Talk:Kirk Cameron/Archive 1

Archive 1

Categorization as a creationist

Does it make any sense? I think that a better usage of categories would be putting only relevant people on it, in this case, people with authoral works directly related with creationism, not just adding every single person of any area of endeavor who happens to be a religious fundamentalist. For that, could be something like a "list of religious fundamentalists", which could include people that just believe it, but are not more involved in some other way. --Extremophile 17:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Since an expert creationist and novice creationist pretty much have the argument, he should be listed as a creationist, no experience is needed. Aug 2008

No idea where to put this (sorry), but doesn't anyone think it would be kind of important to add something about this from the Growing Pains article, at least to help keep the article NPOV?:

In 2003, according to the article "The Rebirth of Kirk Cameron" in Christianity Today, Cameron "admits he made some mistakes common to new believers — such as distancing themselves so far from the world that they do no good for anyone ... In time, however, he realized his missteps. In 2000, he rejoined his former cast members for a Growing Pains reunion movie. With a decade of spiritual growth under his belt, he stood in front of his TV family and apologized. 'I was a 17-year-old guy trying to walk with integrity, knowing that I was walking in the opposite direction from many other people. I didn't have the kind of maturity and graceful way of putting things perhaps that I would now,' he says. Cameron's fellow actors immediately embraced him."

Again, sorry for not having any clue where this is supposed to go. I know this is really the wrong section. Maybe you could point me to the right place?

Hi! First off, welcome to Wikipedia! Second, sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~. And we did in fact referenced and linked to the article; it's the third paragraph down in the "Career" section (the article begins "When he was 'about 17 years old'..."). However, it may indeed require a fleshing out, so go for it! MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 13:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Minister

I do not think that Mr. Cameron is a Protestant minister in the conventional sense. In my opinion, he should not be included in that category, unless there is evidence that he was actually ordained.--Anglius 05:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am uncertain. For one thing, I have never observed that television-show.--Anglius 05:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a picture of Kirk preaching in a Baptist church for the last Transformed conference on the Way of the Master Radio website, [1]. I don't think Baptist ministers even need to necessarily be ordained, much less a non-denominational one, but I think it really depends on your definition of minister. Wikipedia's seems like its inclusive enough for Kirk to count, at Minister of religion. Homestarmy 06:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your information, sir.--Anglius 02:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Vegetarian

I think this source proves he isn't. Old McCameron Had a Farm article (scroll toward the end) WAVY 10 Fan 12:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Director?

When was that? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a little bit of bias...

...but I corrected that. The picture's caption said "Kirk Cameron refutes evolution with the croco-duck arguement." although it's quite obvious he has not.

Bahaha... yeah. Man, I missed that. Leave it to the Liars For Jesus.... — NRen2k5^(TALK), 12:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fundamentalist?

Quit labeling everybody who owns a Bible as a fundamentalist. The word has a very specific definition and application that has been well known since the 1920s and does not apply to every body who simply holds strongly to their faith. Fundamentalists will "separate" from compromising Christians. Will Cameron? Evangelicals in general are not fundamentalists, regardless of how often the media labels them as such. The reference cited to show Cameron as a fundamentalist does not show any such thing. Either come up with a statement from Cameron himself decribing himself as a fundamentalist, or come up with someone generally known as a fundamentalist describing him as such, or quit calling him one. I am a lifelong fundamental Baptist and a pastor and I have never seen anything from Cameron that would make me believe he is one. 65.28.102.100 (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Victor

Cameron is a creationist, a dispensationist, a Biblical literalist, and a member of the Religious Right. Not all Bible owners are fundamentalists (indeed, many Bible owners are atheists), but Cameron certainly is a fundamentalist, since he subscribes to fundamentalist beliefs. Bubbha (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss ideas about the label, unless they pertain to the subject of the article. The lable "fundamentalist" may be applied to someone by themselves, or it may be used in a derogatory manner by a critic. For this reason, it can be a controversial label, and should not be used unless a reliable source can be cited that the subject has used it himself. Instead, more neutral descriptions should be used, and even then, only in context. Nightscream (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Birthdate change - link to E-News

I have reverted the recent edit changing Cameron's birthdate to 1969, for the following reasons:

• There are published sources indicating his birth year is 1970 (here for example);
• There are no published sources for it being 1969 (the alleged link to E-News is dead)
• The evidence for 1969 is extremely tenuous - E-News allegedly reported that Cameron was 9 when he appeared in an advertisement, the advertisement is copyrighted in 1979, so he must have been born in 1969? Isn't it just as possible that he was born in 1970, recorded the ad when he was 8 and it appeared on TV when he was 9? Or that he appeared in the ad in 1979 after his 9th birthday but before the end of the year? Or that E-News got it mildly wrong?

I'd be happy to discuss this further if anyone has some verifiable evidence for 1969. However in the absence of evidence to support this claim, the sources supporting 1970 seem sufficient to have this date remain in the article. Euryalus (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It would seem kind of weird for Kirk to lie about his age, especially considering his ministry work now with Way of the Master; where the commandment not to lie is one of the major emphasis points for the ministry. That's why I'd say dubious...at best. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

All right, if that's the way you want it, leave Kirk's year of birth as 1970, but the evidence is in the picture. The one detail that made it clear to me that Kirk was INDEED born on October 12, 1969 is the fact that Kirk graduated high school in 1988.

One of the first things that Lyndon Baines Johnson, our nation's 36th president, did right after the Kennedy assassination was effective the Fall 1965 American Public School curriculum, if you were born after September 1 of a given year, you'd cut off into the next grade; one of those kids affected by that is Kirk Cameron--and his younger sister Candace too. Before that, it depended on where you live, but the birthdate change I made IS 100% correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.240.36 (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The real reason Kirk's parents changed it to 1970, as E! News reported, was that Kirk's character was supposed to be born in 1970, but like I said earlier, the real truth is that Kirk WAS indeed born on October 12, 1969. Take my word for it--E! News would NEVER make this stuff up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.240.36 (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Before we move forward, I think we'd be best served as possibly having a working link, and who knows, maybe E! News got some faulty information or made an error of some sort. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

All right, then--here's a working link: grundoonsconnecttv.com/pains.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.34.45 (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You missed his newest movie

I just wanted to suggest that the creator of this page add Kirk Cameron's newest movie Fireproof to his list of works. 69.207.201.237 (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Anonyms 11:46 AM November 18, 2008

 Done -- American Eagle (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Image caption

In regards to this image, the caption stated "Cameron at the 41st Emmy Awards." I have changed this to "Cameron as a young adult", as this is for sure when he was a young adult and is him. I cannot find (a) any source that he was ever an Emmy Award ceremony, and (b) the "41st Emmy Awards" were held on August 30, 1992, but the description page says it was taken on September 17, 1989. This is entirely incorrect, and should not be added back until some type of source can be added. Thank you. TheAE talk/sign 08:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Cameron's Birthdate

This is probably the most controversial part of this article, and I don't think we have it correct. Our current article says, born October 12, 1970, and it should remain that way until we prove otherwise. However, this article states that he was born on December 12, 1970. And also, an anonymous user changed his birthdate to October 12, 1969, referencing this webpage. Does anyone know of a podcast or something that he states it? Or does anyone have any comments or ideas with this? Thank you. -- American Eagle (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I don't know how much it's worth around here, but I have just about the most definitive source we're going to get on this question: an email directly from Barbara Cameron stating that the correct birthdate is indeed October 12, 1970. I realize that some people won't see that as good evidence but, short of digging up a birth certificate, I don't know how we're going to do any better for a source to cite. So I need to ask those of you who know more than I do about citing sources here at WP... is there a provision for citing emails? Surely there is, since they can be used in scholarly publications. But how is it done here? I'll happily add the information if someone can tell me how to do it. Thanks in advance for your help. -- edi(talk) 18:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... good work, that is useful. I was considering asking for him to say it on his radio show or something. As you said, unless we get his birth certificate or statement from a hospatal he was born at, we aren't going to get a better source than their word. Is there a way you could prove that you received the email? Saying you received an email is shaky. God bless, TheAE talk/sign 20:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's my concern exactly: how to prove it?? I could... I dunno... take a screen shot or something... but surely there's a better way. Anyone know? In the meantime, the radio show is a pretty good idea. The other option I thought of was asking them to put it on the WotM website, but I don't know whether they would want to bother with it for a purpose as (relatively) trivial as this. In my email I asked if they knew of a publicly accessible source of the information, but she just gave the date and nothing more. I don't want to give the impression that I'm harassing them about it, but if you'd like to contact the ministry and ask them to post it online, that'd be another avenue to pursue. And, if any interested parties live in or near Los Angeles County, birth certificates are a matter of public record; the only drawbacks are (1) it'd cost maybe $15 or so to get a copy, and (2) there's still the question of proving it, though I guess a scanned and posted copy would come pretty close. I'd do it if I lived there, but I don't. In any case, let me know if there's anything else I can do. -- edi(talk) 20:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Another option, what about Kirk Cameron's book, Still Growing: An Autobiography : ISBN 0830744517? If anyone owns it, he most likely states his early childhood in the book, and probably his birthdate. That is better than an email – a published work. Just a thought. TheAE talk/sign 21:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Duh! I should have thought of that! I don't own it but I know lots of people who follow his ministry pretty closely so I'll ask around. Thanks for the tip! -- edi(talk) 21:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Based on the email and some new sources I've found, I'll be adding his birthdate back shortly. Thanks for helping out. :) TheAE talk/sign 05:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Cameron's birthdate is October 12, 1969, and here's proof: according to legend, one of the first things that Lyndon B. Johnson did when he was President was, effective the Fall 1965 American public school curriculum, you'd cut off into the next grade.

