only best in one of 22 categories is something far less.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. That was a silly mistake. The analogy still stands. Pick any Academy Award winning film that didn't win Best Picture (I don't follow the Academy Awards...) and it is still referred to as an Academy Award winning film. HokieRNB (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Great Job

Great job Hokie at editing this bio. Thanks for getting those sources, helping with the case for Ravi's notability, and writing a great summary of his ministry activities. I definitely look forward to expanding this article a bit more and making it great. Thanks Hrafn, B and everyone else for jumping into the discussion and helping make things happen here. Being new to wiki, this was extremely helpful and helped show me how things work around here. Blessings! Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just reading through the article again and would like to propose adding a few headings: Personal Life; Education (and Awards?); Ministry; and Criticism. Perhaps we should wait until we have a little more info, but I think these would be a good place to start. Ravi has a great autobiography (which qualifies as an acceptable source per wiki guidelines) Thoughts? Kristamaranatha (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks good, I've found some articles about his books in some academic search databases, one of them was written by Biola's J. P. Moreland Not sure where something like that could be worked in, I guess I'll have to do a closer reading of the articles. --Kraftlos (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've come across the J.P. Moreland article a while back... do you have the link? From what I remember it could probably be useful to this section and incorporated. Kristamaranatha (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations

We have accumulated a lot of great citations on this discussion page. It would be great to incorporate these into the article, and think about creating some subheadings to organize things a bit better. We're off to a great start, so let's keep going. Kristamaranatha (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Kristamaranatha - I made changes to the citation for the National Day of Prayer Task Force. Despite the heading on their website, I think it's misleading to characterize this "appointment" in a way that might be construed as having been bestowed in some official way by the U.S. government. The task force is a privately funded organization created by the National Prayer Committee, not by the U.S. government. Also, with regard to subheadings, I would be in favor of creating those, but not one for "Criticism". Instead, I think criticism should be worked into the natural flow of the article. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any good sources. For instance, I'm sure that Zacharias had to come under heavy criticism from Evangelicals for speaking at the Mormon Tabernacle, but I can't find a source saying that. HokieRNB (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a link on the bottom of the page to the Hindu American Foundation's response to something Ravi had said (a criticism). I know there was criticism about speaking at the Mormon temple, namely that he didn't directly point out everything wrong with Mormonism but only pointed to a proper understanding of Christ as the way the truth and the life, so that would be something to keep looking for. Also, is it noteworthy that infidels.org has all sorts of criticisms on him? Just do a search and you'll find all sorts of essays, including criticisms of some of his books and Paul Copan's response to one of these. These could be worked into a heading titled "Ministry" or something like that. Thanks for fixing the NDPTF reference. Kristamaranatha (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the criticism from the Hindu American Foundation should be worked into the text of the article, rather than being buried in the external links. I did find at least one source for criticism from Evangelicals. I also think that some of the criticism from Bud Press of the Christian Research Service (along with his follow-up questions), Steve Muse of the Eastern Regional Watch, and Rauni Higley, a former Mormon could be used to provide some balance. These are all nicely summarized here. However, we should make sure that we don't place WP:UNDUE weight on this one talk in his long and fruitful ministry. ("An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.") HokieRNB (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Filling in the gaps

