Jack the Bodiless

The Wikipedia page on Peter Stoner needs some work. I've added a (brief) "Criticism of Stoner's Apologetics" section (which an anonymous fundie has already deleted once), but I haven't found a Stoner-specific critique on the Net that could be posted as an external reference.

This is the apologist from whom Josh McDowell inherited a lot of the erroneous material that ended up in Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Apologists invoke him quite often because he was a "real Professor", a genuine scientist who PROVED that the Bible was divinely inspired... so all you atheists are being irrational if you reject this PROOF!

But his book, Science Speaks, is online... and it is garbage. Some of the most atrociously inept apologetics I have ever seen!

I'm considering writing a detailed critique for Wikipedia: but their rules are a minefield. Articles must maintain a neutral point of view, though opinions can be expressed if they are quotes from "notable authorities" or if they are backed by verifiable facts. Possibly more problematic is no original research: it is forbidden to say anything new on Wikipedia, even if it's based on facts that CAN be solidly supported. Which implies that I can't demonstrate that Stoner was inept (even if I can solidly prove it) if no notable source has demonstrated it before.

A list of bare facts might work, if the (well-referenced) facts that contradict Stoner's assertions are presented with no additional commentary, no attempts to draw conclusions from those facts. This would also allow apologetic excuses to be shot down: inevitably, they would be unsupported speculations (though possibly still citable as the opinions of "notable sources"). The reader would be left to draw his/her own conclusions.

There is also a danger that the whole lot could be deleted as "beyond the scope of an encyclopaedia", especially if it gets big: a brief critique is more likely to survive, and a link to a Stoner-specific rebuttal elsewhere on the Net (by a "notable" source) certainly would. There is some precedent for including brief critiques of their major claims on biographies of controversial figures whose work contradicts mainstream views.

Jack the Bodiless

...OK, make that two fundie deletions so far...

Malachi151

Try writing a criticism on a separate websit and linking in the addtional links section.

Jack the Bodiless

That would be against their policy regarding links to personal websites.

Chris Weimer

Nonsense. It's been done all the time. It just has to be relevant material.

Jack the Bodiless

...But I've also seen such links removed. I get the impression that enforcement of Wikipedia rules is heavily dependent on how controversial the content is: for non-controversial topics, uncited and original material seems to be tolerated.

A lot depends on whether the person who owns the "personal website" is a recognized authority on the subject: and who recognizes him/her. Amusingly, both of the fundies who attacked "Peter Stoner" have also deleted mention of Farrell Till on other pages, as someone who is "not a notable authority". Richard Carrier is apparently "not a historian" too...

Codec

You could reference this.

Jack the Bodiless

I already have, as the second of the two inline links (after "...with Stoner's name mentioned in passing"). But it barely mentions Stoner: in fact, his name appears only in the conclusion.

Codec

Doh!
Ok - so write a critcism, post to infidels library, and reference that!

Jack the Bodiless

That might be the best way forward.

(...reverted another attack by the same fundie as last time: I can't revert any more today without breaking the Wikipedia "three-revert rule")