Case in point: Kirk Cameron. He graduated high school in 1988. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.165.186.75 (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That could just as easily be taken as proof he was born in 1970. When I graduated from high school, I had some classmates that were born the same year I was (1987) yet didn't turn 18 until the school year ended and still graduated with me. I take it that the previous user thinks that 18 is the standard age of graduation and that the entire class must have reached that age before graduation. Maybe it's a state-by-state issue. (This also fails to take into consideration that Kirk might have had on-set tutoring.) WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he was tutored on-set. Regardless, this idea (true in many cases, but not standard education/required) has less weight than the published, reliable books sources included in the article, and Cameron's mother's statement above. His birthdate should be kept as is unless sources are provided to show otherwise. TheAE talk/sign 18:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kirk Cameron/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. Check back soon for my comments! CarpetCrawler (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Great! I'll be willing to fix anything you think needs to be fixed before GA quality, so don't hesitate to mention problems. :) TheAE talk/sign 01:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

GA on hold

The article looks good! However, I have some concerns. They are:

- References #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6. While all of those references are very good and reliable sources, a lead usually shouldn't contain so many footnotes. A lead should be an adequate summary of the article as a whole, and it certainly looks like one. However, might I suggest taking those references and moving them into other places in the article?

Okay, I've moved the sources to more correct places. That is, except for the last one, which is a quote by Cameron, and isn't used in any other part of the article. I may rotate it around a bit (like have other mentions about his faith in the lead), and move the quote to the body somewhere. We'll see. TheAE talk/sign 02:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's better now. :) You can leave that last cite in the lead, one citation is definitely OK. CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

- This won't hurt if the article passes or fails, but I am just wondering, is there any additional info available for Cameron's personal life? For example, where he went to school, or something like that. Just wondering. Because that would be a good thing to add to the "Birth and family" section. Maybe you could make a section called "Early life", and then a section called "Personal life" that discusses his marriage and children? But then again, that may flesh the article out too much, as if there's not much information available, it wlll make it look like a tiny section. In which case, if there's not much info available, just leave the section alone as it is, it looks fine. :)

- In general, this article would not pass at the Featured Articles criteria, as there isn't as much information presented in this article as the criteria calls for, but it looks good enough to do fine in the GA criteria. :) Just a few nitpicky complaints about the body:

1. The "Early acting career" section is a little short. I realize that any good information about his time on Growing Pains rightfully belongs in the "Christianity and evangelism ministry" section, but has Cameron ever mentioned anything about his time at the show, other than the info that is present in the "Christianity and evangelism ministry" section? If so, it would be great additions.

   Hmm... Maybe something could be found. I look through Google News Archive to see if anything could be added, especially if anything can be found with Growing Pains (which probably will bring up something at least). TheAE talk/sign 04:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

2. Is any information available about his roles in commercials? This will certainly be harder to find, so if you find no luck, don't worry. As long as the reference says he was in them, then you shouldn't have a problem.
3. Same as with Growing Pains, is any information available about his sitcom Kirk?

   I'll check, but he wasn't really known for that. I'll look. TheAE talk/sign 04:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Then don't worry about it. :) Focus on his more notable television show. CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

- The "Recent acting work" section looks fine, great work!

- "It also formerly featured a radio show known as The Way of the Master Radio with talk show host Todd Friel. The radio show was canceled, and a new radio show, Wretched Radio, was created with Friel as the main host.[32]" My computer can't read PDF files as of right now, are both sentences covered by that citation/reference?

It actually sourced the first sentence, but not the second. I have moved it to the first. In my opinion, the second sentence doesn't need a source (see WP:When to cite), it's generally known. TheAE talk/sign 00:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know. Don't worry. I was just saying that I couldn't read a PDF file at the time so I couldn't see if the source was accurate. :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

- "Near the end of the debate, Cameron referred to Albert Einstein as a theist, provoking a stir from audience members." This definitely needs a citation.

Removed – I thought it was included in the ABC News source, but I see now it's not. TheAE talk/sign 22:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

- In the "Film" section of the "Filmography", do you have citations for the box office numbers?

Sources added – it seems a bit much, but added. TheAE talk/sign 03:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Until all of my concerns are met, I will place this article on hold. You have seven days to address the above concerns, but I can certainly give you extra time if circumstances come up. :) Thank you and good luck! CarpetCrawler (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, I need eight days! :P I'll do my best. TheAE talk/sign 04:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

And just one more thing. I knew I'd forget this... but when you complete the requirements, OR if you have any questions, feel free to send me a message on my talkpage. :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. :) Hopefully I will be able to improve the article to these standards. TheAE talk/sign 04:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work so far! CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Things to do

The section above is getting a little confusing. So, I'm making this simple, here's what needs to be done: (by TheAE talk/sign)

1. Try to find any info on his childhood, schooling, or family to add to the "Birth and family" section.  Done Schooling added.
2. Look for any specific notable things that happened while on Growing Pains.  Not done Can't seem to find much of note.
3. Expand on his commercial work (especially the Pepsi reports on Google News).  Done

LOL, good idea! You're doing great work so far, it'll pass in no time flat! CarpetCrawler (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Do you have any other suggestions, or things I missed? Thanks! TheAE talk/sign 07:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the article looks good now. Don't worry about if you didn't find anything about Growing Pains, as the article looks great as it is. Congratulations, the article has passed! You did a wonderful job! It's a great read, nicely sourced, and is very neutral in opinion, which is a breath of fresh air when it comes to articles involving aspects of religion. Great job and congratulations! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How Do We Know That Cameron Is A Member Of The U.S. Republican Party?

Under Categories, Cameron is listed as being a "California Republican." How do we know that he is a Republican? Is this just assumed because he is an evangelical Christian? There should probably be some proof of this, and, if not, it should be removed. I have never heard Cameron discuss his politics one way or another. And, remember, just because he is "pro-life" does not necessarily mean he is a Republican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopm (talk • contribs) 22:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Award-winning television show?

The awards were given by National Religious Broadcasters, which is far, far less notable than, say, an Emmy Award or Academy Award. When the award is not a well-known one, the article should say what award, not just "award winnng." In particular, the title of the link referenced in the article implies that it won one of the People's Choice Awards which air on CBS every year, when it actually won the far less notable National Religious Broadcasters People's Choice Award. Finally, Needs More CrocoDuck :) 67.150.7.25 (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I clarified the passage, but I did not change the title in the citation, since that's the actual title of the article. But the passage itself makes it more clear now. Nightscream (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Cameron-spawned slang

The commonly-used term 'Kirk Camerooned' should be included as evidence of Cameron's pervasive influence. To be 'Kirk Camerooned' has come to mean, according to Urbandictionary.com "left behind; abandoned and forlorn while others--friends who originally made plans with you--go off and have fun without you; left behind in the Rapture;" the increasing use of this coinage, while usually with negative connatation, speaks to Cameron's importance in daily life. Marygaston (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2009 (edit) (undo)

A reliable source (or perhaps several?) would be needed. American Eagle (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Urban Dictionary is user-generated, and lacks any editorial controls; anyone can make an entry there. Hell, someone who objected to my edits even created one of me because of it. So an entry there pertaining to Cameron does not establish such an influence. Also, remember to sign your posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

1980s and 1980s

"In the 1980s and 1980s, Cameron appeared in dozens of television shows and in the films Like Father Like Son and Listen to Me." A typo, I assume. (: I'd fix it, but I stumbled on this article entirely by accident and know nothing about the subject. Good day! 212.143.227.231 (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Good catch! Another user (Aunt Entropy) has fixed the wording. Thanks for the heads-up! :) American Eagle (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Debate on the existence of God