I noticed that someone nominated this article as a Good article. Great job everyone! Just wanted to neaten things up a bit before it gets reviewed. We really need to fill in the gaps between Ravi's ministry beginning in the 70's until the present time. This decade has been well covered, but everything in between needs to be discussed. Kristamaranatha (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The article needs to be filled out a bit more, I think there's good information, but it just seems a bit dry. --Kraftlos (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it would be appropriate to do a bullet-list of ministry highlights in chronological order as a starting point? Kristamaranatha (talk 02:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A bullet-list would be appropriate for this talk page, but should probably not be included in the article, for fear of turning into WP:PROSELINE. HokieRNB (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done Zacharias was one of the keynote speakers at Urbana 93.[24] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ἀλήθεια (talk • contribs) 15:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dave Currie completed his Masters thesis at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in 1998 on "The Apologetic Method of Ravi Zacharias: A Critical Appraisal And Evaluation". If someone could get access to this document, it could probably prove valuable in providing more depth of insight into the section on "Thought". Right now it seems kind of weak. HokieRNB (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow that dissertation would be really interesting to read. I found it at http://www.tren.com/search.cfm?oid=txRb4Lmzlq9jPuL4jun1VFJhtMJuTV4UcUxftphtiCXbVJcIDZ8w99MNTlXkn5I5&action=query&title=Zacharias Unfortunately you have to pay for it. I have not found it anywhere else on the internet. Kristamaranatha (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 15, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: To be addressed

4. Neutral point of view?: To be addressed

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

I see no reason why, with a little more effort, this article shouldn't meet the required criteria.

1. The article is reasonably well-written, with no obvious problems in grammar or unpleasant stylistic tics.
2. The prose corresponds to the sources cited, and it doesn't seem to be subject to edit-wars now that the concerns over notability have been addressed.
3. The image used isn't of the best imaginable resolution, but is released under the GFDL.
4. The sources are largely of the quality expected given the source of this individual's notability.
5. Evangelists and apologists of Zacharias' prominence attract criticism, from both within and without the evangelical community. There isn't any in the article.

• I note there's an external link to a letter from the Hindu American Foundation; I don't think that that's mainstream enough to be incorporated into the article, as suggested further up on this page. (I note by looking at the article page history that I, at some point in the past, actually removed it as an unsuitable external link! I was cleaning up a lot of ELs at the time, so I don't remember this particular case.) However, the mainstream Indian papers might be worth looking at for suitable op-eds that discuss his ministry, as a prominent convert is newsworthy there.
• His decision to speak at the LDS pulpit was not without its detractors. A mention should be made of this. Here's one suitable source.
• There was a small kerfuffle over his general editorship of Kingdom of the Cults. Here's a suitable source for that.

1. Finally, the article needs to be expanded a little. It isn't quite thorough enough. The sections that cover the places that he has spoken are sufficient, and the list of his books is complete; however, there is only a line about the major arguments he makes. For someone who is a notable apologist, that isn't enough; a paragraph on his style and technique of apologetics sourced to secondary sources is essential.

I'm placing the review on hold for these simple changes to be made.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Relata refero (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate you looking at this article and giving us some pointers on what still needs to be addressed. I'll be working on the article in the areas you have suggested over the next couple days. Thanks again! Kristamaranatha (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I edited the article per your suggestions. We're reading for another look. Thanks! Kristamaranatha (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

per Wikipedia:Criticism, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged. It should be edited into the flow of the article. HokieRNB (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Moved criticism to Ministry section after the first mention of the Mormon Tabernacle event. Put Virginia Tech paragraph after that. Kristamaranatha (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Although I wasn't explicitly looking for a source, I was looking for some specifics on who in the Evangelical community was critical of the decision, or at the very least a better idea of how many is "many". Is Bud Press, Director of the Christian Research Service considered a reliable source? Does he speak on behalf of "many Evangelicals"? Just checking. HokieRNB (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how good of a source Bud Press is (i.e. how mainstream), seeing as he has never been answered by Ravi even after repeatedly sending letters. But he does present an example of criticism for Ravi's appearance at the Mormon Tabernacle. I had put up a source by David Cloud ( http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/evang-mormons-together.html ), who also seemed to present the arguments that Ravi answered in his response to his critics. It would be good to find a source of someone more well-known, but that was what I was able to find. I think the fact that Ravi had to publish a response (and a good lengthed one at that) shows that critics are out there - we just need to find them. Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit: I've found at least one source that references Dr. David Cloud's remarks (http://home.hiwaay.net/~contendr/2-2005.html). I think it would be safe to use him as a reliable reference of criticism for Ravi's appearance. Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