A bit down the article is a picture of Kirk holding a picture of the infamous crocoduck, which is generally a part of his argument against evolution and has nothing to do with his argument for the existence of God as far as I know. Is the caption innaccurate, or does he subscribe to the (logically erroneous) idea that belief in God and acceptance of evolution are mutually exclusive? If it's incorrect, then it obviously ought to be fixed, hence this comment. Farsight001 (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The caption merely says that the debate was on the existence of God, which it was. Since many believers in God who are creationists do not feel that there is a natural process by which life or speciation could have occurred, it eventually touched upon natural selection, as such debates tend to do. Nightscream (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What does "No official winner was declared by the event producers due to business practices held by ABC" mean? Does it mean that ABC refuses to adjudicate the existence of God? Business practices may belong to a company but aren't usually "held", and it's hard to see how they relate to declaring the outcome of a debate. --82.41.11.134 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I checked out the cited source, and there's no mention that a winner was or was not declared, or of any business practices that pertained to this one way or the other. I removed that material. Thanks for pointing it out. Nightscream (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that in the Nightline debate, Kirk and Ray agreed to the term that they would prove the existence of God without referring to faith or referencing the bible. They did so right from the get-go, so in an official debate forum, they would have been declared the losers of the debate due to breaching the mutually agreed terms. -Chip Cherry, Feb 9 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip Cherry (talk • contribs) 03:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Brian Sapient mentioned that himself when he spoke at the podium, and it is mentioned in the Rational Response Squad article. Nightscream (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I could swear, but I won't, that I just read in this article that Ray and Kirk promised to not use the Bible as evidence during the debate and they did use the ten commandments. That sentence (I paraphrased) is not there now. I am just now watching the debate and they did use the ten commandments to prove their scientific point. I think that part of the debate should definitely be a part of the paragraph.Mylittlezach (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 108.70.40.140, 24 May 2011

You may also find current information about Kirk's speaking engagements and schedule by visiting www.feedyourfaith.org. Kirk is currently in the midst of a multi-state, multi-city tour for 2011 with plans to continue this tour into 2012 & 2013. Kirk is partnering with Feed Your Faith, a ministry from Knoxville, TN and Warren Barfield. The tour is called "Love Worth Fighting For" and has been running since 2009.

sources: www.feedyourfaith.org

Newer pictures are also available from this ministry if needed to update the Wiki page.

108.70.40.140 (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This request seems bit prmotional as regards to the website to me, but maybe I'm reading it wrong. --Wintonian (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Would tend to agree. I'd suggest we wait and see if this tour receives any substantive third party coverage before adding it to the article. I would suspect that evangelists such as Cameron do this sort of thing all the time, but that such tours are only infrequently noteworthy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: per reasons above, if substantial third party sources arise then it can be added. --Wintonian (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Some have complained in the past about the photo I took of Kirk in 2007; I have no problem with that criticism at all; if you or Kirk want to upload your own public domain or free-licensed pics to Wikimedia Commons, so they can be used in this article, feel free to do so. :-) Nightscream (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Big Joke

Is he really serious? I know that there are a few people who are truly out there, but I'd like to think that it's a vast minority. Kirk Cameron's "crocoduck" argument seems to be done with a high level of glee that makes it seem like it's a tongue-in-cheek gesture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.163.106 (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It did not appear thus when he made that argument at the 5.5.07 debate in Manhattan, as it illustrates an actual perception that creationists seem to have about natural selection: Namely, that it causes one type of animal to turn into, or to give birth to, a completely different type of animal. Nightscream (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nightscream, in your effort to maintain neutrality, please keep in mind that not all opinions have the same validity, and thus should not be discussed as if they do. Or, as I have argued before, do we need to add a note about the "Green Cheese" controversy to the Moon page? -- JackFloridian (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I never said nor implied otherwise, Jack, as Wikipedia is not empowered to make value judgments about opinions. It is required, however, to represent a given viewpoint with the weight that is properly due that viewpoint, depending on what type of article is being discussed, and whether that viewpoint is a mainstream or fringe viewpoint. Per the WP:FRINGE guideline, we do not give fringe views equal weight in articles about ideas widely accepted in the scientific community (which I'm guessing is what you were trying to allude to), but we are required to represent contrasting views in articles that are about a topic of controversy. In other words, we cannot mention flat Earth ideas in the article on the Earth article, or any other article on science or geology, but we are indeed required to explain flat earth views in the flat Earth article. We cannot mention creationism in articles on biology, but we are indeed required to describe creationist views in articles on creationism, the creationism-evolution controversy, and of course, on articles on creationists. Since Cameron is a creationist, and has made promotion of that viewpoint a large aspect of the media appearances that constitute his post-Growing Pains notability, it would be unreasonable to not mention that in this article, particularly when reliable sources can be cited for it. We cannot abstain from mentioning it just because you or I think it's not "valid", and I never argued that we should include it in a way that implies otherwise. All I did was respond to User:69.120.163.106's suggestion above that Cameron was joking, by pointing out that he is clearly not, since he and Ray Comfort have indeed utilized the crocoduck arguments numerous times, and have justified its continued use, doing even despite their admission that it is neither a valid extension of evolutionary theory, nor an idea held by the scientific community. Nightscream (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Top Image

That is a horrible photograph of Mr. Cameron. It causes him look like an unkempt man who is ageing rapidly. Please replace it with one of better quality(no offence to the photographer.) Anglius 21:38, 3 June 2007

The first one was removed for fair use reasons, since conceivably a free image can and has been created, even if it may seem a bit off.... Homestarmy 21:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sir, but there are probably free images of him that are of better quality. I appreciate your explanation, though.--Anglius 21:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say he looked more attractive in his Teen Idol days. Cbsteffen 03:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Cbsteffen

Agreed. Why not use the picture of him from further down the article (the one with Ray Comfort). It would fit fair use, it's also recent, and it illustrates their Way of the Master partnership. WAVY 10 17:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Because a fair use photo cannot be used when a free one is available. -- -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 17:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, anyone know where we can find a better free picture? WAVY 10 16:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture was removed as copyright infringement. WAVY 10 23:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"no offence to the photographer." None taken. Though I don't see what his aging has to do with it, since he is getting older, after all. As for unkempt, he doesn't look particularly unkempt to me, but maybe that's just me. Most of the pics I took of the RRS and TWOTM that night were candids, and are not much better than the one currently in the article, although I did ask them to pose for a couple. The only one in which his hair looks a bit better groomed than the article's pic, and in which his facial expression seems appropriate for the article is this one. What do you think? Is that one better? Nightscream (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the one that is there now (10-14-11) makes him look snide. Not a good one. Still need a good one. --24.177.88.53 (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

George Takei

Could the article please be updated with George Takei's facebook post regarding Cameron's words on Piers Morgan tonight? Kirk Cameron was surprised that gay people took offense to his statement that homosexuality is "unnatural" and "detrimental to society," reminding us that he has in fact been a consistent idiot all of his life. https://www.facebook.com/georgehtakei/posts/406515096044616

Or, at least have him added to the list of people in the entertainment industry who have condemned what Cameron said. Sujinyan (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sujinyan. Welcome to wikipedia. Thanks for the suggestion. Before adding that kind of content, we'd first need a reliable secondary source which discussed it. We can't add every comment anyone's ever made on facebook to this article, so we just put in the notable ones. We also don't want to unnecessarily expand that part of the article (per our policy on weight) more than it deserves. If you know of any reputable secondary sources which covered Takai's comment (like the NYT, Huffington Post, another major news outlet, etc), feel free to present it here. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Jess, thanks! I'm glad to help-out. And, yeah, I'm definitely new. :) Totally understand what you said.

Here are George Takei and Stephen Baldwin on the Huffigton Post, as from Headline News (.com)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/06/george-takei-and-stephen-_n_1323958.html

I think this justifies having at least Takei speaking as against. Also, perhaps adding Baldwin as supporting.

Sujinyan (talk)

Cool. That link is just about what we'd need - it would be perfect for adding Takei to an article about LGBT activism, or to List of gay rights supporters - but it unfortunately doesn't mention anything about his comments regarding Cameron. It implies he was against them, but that's it. I don't necessarily see a problem with including Takei in the list of "opposition", except that it seems we should restrict the list to only the ones with the most coverage. The Huff Post article you linked to, for example, shows 32 images of celebrities commenting; if we included each of those people, we'd have a small paragraph of nothing but a list of names. It's already getting long as it is; it takes up one and a half lines on my screen, and that's just the list of names. I think, if we're going to include Takei, (or any other name), we should have really strong sourcing that says they were prominent and loud about their opposition. Does that make sense? Also, if Takei was loud about his opposition to Cameron, but not enough to be featured here, it might still be worth including in his article instead. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It does make sense. Thanks for the explanation. Sujinyan (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

References

Neutral, sourced reportage of Cameron's views

Should the article imply or state matter-of-factly that Cameron's views on evolution are unscientific, and without citing sources that specifically mention him? Nightscream (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Kirk Thomas Cameron (born October 12, 1969)

Currently, Cameron partners with fellow evangelist Ray Comfort?

The Way of the Master, a website that has changing the lives of internet providers for some time?