All of the sources seem to point to fundamentalists who are criticizing the decision. While they represent one part of the spectrum of evangelicals, I think we should either keep looking for something a little more mainstream or qualify the statement by saying "Some fundamentalist evangelicals criticized..." HokieRNB (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to generalize all the objectors as fundamentalists - because we don't have any evidence that it was isolated to fundamentalists. Maybe we should word it simply "some" or "some Christians"? Or maybe just leave it as is - "evangelicals" is a good generalization of those who objected. Kristamaranatha (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I was part of the notability debate for this article about 2 months ago, I like how the article is shaping up, but yea, it does seem a little premature to be considering it a good article. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The good article nomination sure surprised me. I don't know the person who nominated it. But we received some good pointers, so now it looks like it meets the criteria. We'll see when someone else comes and takes a look. Thanks for your help in fending off the proposed deletion, your encouragement and your ongoing input to help improve the article. Kristamaranatha (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm satisfied with the changes, and am promoting the article. Its not the longest GA imaginable, but I believe that given the constraints of sourcing, it covers its subject adequately, fairly and well. Relata refero (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2008

(UTC)

Looks like it got rated as a good article! ^_^ --Kraftlos (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A Philosopher?

I recently removed "Philosopher" from the list of Zacharias' occupations for the simple reason that the man is not one. From what I can see (after careful examination) Zacharias has no formal education in the subject, nor has he ever published a substantial work concerning any serious philosophical discipline. With regards to the comment that he deals with existential philosophical questions, I concede that he does, but then, so does Yancey, arguably in equal depth. Zacharias is, at best, a lay-philosopher and an accomplished theologian - no matter how much we appreciate his works (which i most certainly do), describing him otherwise would be lowering a bar that has fallen far enough in recent years. Dewey56 (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the change. I agree that "philosopher" was a bit of a vanity title. HokieRNB (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ravi did study philosophy (see http://www.christianbook.com/html/authors/2761.html). Other sources also refer to him as a philosopher, for example http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=69525 . He does speak a lot about philosophical issues such as meaning. I think the title is justified. Kristamaranatha (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, he does speak a lot about philosophical issues, such as meaning. However, this qualifies him as a populariser of philosophical views, and little more. He has made precious few novel contributions to the field; as you said, most of his philosophically inclined matter concerns meaning - and the vast majority of his work on meaning is adapted from the works of Lewis and Schaeffer, albeit advocated from the basis of a refreshingly coherent structural apparatus. I guess the crux of the matter resides within our definition of "philosopher": whether he is someone who has made a significant contribution to the field, or someone who simply knows philosophy. Considering that readers will be inclined to assume that he is one of the former if the title is included as a vocation of his, i feel we should omit it from the article.(In addition, the source regarding his education in philosophy seems questionable to my mind. It constitutes an off-hand reference, the sort of comment that is made without out thorough investigation of possible evidential support. Corroborative evidence would be of use.)

Dewey56 (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Philosopher" should be defined. Does not wikipedia define it? If so, use the definition, measure its application to Mr. Zacharias and edit the entry accordingly. If not, ask Wikipedia to clarify the definition. Keep in mind, regarding "unique contributions" that this might be difficult to qualify since I think it was Alfred North Whitehead who said, "All (Western) Philosophy is a footnote to Plato" and, of course, Solomon said, "There is nothing new under the sun." Perhaps a better direction would be to cite prominent people who have referred to him as a philosopher. It is a good observation though, that having a philosohpy doesn't necessarily make one a philosopher.

Criticism of Evolution

This is not bad (IMO) for it's summary and even though the critique of Mr. Zacharias' critique here is off-base- it should apply to stars (which lose mass and energy) and also exempt them from the second law of thermo- which they are not- the critique obliquely shows us the issue. It is not a good citation because it is a single item more or less plucked out of the blue from all of his works. A (better) summary of his worldview should be in place or else the randomly selected item or two should be deleted, IMO.