While everybody has their opinions and have the rights to do so,

--guest 8:14PM CDT

If you can provide properly cited and researched evidence to back up those statements, without injecting your own opinion and point of view into the article, then by all means go ahead. --MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 18:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

One example is taking a chimpanzee to a restaurant, where he proceeds to break commandments at the table during lunch. The segment is meant to allude to a supposed inconsistency in the scientific theory that human beings evolved from other primates.

This statement seems to be very tricky to word w/o being NPOV: "a supposed inconsistency" kinda casts doubt on them, and "scientific theory" could imply that Cameron's and Comfort's point isn't scientific (and thus not right). B/W that and all the bazillion edits on that one sentence with nothing on the talk page, I've just replaced it with something completely different, and much more relevant: The whole monkey incident happened only once on of their episodes, while the on-the-street interviews happen several times an episode.

"Could imply that Cameron's and Comfort's point isn't scientific"? Could imply? You'll excuse me for saying so, but Cameron and Comfort's point ISN'T scientific. I know we shoot for NPOV, but since when is stating a bald fact considered POV? If something isn't scientific, then "implying" that it isn't scientific isn't a POV, its truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackFloridian (talk • contribs) 15:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and I'm going to edit the page accordingly now. --MessengerAtLWU 17:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"...since when is stating a bald fact considered POV?" When the statement to that effect constitutes one side in a documented conflict. It is for this reason that Wikipedia can attribute such statements to sources, but cannot make such a statement itself, since Wikipedia does not take positions on such things.

"If something isn't scientific, then "implying" that it isn't scientific isn't a POV, its truth." I agree. But remember that on Wikipedia, the standard for inclusion is not truth, but verifiability. Nightscream (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Should I start posting links to scientific papers which verify that Cameron's opinions on evolution are not scientific? In this, it is a supremely easy thing to verify. -- JackFloridian (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Documented conflict not synonymous with scientific debate: If I insist that the sky is really green, against all evidence that the sky is blue, and post my point of view in the editorial column of a newspaper, as well as make a web forum where fellow "Green Sky-ers" can contribute to the development of the concept, would that constitute "a documented conflict"? Strictly speaking, biologists are not generally in conflict with "creationists". Biologists simply apply the best in peer reviewed science to their understanding of life. In other words, evolution is not a reactionary theory. Creationism is reactionary, since creationists actively attempt to refute evolution. In order to refute evolution, the creationist must manufacture evidence that would otherwise not exist in nature. This is essentially the requirement of a falsehood to contrive a strawman argument in order to compete against a body of evidence obtained from empirical observation. The infamous "crocoduck" is an example of such a strawman argument. It is the proposition that "IF A, THEN C", altogether skipping "B". It appears that the criteria for making a conflict a "documented" conflict is simply a large population segment perpetuating false ideas, even to the point of deliberately ignoring the preponderance of scientific evidence to the contrary. A documented conflict, therefore is fundamentally meaningless to the scientific community, except that a documented conflict has a certain amount of social power when it comes to its proponents imposing their P.O.V. on national or regional policy. See Texas School Board... Texas School Board Set to Vote Textbook Revisions. (May, 2010). New York Times, New York: NY. --Gregory.george.lewis 10:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Gregory. Welcome to Wikipedia. Before I answer, I request that you do not break up my posts by inserting yours in the middle of them. I like to keep my posts easy to distinguish from others at a glance.

As for your question, the conflict pertains to the conflict mentioned in the article, which only be mentioned in any detail if that conflict meets guidelines for notability. In articles that touch upon such conflicts, Wikipedia has to describe each side's point of view, but not advocate one. The only instance in which it is appropriate to present a notion as fact is when it the mainstream consensus of the historical or scientific community in an article that does not mention the conflict, because undue weight cannot be given to non-mainstream fringe views. For example, mentioning the sphericity of the earth or natural selection as fact is perfectly acceptable in articles on Earth or biology. But in articles on Flat Earth Theory or the Evolution-Creationism contoversy, neutrality must be maintained by attributing the respective points of view to the sides advocating them.

The crocoduck argument certainly is a Straw Man, but we cannot say that in articles pertaining to the EvC conflict. We can only say something along the lines of, "One of the arguments Cameron put forward was the crocoduck argument.[Source] The scientific community has responded by calling this a Straw Man argument, and by pointing out that natural selection does not imply such creatures.[Source]"

Note the attributive wording. Whether the notion is false is irrelevant, because Wikipedia cannot endorse one side of a public controversy or conflict. This is not relevant to the scientific community, but it is most certainly relevant to an encyclopedia that must maintain neutrality, in order to describe controversial topics, and their social permutations, with the objectivity that is required of an unbiased reference source. Nightscream (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Nightscream, and welcome to Wikipedia. My apologies for the injected discontinuity. I didn't quite realize the sections in the discussions were the propriety of single contributors, and I certainly didn't intend any personal afront. But, ok, I have read your reply and I understand the why and what for of neutrality in the main article, and the use of "controversy" in the context of the article, thank you.

I simply wanted to post my response logically within the section about documented conflict. I was trying to give an expanded level of detail to the question of documented conflict, as I think it is a term at risk of being misinterpreted to somehow legitimize what should otherwise consist of a non-polarized debate. For example, of course there might be legitimate debates on the merits of evolution (e.g.: panspermia vs. terrestrial origin). However, I tried to pose a hypothetical example of why some debates are not in and of themselves legitimate. The difference that the creationist's "documented conflict" has from the fictitious (and satirical) "Green Sky-ers" is that creationists have large numbers on their side. My argument boils down to saying that large numbers is not in and of itself evidence of their argument's validity. It really takes two sides to debate, much less make a so-called "documented controversy." If you ask a creationist, he might say, "Yes, there is a documented controversy." If you ask a biology teacher, he might say, "What controversy? If there is one, it is made up." I question whether such a controversy exists, except in as much as one side of this supposed controversy has a political interest in perpetuating it for their own unscientific reasons. I propose that the mere use of the phrase "documented controversy" is a weasel phrase that implies an endorsement that a legitimate controversy exists. I realize most people would agree that there is such a "documented controversy," but I contend that is only a numbers or popularity problem, considering the preponderance of evidence (which is mostly denied by the very people who perpetuate "the controversy"). For instance, I challenge anyone to produce a biology text that includes something like, "but the Creationist point of view is such-and-such." Long winded, I realize, but in the end it is topical to the subject of Kirk Cameron's scientific (or anti-scientific) point of view, especially since Mr. Cameron has chosen to popularize his views on this matter. --Gregory.george.lewis (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't sweat the continuity. No worries. :-)

Yes, the creationists have large numbers on their side, but that's really just another way of saying that it's a viewpoint that is notable, as is the conflict between that viewpoint and natural selection. If the Green Skyers eventually became noteworthy, which would involve significant coverage in reliable publications or media outlets (not merely mainstream scientific ones, but general media ones), then yes, they too would merit the same consideration in articles about their viewpoint, or that viewpoint's conflict with the Blue Skyers. There may be no scientific controversy between creationism and evolution, but it is indeed a social one. Wikipedia merely documents that.

Notability merely qualifies a topic for inclusion in Wikipedia as a notable phenomena, and that is the only relevant point that I was making about the documented nature of a controversy. It does not, however, confer validity upon that topic, because Wikipedia cannot make or appear to make judgments upon that question. The fact that Moon Landing Hoax theories are popular enough to warrant coverage in books, TV programs, etc., is why Wikipedia needs to cover it. But coverage of it does not have any bearing on the validity, or lack of it, of that theory. For more on this, it is useful to read policies relevant to these points, such as WP:Neutrality (in particular the WP:UNDUE section), Wikipedia:Fringe theories, etc. Nightscream (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem being that there is no controversy. Evolution is an accepted fact. That a certain group of people disbelieve that fact does not alter the fact that it is a fact. Since when are facts POV? If someone were to start a public campaign saying "the moon is made of green cheese", are we to include that "controversy" on the Moon page, just because "there's a controversy"? Where do we draw the line in letting non-factual POV determine our editorial policies? Or, to put it another way, while I agree that we need to talk about the "social" controversy, we should also crouch it in terms that make it clear which side has established scientific theory that has been confirmed and supported by 150+ years of experimentation behind it, and which side has no supporting evidence at all. JackFloridian (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no scientific controversy. There is indeed a social one, and in articles that cover that controversy, neutrality means that Wikipedia must describe that conflict by attributing each position to those who advocate them. I think my previous posts above answer your questions with respect to the policies I linked to, and the examples that I mentioned. I would suggest that you read them, as those policy pages and examples explain it clearly enough to answer your own hypothetical "green cheese theory" example. Nightscream (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You are ignoring my point. I'll apply good faith here and assume it wasn't willfully ignored, but rather that you just missed it. Yes, the "social controversy" is notable and we should discuss it. However, something that is not controversial, not disputed, and not in question is the fact that Cameron's public statements about evolution (which are notable given his celebrity and the efforts he puts into publicizing those statements) lack any sort of scientific foundation and have been repeatedly been refuted. Thus, including thet fact that his statements on evolution are "unscientific" isn't violating article neutrality because bald truth is never POV. It simply is. In point of fact, the only plausible reason for not including such information about his opinions is, in fact, to impose a pro-creationism POV on the article.JackFloridian (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not ignoring your point, as I've been responding to it directly. Rather, I get the sense that you're not understanding mine, perhaps because I'm not explaining myself clearly enough.