A couple of nights back I added a section on Zacharias' criticism of evolution as violating the second law of thermodynamics. I didn't include a rebuttal of this in the article, but i'd like to point out that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems (of which the human body - or any living body, for that matter - is not one, due to natural consumption and excretion). Thus evolution does in no way contradict the second law. Surely Zacharias has noticed this,it is such a basic mistake. Am I alone in suspecting foul play? As much as i value his work, I can't help reaching the conclusion that he is being hopelessly disingenuous. Does anyone have anything to say on the matter? I would be glad to have the issue cleared up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewey56 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The reference provided out of his book The Real Face of Atheism lays out what he views as a contradiction between the different scientific disciplines (which is the topic of the chapter). It is not foul play according to Wikipedia's standards to simply lay out a person's position. Besides that, this article is not the place to discuss differences in our views of the theory of evolution and thermodynamics and all that. Kristamaranatha (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Delhi Addition

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 03:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

/* Thought */ 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems only

Zarachias appears to be a proponent of the creationist bogus argument according to which evolution contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Calling this wrong is not a matter of point of view, it is a simple scientific fact. The earth is not a closed system, all biological processes are powered by the sun. This is not a matter of opinion, therefore any reference to WP:NPOV in this edit is not warranted. Unless of course, we also allow the factuality of gravity to be called a matter of opinion... --Johannes Rohr (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's inappropriate for a Wikipedia article to pass judgement about the validity of an argument made by a religious leader. Saying his "argument has no validity" is too strong of a statement to make. We should simply provide the facts without giving away our bias. I can think of a few ways to further defend his claims. E.g., "The galaxy is essentially a closed system, but it contains life; it's conceivably even *full* of life. How can this be?" Anyways, an argument such as this could go back and forth, but it would be inappropriate for inclusion in this article.Jwesley₇₈ 20:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is it inappropriate? If a religious leader talks BS, we can call it what it is. Why does being an evangelist give him a right to special treatment? How does it qualify him to judge the veracity of the theory of evolution? His reasoning about Evolution and the 2nd law of thermodynamics shows exceptional scientific illiteracy. It must be wilful ignorance, because this has been pointed out countless times. It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of what is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and what is easily debunked as nonsense.

If life would have developed on earth without an external energy source, this would of course be a miracle. But we perfectly know that this is not the case. Again: That Zacharias' (and his fellow creationists') idea is nonsensical is not a matter of opinion, where each opinion is somehow equally valid, but it is a matter of very basic scientific facts.

Your question about the galaxy: first this is speculation, we do not know. second: so what? At some point all the energy in the galaxy will have been converted to entropy and all planets bearing life will eventually have ceased to exist, so everything is perfectly coherent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The fact that our galaxy can for the moment sustain at least one planet bearing life does not contradict that. Even though it is beyond our imagination, the conditions which exist today will not last forever. At some point in the future, neither life nor stars nor even matter in its present form will be able to exist.

Well, that's a bit off topic, but anyways, you say we should simply provide the fact. And the fact is that Zacharias is woefully wrong about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. He is talking BS. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The point of that section of the article is to explain *his* thoughts on these issues. There are enough wikilinks in that section for any reasonably motivated reader to discover the truth for himself. There's little need to blatantly disparage his thoughts when the article should simply explain them. And the wikilinks are there for a reason. Jwesley₇₈ 21:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• OK. I made a few more changes. It's not explicitly saying his point is "invalid", but it says that the argument, as it's presented here, does not address the fact that the 2nd law of thermodynamics cannot be applied to the Earth (a non-closed system). I've not checked the cited source (i.e, his book "The Real Face of Atheism"), so I don't know specifically how he made his argument, or whether he considered this (obvious) problem with applying the "2nd law" to Earth. Jwesley₇₈ 22:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a relevant point to be made at this stage of the discussion is the tendancy of Wikipedia articles to deride Christian worldviews and opinion with backhanded remarks that are assumed to be authoritative without any substantiation, which, by the way, is exactly the criticism being levied on the Christian worldview. Articles on any other topic are not treated with the same hostility that infects articles addressing Christianity. This article is NOT about the validity of Zacharias' views, but should be a fair, respectful and unopinionated expressing of those views. Lighten up, Wikipedia. You are not the Idea Police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.189.31 (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It often appears that the "christian worldview" is the only worldview of which it is politically correct to be intolerant. It is Wikipedia policy that articles maintain a neutral point of view. However, Zacharias is using science (i.e., the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) to dispute evolution. His application of this principle is obviously flawed. Since he is talking about science (and not Christianity, theology or even philosophy), I think his "scientific argument" against evolution can be commented on while still being neutral. Jwesley₇₈ 14:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there is also a disproportionate amout of criticism of his view on the 2nd Law. In his book, "A Shattered Visage" Mr Zacharias spends 2 pages out of 193 addressing the problem of evolution contradicting the law which irrefutably will result in the eventual heat-death of our universe. It is also primarily used as an arguement regarding first cause, and secondarily an argument against macro-evolution.

There are plenty of articles where readers can learn whats wrong and right about evolution and creation. Just because someone has alternative views on the world that perhaps do not conform to the scientific consensus does not mean that they should not be tolerated. And I agree about the anti-Christian bias. Portillo (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thermodynamics

Of the persons cited in [31], which was published by the Institute for Creation Research, I can find no individual with strong scientific credentials and broad influence in the sciences who is actually endorsing the view Zacharias expounds. This is not a matter of controversy within the sciences, and efforts to suggest that it is are, in my view, unambiguously incompatible with WP:NPOV. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Absent a clear, reliable example of advocacy of this position in a major peer-reviewed journal, I think it reasonable to note that the subject's view is not shared by people with expertise in thermodynamics. This does have the disadvantage of being an argument ex silentio. The alternative, I suppose, would be to cite the creationist essay previously cited here and observe that none of the supporters cited there are notable scientists, but this seems circuitous for the reader and unkind to the people who happened to be cited there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs) 22:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

We're again seeing requests to delete the lack of support from scientists about this opinion on science, which will doubtless be followed by attempts to restore links to supportive views from creationists. To the extent that the subject holds the opinions ascribed to him here, it should be made clear that he has essentially no support for those opinions from experts on the subject. Is there, for example, a single member of an Ivy League physics department who believes that evolution is incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics? MarkBernstein (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not done all my homework on the Ivy League, but below is a list of faculty members of American universities (mostly public) who think evolution does violate the second law of thermodynamics.

(1) Dr. Donald Kobe, professor of Physics at the University of North Texas in Denton. (2) Dr. David Keller, associate professor of Chemistry at the University of New Mexico. (3) Dr. Gordon Mills, professor emeritus of Biochemistry at the University of Texas. (4) Dr. Thomas Saleska, professor of Biology at Concordia University (Wisconsin). (5) Dr. Charles Bell, professor emeritus of Biological Sciences at San Jose State University. (6) Dr. Norman Schmidt, professor of Chemistry at Georgia Southern University. (7) Dr. Fred Skiff, professor of Physics at the University of Iowa. (8) Dr. Robert Smith, professor of Chemistry at the University of Nebraska. (9) Dr. Michael Strauss, associate professor of Physics at the University of Oklahoma. (10) Dr. Frank Cheng, associate professor of Chemistry at the University of Idaho. (11) Dr. C. Stephen Murphee, professor of Biology at Belmont University. (12) Dr. Glen Needham, associate professor of Entomology at The Ohio State University. (13) Dr. L. Whit Marks, professor emeritus of Physics at the University of Central Oklahoma. (14) Dr. Wayne Linn, professor emeritus of Biology at Southern Oregon University. (15) Dr. John Roden, associate professor of Biology at Southern Oregon University. (16) Dr. Donald Kangas, professor of Biology at Truman State University. Wpete510 (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The Ivy League universities include Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, Dartmouth, Penn, Columbia, and Cornell. We might expand this list to include Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Few of your citations come anywhere in the neighborhood. Fred Skiff advocates intelligent design; if he has published a paper that claims evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, (a) nobody told the internet, and (b) I'll eat my hat. None of Donald Kobe's publications, going back at least to 1995, appear to address the question. Those are your two physicists. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