That Cameron's statements lack scientific foundation/have been refuted, and that this is "bald truth" and "fact", is indeed controversial, and disputed. If you ask someone versed in scientific skepticism, they will agree that they lack such a foundation, and have been refuted. If you ask a creationist, they will disagree. That is the controversy, or conflict in question, and in order to maintain neutrality, Wikipedia must describe that conflict, and properly attribute the positions of each of the factions in it, without appearing to exhibit value judgments as to the validity of each side, at least in articles that touch upon that controversy. Saying, "Creationists believe this, and the scientific community does not accept this" is acceptable. Saying, "Creationists believe this, and they're wrong, and here are arguments for why they're wrong..." is not. This has nothing to do with "imposing a pro-creationism POV", it's simply refraining from exhibiting any POV at all. Your position seems to be predicated on the assumption that presentation of any and all material in Wikipedia is determined by its standing in the scientific community. It isn't. While this does hold for articles on topics that fall entirely under the purview of science, it does not hold for topics on social controversies.

A good analogy for how neutrality and attribution are maintained in articles on science, fringe views, and social conflicts might be this: If you go into an American public school science classroom, does creationism, alchemy, homeopathy or flat Earth theory get equal time? If the class material is properly confined to actual science, then the answer is no. But then the bell rings, and you walk into social studies class, where the lesson will be about the EvC controversy. If the teacher does his/her job properly, he/she will describe that controversy in such a way that his/her personal position are not regarded as the one and only right answer on a test. Now you may take umbrage at this because natural selection is a fact, and that this gives it a status that creationism lacks, but here's the bitter pill that even skeptics have to swallow on Wikipedia: What is and isn't fact, and what a fact is, how a hypothesis becomes a fact, etc., is not something that the typical American layman understands, and for this reason, whether it's right or wrong, non-scientific, or even pseudoscientific, non-factual positions indeed have mainstream acceptance in our society. It's unfortunate, but there it is. Because of this, any work that purports to document social conflicts objectively and neutrally, including the conflict between those who accept natural selection and those who do not, must do so in a manner that does not exhibit an endorsement of either side. Creationism will not get equal time in the Wikipedia article on natural selection. But it will be described accurately in the article on creationism, on the article on the Evolution versus Creationism social controversy, and articles related to it.

Whether you accept this or not, empirical truth as determined by the scientific method, is not the ultimate criterion by which material is included in Wikipedia. It is proper attribution to reliable sources, and in articles that cover controversial topics or fringe views, it means refraining from wording that endorses one side in a social conflict. Again, did you read the policy pages I linked to above? If you haven't then please do so, as these points are explained in detail. Nightscream (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I read those articles. Nothing in them convinces me that stating that Cameron's views on evolution are unscientific is POV, because his views on evolution are unscientific. Sources can be cited showing such. Your objection, in my opinion, is akin to saying that we shouldn't list whether Cameron is right-handed or left, because we might appear to favor members of the handedness-group to which Cameron does not belong. Posting bald facts about something is not taking a side... its simply stating facts, and the fact is, his views on Evolution lack any sort of scientific support, do not meet the criteria for being "scientific", and thus, by definition and by reality, are "unscientific". -- JackFloridian (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"I read those articles. Nothing in them convinces me that stating that Cameron's views on evolution are unscientific is POV, because his views on evolution are unscientific." Then you do not understand the site's policies regarding Neutrality and fringe topics, and it is doubtful that you read those policy pages (not "articles", as you call them) in earnest or have really been attempting to understand what I've tried to explain to you.

Again, that Cameron's views in a matter of social controversy are unscientific constitutes one side in that controversy. The other side, creationists, would say that his views are not unscientific. Therefore, we have to attribute both positions to those who hold them, and Wikipedia cannot express one as its own position, because it does not have one. If you cannot comprehend this, then you may not be qualified to edit articles on controversial topics. "Controversy" does not mean that both sides have an equal chance of being right. "Controversy" is just another word for conflict. A fight. Is there a fight in our society between creationists and evolutionists? Of course there is. Thus, while both sides cannot be afforded equal weight or space in topics related solely to science, they must be granted this in articles that document or otherwise pertain to that conflict.

Saying, "Nothing convinces me that stating his views on evolution are unscientific is POV, because his views on evolution are unscientific" is a circular statement. Because you assert that his views are unscientific means that expressing this as an unattributed fact does not constitute a point of view? How do you figure? The bottom line with regard to articles on controversial topics is that we describe the views of each side, and attribute those views to those sides, without flatly stating one or more of them as right or wrong. The EvC conflict is indeed a social controversy, so that's how we treat it. It is reasonable, within that approach, to say, "Creationism or intelligent design are not scientific in the eyes of the scientific community." If you believe, however, that the aforementioned sentence should appear in Wikipedia without the last seven words, then again, you do not understand how to present information on controversial topics on Wikipedia.

"Your objection, in my opinion, is akin to saying that we shouldn't list whether Cameron is right-handed or left, because we might appear to favor members of the handedness-group to which Cameron does not belong." No. Which hand Cameron favors is not a controversy. If it were, then yes, we would not be able to assert as an unattributed fact which hand he favors, as we would have to describe the positions of each side in the conflict. This analogy isn't merely false, it's incoherent: How would mentioning which hand he does use favor the group of people who use a hand to which he doesn't belong? Nightscream (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You keep saying "You don't understand", as if I was an idiot child. This arrogant assertion is always accompanied by an implicit "because if you did, you'd be agreeing with me". I assure you, sir, that it is possible to understand something and still come to a different conclusion that you are coming to. I understand just fine. I simply think you're misinterpreting the policy in order to enforce your own POV.

The use of Wikipedia's policy in order to "teach the controversy" is reminiscent of Creationist tactics to do the same thing in the science classrooms of the United States. By falsely insisting that both sides of the "controversy" have equal weight, you, Nightscream, are therefore intentionally enforcing a Creationist POV on not only this article, but every other similar article. Congratulations on completely and totally subverting the Non-POV policy to your own ends.

Any mention of his opinions on Evolution should make clear the difference between the Social Controversy and the UTTER AND COMPLETE LACK OF ANY SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY WHATSOEVER. I don't know how clearer I can explain this to you, unless I start using single-syllabled words. -- JackFloridian (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• I would suggest that people read WP:NPOV, which gives unambiguous guidance on this subject:

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
...
While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world.

WP:FRINGE would also be relevant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"You keep saying "You don't understand", as if I was an idiot child." I keep saying that you don't understand the site's policy because it is clear that you do not, by virtue of your statements and arguments, and not mere agreement or disagreement with me.

• You have argued, for example, that stating a bald fact cannot be POV. You are wrong. Stating a bald fact in an article pertaining to a social controversy if the intent and the appearance of such a statement is to convey a position in that social controversy violates NPOV because editors are not permitted to state such positions, nor convey that an article does. If a reliable secondary source that specifically references Cameron addresses the scientific merit of his views and makes such a statement, then adding it may be acceptable, so long as its attribution is emphasized. But merely stating that his views are unscientific without such an attributive context is not.
• You've also argued that if an idea is not scientific, then "implying" that it isn't scientific isn't POV, but a truth. But aside from the fact that we don't "imply" things in Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia does not make claims about truth, since the standard is Verifiability, and not truth. In matters of social controversies, we attribute the position of each party to that party, and do not convey any position on Wikipedia's part.
• You've argued that "there is no controversy" because evolution is an accepted fact. This is a non sequitur. In fact, there is a social controversy over the matter, and that is why Wikipedia will attribute each party's position on the matter to that party.
• You've argued that the lack of any sort of scientific foundation in Cameron's public statements about evolution, and the notion that they've been repeatedly refuted is uncontroversial, and not disputed. This is false, since creationists would obviously dispute this.
• You've argued that nothing in policy pages I linked to convinces you that stating that Cameron's views on evolution are unscientific is POV, because his views on evolution are unscientific. This is a circular statement, and an irrelevant one, since whether his views are unscientific is not the criterion upon which something is judged to be POV or NPOV. POV doesn't mean "untrue". POV means that an article appears to endorse one side in a social controversy.

It is these statements and the other ones in your most recent post, as well as your apparently low level of editing experience, that make it clear that you do not understand how Neutrality is handled in articles on controversial topics, and not whether you agree or disagree with me. If you don't believe me, I'll make an RfC so that other experienced editors can join this discussion.

"The use of Wikipedia's policy in order to "teach the controversy" is reminiscent of...." Wikipedia does not have a policy of "teaching" a controversy, and neither do I. Wikipeida's policy is only to describe a controversy. Not teach it.

"By falsely insisting that both sides of the "controversy" have equal weight..." I've made no such insistence. My only insistence is that the article attribute positions to the people or groups that hold them, in proper context to Kirk Cameron, and that it not contain unattributed and uncontextualized material designed to imply that Cameron is wrong.

"You, Nightscream, are therefore intentionally enforcing a Creationist POV on not only this article, but every other similar article. Congratulations on completely and totally subverting the Non-POV policy to your own ends." I don't harbor a creationist POV, nor have I imposed one on this article, or any other article, nor have you bothered to back up this claim by naming a single one. By accusing me of this, without falsifying my arguments or providing any evidence of this to the exclusion of the quite legitimate position I have explained to you, you are in violation of WP:AGF.

"Any mention of his opinions on Evolution should make clear the difference between the Social Controversy and the UTTER AND COMPLETE LACK OF ANY SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY WHATSOEVER." Only if reliable secondary sources that specific mention Cameron can be cited that do so. If it doesn't, then we don't include such material. Would you at least agree to that? Or do you believe that the article should make that statement without sources that specifically mention him?

"I don't know how clearer I can explain this to you, unless I start using single-syllabled words." The problem is not that you're not clear. The problem is that I understand you completely, and have tried to explain to you why you're wrong, but you can't seem to accept this, and can only react via ad hominem violations of both WP:AGF and now WP:Civility. Why don't you take a deep breath, and calm down a bit with the inflammatory language, okay?

Hrafn, thank you for participating. I've cited both of those policies to Jack above, but it's had no positive effect. He still thinks that it's our job to insert mentions in biographical articles on creationists about how creationism is unscientific, even without a secondary source that specifically mentions the creationist, because to him, it appears, an idea's standing in the scientific community is the criterion by which we present material on social controversies, and anyone who tries to explain to him that this is not the is attempting to impose a creationist POV. I'll do an RfC, so maybe others can explain it better than I have. Nightscream (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm agreeing with Jack. Per WP:GEVAL, wikipedia does not give equal validity to creationist pseudoscience, irrespective of how much of the public support it. Even in writing about creationism/creationists, the requirement is "However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

And who here has suggested giving "equal validity" (or any validity, really) to creationism? The issue is that we present Cameron's views. We do not make any statements about their validity or lackthereof, unless attributed to sources that mention him.

The quote you presented here refers to articles on the idea in question, and not biographical articles on every person who holds them. That's why it talks about "equal validity": It's referring to articles that are about the fringe idea, or the social controversy caused by them. Are you suggesting that the sections of the articles on Neal Adams, Charlie Sheen, Sammy Hagar and Jenny McCarthy that mention their advocacy of Expanding Earth theory, 9/11 conspiracy theories, ghosts and the MMR vaccine controversy should state or imply that those ideas are wrong, even if no source specifically mentions those people? If we can find sources in which people like Richard Dawkins or Michael Shermer or Eugenie Scott or Harriet Hall say something to effect of "[Person X]'s views are unscientific", then yes, adding it would be fine. But are you suggesting that we do so even when the source does not mention the article subject? Nightscream (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You did: "Again, that Cameron's views in a matter of social controversy are unscientific constitutes one side in that controversy." Cameron's views, and creationism in general, have in fact been overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community. Per WP:FRINGE, "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." We do not present the scientific (or any other academic) consensus as just another viewpoint or "one side in that controversy". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"I did" what? Is this a reference to my question above in which I ask where anyone has suggested giving equal validity to creationism? In what way does the quote you provided by me do this, when it makes no mention of "validity" or lackthereof?

As for your quote of WP:FRINGE, please note: "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail..." The Kirk Cameron article doesn't cover creationism in detail. It's an article about Cameron, and not his views. His views on evolution constitute one paragraph in the article. WP:FRINGE is specifically intended for articles on creationism, evolution, and the Creation–evolution controversy. In those articles, the position of creationists should be described, as should what the prevailing scientific consensus is, and in proper proportion to one another, so that a fringe view is not given equal weight, just as it is in articles on Flat Earth Theory, alien abduction, homoepathy, remote viewing, etc. Dealing with such articles is easy.

But in dealing with biographical articles of people who hold such views, my question to you is, should the article include the comment that "this person's views on this matter are not scientific", without including a source that specifically mentions that person? Should we, in every such biographical article, chime in with mention of the scientific community's position on each of those ideas, even when it hasn't been mentioned in reference to that person? I asked you this above, and I notice that you didn't answer the question. Nightscream (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

BLPs are poor places to engage in categorizing any beliefs, religions, or other positions except where specific reliable sources make the statement about the specific person. In addition, it is wrong to assign beliefs to a person based on their membership in any sect or group - let the articles on the sect or group use reliable sources in ascribing the beliefs to such a group - coatracking the beliefs of any group into the individual BLPs is misleading, especially since we would not have a specific source for the individual holding that belief (there are a lot of "heretics" in churches). Collect (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Where has anyone here mentioned assigning beliefs to Cameron? His beliefs are self-stated, as supported by sources. Nightscream (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

• I am responding to the RFC. The article should not make value judgements about the subject's views. Stating matter-of-factly or even implying that the subject's views are 'unscientific' is a value judgement that is not consistent with NPOV. The article needs to simply state what the subject's views are and where necessary show where these views contradict mainstream science. Alex Harvey (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I searched the article, but found no mention of the words "scientific" or "views", so I'm not sure where we are matter-of-factly stating that Cameron's views are unscientific. Could we have a specific example? I have to agree with others above that WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE commonly dictate that a sufficiently minority position, such as Cameron's creationism, should not be presented as though a respected academic view. According to NPOV, "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice" If reliable sources indicate that there is broad consensus within the scientific community that Cameron's creationism is unscientific, then it should not be attributed so as to avoid giving parity between his views and those of the scientific community. My impression is that there is not just broad consensus on this matter, but nearly unanimous consensus. Beyond that, I'm hesitant to comment further on such a general question without seeing the specific content being discussed.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You emphasize that you found no mention of of the words "scientific" or "views", but by the same reasoning, nowhere does it present Cameron's views "as though a respected academic view".

As for the NPOV quote, which is the "factual assertion" in question? If it's the reality of the phenomena of natural selection in an article on natural selection, then yes, that is fine, since in the scientific community, that is uncontroversial.

But in the context of the EvC conflict, it is indeed controversial, which is why statements like "Cameron's views are not scientific", which what JackFloridian has insisted is not POV, indeed require attribution to a source, since that is a position in a social controversy. It would be indeed inappropriate to make that statement in Wikipedia's voice. Nightscream (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If we cite Cameron right alongside an attributed statement summing the academic consensus, such as "Cameron believes X, but Richard Dawkins says Y", we are giving Cameron equal weight to the entirety of the scientific community. In doing so, we are presenting his view "as though a respected academic view". I really need specifics to discuss this in-depth. If everyone here agreed (or disagreed) with the RfC question, how would the article change? What content are we discussing adding, or removing? If this isn't yet mentioned in the article, then where was it discussed on talk?   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• We should be careful not to give Cameron's views the appearance of equal scientific validity with accepted science. The article at the moment has a section which seems to be more about Comfort than Cameron, and lacks due context of these views. It also has a dubious source from World Net Daily which make no mention of Cameron, and so is inappropriate for the article. The section clearly needs improvement.
  The section does mention science, "At issue was the existence of God, which Comfort stated he could prove scientifically, without relying on faith or the Bible." Why are we quoting Comfort and not Cameron? And if Cameron's statements are significant enough to quote, we can either find a mainstream source pointing out that Cameron's claims that "the existence of God can be proven, 100 percent, absolutely, without the use of faith" and "Evolution is unscientific" lack any scientific validity, or make the necessary assumptions from other articles and sources to show these views in context. . . dave souza, talk 18:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Question: In response to the RfC. Is the current reading of the article in dispute? If so, what needs changing? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment on science: Scientific organizations have expressed the fear that scientific inquiry, as a way of life, is being threatened by the revival of fundamentalism including creationism. Wikipedia seeks to guard against this trend. Even in BLP articles such as Cameron's, the scientific consensus is to be supported, clarified, etc. The article need not argue the point, but through editorial consensus, the accepted scientific view should be seen to prevail. Some have suggested that this bias toward science be a stated policy of WP, others have not felt such an official stand to be necessary. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Jess: "If we cite Cameron right alongside an attributed statement summing the academic consensus, such as "Cameron believes X, but Richard Dawkins says Y", we are giving Cameron equal weight to the entirety of the scientific community." Wait a minute. First you mention quoting Cameron alongside the academic consensus, but as an example, you present a hypothetical statement mentioning Cameron and Dawkins. Dawkins is not "the academic consensus". The hypothetical statement (sourced, of course), should be, "Cameron believes X, but the scientific community says Y." Certainly Dawkins' position mirrors that of the scientific community, but the point raised in this discussion was not Dawkins, it was the idea of including the statement in the article that Cameron's views are unscientific. Not that they run contrary to Dawkins'.