If MarkBernstein could cite your source, and change your wording to "contrary to the position of respected scientist, so-and-so, which states ...", then we could avoid an edit war.Wpete510 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

An edit war you single-handedly launched today, ignoring months of discussion here and already violating the 3RR rule. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Scientific Community Defined

An IP poster asks that we define "scientific community" and demonstrate consensus against the subject’s position. The test described above is informal but convincing. The scientific community is not limited to leading US universities, but I think it’s safe to say that members of the Departments of Physics of Ivy League universities are members of the scientific community. None of them -- not one -- believes that evolution is incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics. The textbooks used in the Statistical Mechanics course in every one of these institutions -- every one -- includes the second law of thermodynamics. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The term "scientific community" will not work so long as there is an extensive list of respected scientists who oppose evolution. Please see http://creation.com/creation-scientists and http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660. Wpete510 (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

And the list of respected scientists who "oppose evolution" is listed here, above my signature.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

First, the reference to scientists who "oppose evolution" is absurd. Either evolution happens, and it is not useful to oppose it (e.g., by voting against it), or it does not happen. Second, I haven't seen the respected scientists who dispute the theory. The subject of this article is not a scientist. He is a theologian or religious philosopher who knows enough science to be able to state plausible errors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The editor who initiated or revived an edit war on this topic today has been promptly blocked and admonished.MarkBernstein (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Rationale in Article

One IP editor summarized (one of) the obvious objections to the subject's reasoning on evolution and thermodynamics, which another IP editor deleted as off-topic. The explanation might be useful here as justifying the reservation that the scientific community rejects the argument that the subject proposes. And that's essential to any understanding of the position the subject holds on evolution and science. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Scientific Community

One editor has recently insisted on deleting language pointing out that the subject's interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics is not, in fact, shared wildly (or at all) by experts in thermodynamics. For example, not one member of an Ivy League physics department subscribes to Zacharias' critique. This has been extensively discussed on this page, and the compromise language formerly in the article, and which I shall replace, arose from extensive discussion here. That language is:

He believes that evolution irreconcilably contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, an opinion dismissed by the scientific community since the second law of thermodynamics only applies to isolated systems. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A list of people within the scientific community that disagrees with your assessment is listed above in the "Thermodynamics" section. In seeking to follow Wikipedia's POV policy, I propose that the wording be changed to "...an opinion dismissed by most members of the scientific community."Wpete510 (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there a single member of this list who holds a tenure-track position in a department of physics at any Ivy League university, or at a university of similar standing, anywhere in the world? Are there two? Is there a physics course at any of these institutions that teaches that the second law of thermodynamics in incompatible with evolution? This is mere axe grinding, seeking to insert a fringe interpretation under the cloak of NPOV. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

To your questions, yes, several of the names mentioned are tenured professors at prestigious universities. Yes, at least some of them that include the idea that the second law of thermodynamics in incompatible with evolution (at least Dr. Saleska, Dr. Skiff, and Dr. Marks before he stopped teaching full-time). No, none of the names mentioned currently teach at an Ivy League school. However, there are more than 10 living Ph.D. graduates from Princeton University alone who have espoused their disbelief in evolution including Raymond Mjolsness (Physics), John Cannon (Organic Chemistry), William Purcell (Physical Chemistry), and Richard Mann (Physical Chemistry). Wpete510 (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