DonaldRichardSands: "Scientific organizations have expressed the fear that scientific inquiry, as a way of life, is being threatened by the revival of fundamentalism including creationism. Wikipedia seeks to guard against this trend." No it does not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and does not claim as part of its mission to be a tool of science education or a guard against fundamentalism, however admiral and necessary both of those missions may be. As part of its mission, Wikipeida seeks only to reflect general knowledge, and with regard to matters of science, that articles on science accurately reflect the mainstream scientific view, and articles on social controversies accurately describe those controversies. Again, the accepted scientific view should only be included in the article if it can be sourced in relation to Cameron's statements specifically. Nightscream (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Nightscream, that's why I asked what specific proposal we're discussing. I was giving a specific example of what would not be acceptable; giving equal weight to Cameron and the scientific community (or a member of the community representative of scientific consensus) would not be acceptable. I'm getting a little frustrated, because this has been asked by me and others on a number of occasions, but no answer is forthcoming. Indeed, it seems it's being avoided. If this RfC is to have any meaningful result, we need to be talking about specifics. I very much hope that it's not anyone's intent to discuss only general statements about NPOV, and then personally extrapolate from that discussion that certain novel content is acceptable to add to the article (or not). What specific content are we discussing here? Where is this content in the article, or where was it proposed on the talk page prior to this RfC?   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood you. But if you want to know the context or scope under which the RfC was made, it is indicated on its entry on the RFC/Biographies page:

Should the article imply or state matter-of-factly that Cameron's views on evolution are unscientific, and without citing sources that specifically mention him?

This is derived from JackFloridian's insistence that it should include such a disclaimer, and not from any particular passage currently in the article. Just read this discussion, or if you prefer something more concise, the first several posts at the top of this thread, which will explain how this matter began. Hope that helps. Nightscream (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair explanation of my point. If we are to mention Cameron's publicly made statements regarding evolution at all, especially if those statements are directly quoted (even in summary), then I believe a notation must be made indicating that his opinions have been refuted by the mainstream scientific community, because they have been.JackFloridian (talk) 07:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Only if reliable secondary sources that specific mention Cameron can be cited that do so. If it doesn't, then we don't include such material. Would you at least agree to that? Or do you believe that the article should make that statement without sources that specifically mention him? I asked you this above three months ago, and you haven't answered it. Nightscream (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for missing your question in the hubub. As a response, might I direct your attention to our own article here on Wikipedia about the [{Crocoduck]]?JackFloridian (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

May 2007 debate and the WotM's version of Origin

• Todd Friel - not only is the link broken, but it's a press release. I searched for sources and it appears he was a co-host but there are no RSes to support its notability.
• Debate material - One debate participant's contention about Cameron's partner, and Cameron's comment about it, isn't notable for purposes on Cameron's BLP. it is also primary sourced.
• The National Center for Science Education is "the United States' leading anti-creationist organization", not a reliable source. The US News & World Report article is a guest blog post by the head of that group. The other sources in that paragraph are unreliable (WND) and original research of a primary source (the book itself). My edit kept the material that was sourced from People. Even so, Cameron helped distribute a book that someone else wrote. It belongs in Comfort's article, or in a Way of the Master article.

Instaurare (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Broken link supporting primary source

Blanking content supported by a dead link is not the appropriate way to address a dead link, as per WP:Link rot. As for the use of primary sources, as I indicated on your talk page, they can most certainly be used so long as the article is not based primarily on them, and so long as the material being supported by it is not unduly self-serving. At issue is what type of material is being supported by the source. If the material is the stated position or argument of one party in a two-party controversy or conflict, then relying on that party's own statements, even if self-published or primary, is perfectly reasonable. And to clarify on what might be a more minor point, notability is the test for whether a topic merits its own Wikipedia article, and not relevance of material for the purposes of mere inclusion in an article.

The contention on the part of one of two parties in a debate that the other party violated the terms or rules of the debate with the arguments that the second party employed is indeed relevant for mention in a passage that mentions the debate. It was not an irrelevant or personal comment made about one of the WotM participants, and I'm not even sure which "partner" you're referring to, since the passage explains both Cameron and Comfort's response to Brian Sapient's contention that they violated the terms of the debate.

NCSE and U.S. News & World Report blog by Eugenie Scott not reliable

Material in Wikipedia that deals with fringe views, particularly with regards to science, are naturally going to include material on the mainstream scientific view of the topic in question, and this will often include criticism of the fringe view in question. This includes creationism. Since the passage in question pertains to the WotM's publication of a version of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species that was missing some key sections, it is naturally going to include criticism by the scientific community, and indeed, science education and advocacy groups like NCSE and its executive director, Eugenie Scott, are often quoted in books, movies and other materials in opposition and criticism of creationism and creationist tactics. Thus the NCSE is a natural source for reaction to the WotM's activities, as is the U.S. News & World Report article authored by Scott. Why you think an leading anti-creationism organization is not reliable as a source for criticism of creationism, I don't know, but who would you think a reliable source? What aspect of WP:IRS would indicate otherwise?

WND unreliable

How is WND unreliable? They're a website that publishes news and associated content from the perspective of U.S. conservatives and the political right, and in this case, Richard Dawkins' explanation of why he refers to Comfort at "Banana Man" in [http://www.wnd.com/2009/02/90131/ the article] on that site is being used to support the explanation of the banana bookmark that the NCSE included with their analysis of Comfort's introduction in his version of Origin. How this unreliable?

Original research of a primary source (the book itself).

Original research refers to material that is derived from the editor's personal knowledge, and which is not supported by a cited source. If you mean that the material is not found in the cited source, then that would be either a verification failure. Is it your position that the passage's statement that the second edition still lacks Darwin's preface and glossary of terms is false? If it's not false, then there is no original research, nor does relying on the book for its content constitute an inappropriate use of a primary source, as mentioned above.

People

Sorry about my error about the People cite. For some reason, I thought it was among the citations you removed.

Even so, Cameron helped distribute a book that someone else wrote. It belongs in Comfort's article, or in a Way of the Master article.

And in Cameron's, since Cameron is the co-founder of the Way of the Master. And how is the fact that the book is authored by someone else (in this case Darwin) preclude it from being mentioned in Cameron's article, but not Comfort's? Or were you referring to the introduction that Comfort wrote for the WotM's version? If so, the prior point about Cameron being a WotM co-founder applies. Nightscream (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

As for Friel, it's not really a big deal to me, I just don't think it belongs in Cameron's BLP; it's better suited for an independent WotM article. The debate bit belongs in either Comfort's BLP or WotM. 01:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting fringe views policy, which deals primarily with general subjects, certainly not an individual BLP. NCSE is an advocacy group, as you stated, and inclusion of a primary source from an advocacy group in this article is WP:UNDUE. I would be fine including it if there are third party sources covering NCSE's criticism of WotM, but I haven't found any. And in any case, the USN&WR piece only talks about Comfort and doesn't mention Cameron - in fact, it doesn't even mention WotM, so your argument that since Cameron is a co-founder of WotM, any WotM activity is suitable for inclusion in his BLP, does not apply here. The case is the same with the primary source "Don't Diss Darwin" attack site; even if it was suitable for inclusion, it doesn't mention Cameron or WotM. As such I'll go ahead and remove that part from the article, but if you have another argument or object to removing it, feel free to restore it. Instaurare (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

In my experience I would be murdered if I tried to insert a WND source into a BLP. I guess it's another Wikipedia double standard. Instaurare (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The second edition does not state that the second edition lacks Darwin's preface and glossary. As such, I understand this to be OR. If another RS said it lacks the preface & glossary, then it would be suited toward inclusion. Regardless, this is again irrelevant to Cameron's article and belongs in Comfort's article or WotM. I'll remove that too unless you object. Instaurare (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. What I did is cut the paragraph down to what the People source supported. Instaurare (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant that Cameron helped distribute the pamphlet/booklet as a whole, including Comfort's introduction. And I cut the paragraph down to what the People source mentions since it's the only one that speaks of Cameron - but even so, it doesn't mention Comfort or WotM. Instaurare (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I request that you not insert their responses into the middle of my messages. I know that some editors do this, but I prefer that my messages remain unbroken, as it's easier at a glance to see whose messages are whose. Thanks. :-)

In addition, it is inappropriate to continue reverting a disputed portion of an article once a discussion on the dispute has begun, since that is considered edit-warring, just so you know. But I'll keep the version as it is for now. Until this discussion reaches a resolution or conclusion.