None of the universities in your list, with the possible exceptions of Iowa and Texas, are top research institutions. That some ex-scientists from Princeton disbelieve evolution is irrelevant; no Princeton physicist disbelieves evolution because oif it's imagined conflict with the 2nd law. Nor do the physicists you allege agree with Zacharias's; at least, no reliable sources have been proposed. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Wpete510, please note that pushing pseudoscience on Wikipedia, which arguing that evolution contradicts the laws of thermodynamics or pushing anti-evolution principles generally falls under, is prohibited under a number of policies and guidelines, including WP:FRINGE. Please desist, or else you may be subject to sanctions under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. NW (Talk) 07:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Thermodynamics

TheGreatIncognito, apparently a single-purpose account or perhaps a sock, has repeatedly removed long-standing consensus language regarding the subject's views of the second law of thermodynamics. This language has been extensively discussed in this page and its archives, and has been retained in various forms for years. Many sound reasons for this brief disclaimer may be adduced, and many have been adduced above, If we must call this into question, let us remember BRT and discuss it here. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

For reference, the relevant portion of WP:FRINGE reads: "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources."

It would be easy, of course, to document that the subject's position has been rejected by the scientific community since it was popularized by pseudoscientific tracts in the 1960s. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=441 , John W. Patterson, "Thermodynamics and Evolution," in Laurie R. Godfrey, ed., Scientists Confront Creationism, W. W. Norton, New York, 1983, pg. 99-116. We could, for example, enumerate every author used in every thermodynamics textbook assigned in Ivy League physics departments. This would not place the subject in a better light, I think, than the simple statement that the author's argument has won no support.

Alternatively, it might be kinder to the subject to remove any reference to his views on evolution. As I understand the subject's body of work, his opinions on evolution are not central. His biographer will eventually need to consider whether this particular stance is simply a blunder or a deliberate misstatement, but perhaps we tactfully should avert our eyes and pass over the matter in silence. MarkBernstein (talk)

I've file a WP/ANI notice at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Ravi_Zacharias . I believe there's an appropriate template for this, but can't seem to locate it; feel free to replace this notice with the correct one if you know how. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

TheGreatIncognito's additions are clearly out of place here. The subject's views on evolution are currently sourced to a primary source. In the absence of secondary discussion of his views I am indifferent as to their inclusion, but if secondary sources do discuss his views on evolution I believe they should be included. Let the sources tell us what to do here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Views on evolution; to include or not

It seems that Zacharias's views on evolution are not a huge part of his thought. There's a lot of primary sourcing for his idea that evolution fails to explain the existence of human morality, but in secondary discussions of his work this aspect is barely mentioned. Thus, as I said above, I'm indifferent as to whether the article includes the material at all.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Little or no support

Regarding this diff. It's uncited either way whether it's received "little support" or "no support." I don't see the harm in the change that TheGreatIncognito is proposing here. Although I have no doubt that it's possible to find any number of scientists who don't support the view, I do doubt that it's possible to find a reliable source which states explicitly that the view has received "no support." If there is such a source, by all means, let's say "no." If there's a source that says "little," let's say that. In the absence of a secondary source which explicitly says how little, if any, support there is, I think that "little" is a better option.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

"Little" is misleading; it implies that there is some debate in the scientific community. There is none, just as there is no support for the existence of perpetual motion machines or the efficacy of astrology. Secondary sources indicating this include every thermodynamics textbook used at respectable institutions, none of which indicates that evolution is incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics.

One alternative would be a sentence indicating that, in this passage, Zacharias made a common blunder and was either incredibly sloppy in his research (refutations of this myth are readily found) or was intentionally mendacious. I don't think that's preferable, but it is better than using the encyclopedia to suggest that this falsehood has any credence whatsoever.

Another alternative would be to marshall a list of twenty or thirty sources that contradict Zacharias's interpretation. A single source would be inadequate, of course, because it would suggest the matter was controversial. That would, I think, give undue weight to the matter, but it is better than using wikipedia as a platform for the promotion of pseudoscience.

A fourth alternative, which you suggest above, is to delete the entire passage. But our friends the creationists will insist on restoring it, in order to marshall more apparent support and to insert the suggestion that some scientist somewhere thinks this argument is sound. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, we can't enumerate thermodynamics textbooks in support of using the word "no," because that would be original research. The same with marshalling lists of sources. I am certain that we can't state that there's "no" support unless we have a source that says that there's no support. I don't want to say that he was sloppy in his thinking without a source stating that. The problem is that even though there's a lot of discussion of his views on various things in the secondary sources, no one seems to care much what he thinks about evolution. He's just not a major creationist. Perhaps I'll take it out and see what happens.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sensitive to the OR problem and not opposed to simply passing over the issue in silence. A reasonable resolution....though I doubt it will hold. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Views on homosexuality sourced to YouTube video of him talking about it

CurtisNaito, I know that primary sources are "allowed," but this would be a case where they're not sufficient given that this is a living person and homosexuality is a hot-button issue, so we wouldn't want our interpretation of his video to be attributed to him. That being said, I have no objection to the material being in there if it can be sourced reliably. If you do have secondary sources, it would be better to drop the youtube source altogether. If you don't, the youtube source isn't sufficient and the material should go.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that there's almost certainly no such thing as "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" when it comes to summarizing someone's views on homosexuality in a WP:BLP. Just sayin'...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I already added a secondary source when I reposted the relevant material. Even so, I recommend we keep the additional primary source because I think it would be reasonable to have one source on this issue in his own words in addition to one in other people's words. Without the additional primary source we are leaving it to other people exclusively to represent the point of view on this matter which Zacharias has himself spoken and written about copiously. Note also that this article is already full of primary sources to Zacharias' own writings and yet that didn't stop it from getting good article status.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Your secondary source doesn't support the statement cited to it. It says: During the question and answer session, one audience member asked Zacharias about his opinion on homosexuality. Zacharias did not give a direct answer. “I am not your judge, God is your judge,” he said. In his books, Zacharias says that he does not support homosexuality. That's not even close to the material in the article it's supposed to support, which is Zacharias also believes that in Christianity homosexual acts are an aberration and violation of human sexuality and that though some people may have a homosexual disposition, they are not justified in expressing that disposition.. I have no objection to leaving a link to the YouTube video in the article, but I think it should go in the external links section, since any interpretation editors here might make from it regarding his views on homosexuality, unless they are directly quoted, are likely to fall afoul of our BLP policy. Would you like to try to rewrite the material to conform to the secondary source or should I have a go at it? Also, the GA stuff is a red herring.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

All the quoted material comes directly from the primary source. The secondary source is there to give indication that his views on this matter as expressed in the primary source are notable outside of it. One of the protestors cited in that secondary source article directly quotes parts of the statement that Zacharias made in the primary source. I truly don't understand what reason you might have to change the wording of the text, though I suppose if you insist we could just change it to something like "Zacharias is a strong opponent of homosexuality." I had thought that just this statement was fairly undescriptive of a matter Zacharias has said so much on, but if you want to keep it short then at least this statement could be equally confirmed by both sources.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no quoted material in there now. If some of that stuff is a direct quote from the YouTube video it should have quote marks around it. That would solve all my problems with the material. If it doesn't have quote marks around it and the only two sources are the video and a secondary source that doesn't support it, it looks like we're interpreting the video and explaining it in the voice of the encyclopedia. That's bad. Maybe you can just put quote marks around the parts that come straight from the video?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for your work. How this mess ever made GA will remain a mystery to me... but what do I know?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)