As for Friel, it's not really a big deal to me, I just don't think it belongs in Cameron's BLP; it's better suited for an independent WotM article. The debate bit belongs in either Comfort's BLP or WotM.

If Cameron is one of the WotM co-founders and partners, and co-hosts one of its radio shows, and was one of the two WotM participants at the debate, and the passage explains not only Comfort's reaction to the RRS' arguments but Cameron's as well, then how is this appropriate for the Comfort and WoTM articles, but not Cameron's? You argue that two of the sources don't mention Cameron, and so they don't apply here. Of course they do. If a given organization is called into scrutinized or criticized for its activities, it's inconceivable that a BLP article on the most notable of the organization's three founders, who is responsible for that organization's activities, not mention it.

I think you're misinterpreting fringe views policy, which deals primarily with general subjects, certainly not an individual BLP. NCSE is an advocacy group, as you stated, and inclusion of a primary source from an advocacy group in this article is WP:UNDUE.

WP:FRINGE applies to any article that contains material on such views. If it didn't, it would mean that creationism and other fringe views could be given equal weight in BLP articles, which is obviously not the case.

The fact that NCSE is an advocacy group does not mean that they are not reliable as a source for the scientific community's reaction to views that are considered pseudoscientific. A source is reliable if it is considered an authority in the field in question. The NCSE is indeed such an authority, and has been quoted in other works on the evolution/creationism controversy. Advocating a point of view has nothing to do with what makes a source unreliable, since WP:IRS is about perceived expertise and knowledge, and not lack of bias, viewpoint or mission, since all sources, including reliable ones, conceivably harbor them.

As for WP:UNDUE, neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, and this means not giving minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. It says nothing that would preclude NCSE as a source.

In my experience I would be murdered if I tried to insert a WND source into a BLP. I guess it's another Wikipedia double standard.

I'm not sure what "double standard" you're referring to, but I just checked WP:RSN, and I see that the consensus is apparently that WND is only reliable for their own opinions, and not factual content. So if you want to leave that out, I won't oppose it, even though the bit about the derivation of the "banana" bookmarks is true.

The second edition does not state that the second edition lacks Darwin's preface and glossary. As such, I understand this to be OR.

??????? If the second edition lacks that material, then it is its own primary source for its own content. It doesn't have to "break the fourth wall" about its content. If a reader acquires a copy, sees those elements missing, then that's not OR. Nightscream (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

The last sentence was removed because the supporting link was linked to the yahooo news main page and said nothing about Kirk Cameron, thereby could have just been made up by the original editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.149.60 (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph uses the word "currently". When writing for an encyclopedia editors must be specific and say "when" or if it is not important then do not say "currently" at all. Avoid vague time words that will go out of date and no longer be current, or recent, or now. See WP:RELTIME and also WP:NOTNEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.126.189 (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant sentences

In the Conversion to Christianity section is the following: "A decade later, Cameron agreed to appear in The Growing Pains Movie, where the entire main cast reunited with one another. Cameron said, "It’s a lot less crazy of a time than when we were teenagers. It’s an opportunity to begin new friendships as adults, and I’m really looking forward to that."[35]" I submit this information is irrelevant and furthermore has nothing to do with conversion to Christianity.76.174.24.153 (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I basically agree. The quote is out of context -- so I have replaced it with another quote from the sourced article, which is more appropriate. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Back to the Future?

I know that Kirk was in the BttF Trilogy DVD set (Disc 3) as the FaQ answer guy, originally made in 1990, after BttF III came out. However, there's no mention of it anywhere on his page.

Should I add it? Jorrel Fraajic 22:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No he wasn't. You're mixing him up with Michael J. Fox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.82.9 (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Kirk Cameron was on the BTTF DVDs special features. Maybe you should watch them before saying he wasn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.96.19 (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

66.131.96.19, please don't call others offensive names; I've removed it. Cameron may indeed be shown on the Back to the Future special features, but (a) it is unsourced, and (b) it is generally too trivia of a fact for inclusion on Wikipedia. Unless a reliable source is shown, this shouldn't be added to the article. American Eagle (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The Secrets of the Back to the Future Trilogy (TV Special documentary short) Himself - Host 1990 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0131647/?ref_=nv_sr_1Robinrobin (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Sites with user-generated content, such as imdb, are not reliable under WP:USERG. Nightscream (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Church membership

This article has a lot about his religious faith, but omits his church membership or religious affiliation, pretty basic info.01:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.205.85 (talk)

His ministry (The Way of the Master) is non-denominational, and when a ministry (including Christian singers) is non-denominational, the person purposely doesn't reveal what denomination or church they belong to. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit request 7 August 2015 - Awards

I believe that Kirk Cameron's Golden Raspberry for his performance in "Saving Christmas", awarded at the 35th Annual Raspberry awards needs to be listed in his accolades. Here are the links that would be needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Christmas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Raspberry_Awards

Jared.kholz (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Upon looking again, it is apparent that he won two awards: Worst Actor and Worst Screen Combo

References

Bananas

"Kirk Cameron likes to hold bananas" -EvieBot — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuzedUltra (talk • contribs) 00:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kirk Cameron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928023738/http://www.wayofthemasterradio.com/podcast/2007/05/10/may-09-2007-hour-2/ to http://www.wayofthemasterradio.com/podcast/2007/05/10/may-09-2007-hour-2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Sister Melissa

It says his sister Melissa was born in 1970. That would maker her and Kirk twins. Is this correct? 2602:306:CE96:AD70:FCD4:E368:A2A1:2E1B (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)BeaMyra

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kirk Cameron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/58337946.html?dids=58337946%3A58337946&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS%3AFT&type=current&date=Jun%2026%2C%201987&author=NANCY%20MILLS&pub=Los%20Angeles%20Times%20%28pre-1997%20Fulltext%29&desc=CURLY-HAIRED%20KIRK%20CAMERON%20TEEN-AGE%20HEARTTHROB%20TAKES%20FAME%20IN%20STRIDE
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news%2Fentertainment&id=6429694
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120417213119/http://www.indwes.edu/News/2012/Kirk-Cameron---Evangelist/Actor-Selected-as-IWU-s-Latest-World-Changer/ to http://www.indwes.edu/News/2012/Kirk-Cameron---Evangelist/Actor-Selected-as-IWU-s-Latest-World-Changer/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2017

THE NOTE ABOUT KIRK CAMERON IS MALICIOUS. IT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED; YOU folks seems to allow "slander" or "evil speak" but not the truth. I hope you guys do better than this.

Tim (lover of Yahweh) LoverOfYahweh (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kirk Cameron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091119081130/http://www.dontdissdarwin.com/analysis.php to http://www.dontdissdarwin.com/analysis.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 March 2012

In March 2012, Kirk Cameron stated on Piers Morgan Tonight that "homosexuality is unnatural, detrimental and ultimately destructive to foundations of civilization", and that he would not accept homosexuality on the part of any of his children, though he would discuss the matter with any child of his who expressed such feelings.[49] Cameron's comments were later criticized by GLAAD.[50]

Delete the words between the 5 quote marks - the source here is the Piers Morgan interview available on YouTube. Cameron did NOT say "he would not accept homosexuality on the part of any of his children." His response was much more muted and he DID say he would discuss the matter, etc. He is against homosexuality and he made that clear, but in talking about his children he was careful and nuanced. That is not the impression left by the text as it now is. 68.198.147.165 (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Done I'm unable to view the video source, but I made that change anyway. All the sources I can find make reference to his earlier comments, but not him talking about his kids. Per WP:WEIGHT, it would seem the latter doesn't belong. I've added a few more sources, and also discussed the criticism he received more broadly. Further improvements are welcome. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're not able to view the video source, then will all due respect, you should've contacted another editor who might've done so. You might also have contacted the editor responsible for the then-current wording of that passage to discuss it with him, in this case, me. Piers Morgan did indeed ask Cameron about his children, and Kirk did indeed respond regarding how he would react if one of his children came out as gay. It is possible that my summary may not have been as accurate as it could've been, and I apologize if I allowed myself to interpret what Cameron said. I have restored the information, albeit with more accurate direct quotes, and I would like to thank 68.198.147.165 for pointing this out.

Also, there is nothing in the cited ABC News source about a backlash from the mainstream media.

Lastly, please remember to include all the publication info in sources, including the author (Yes, sources have authors, believe it or not), publishers, and where applicable, titles. Using cite web template without the "title=" value causes a citation error to appear in the References section (though I'm guessing this was an honest mistake). Nightscream (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where the hostility is coming from, but anyway... There are lots of cases where a source isn't available to a particular editor. That doesn't bar him from making any edits to the article. I found numerous other equally reliable sources, and none discuss the comment on Kirk's children. I don't doubt he said what you claim in the video, but do we have quality sources discussing it? We shouldn't assign more weight to this than it deserves, and if it isn't discussed independently of Cameron, then the proper weight should be zero; this paragraph is getting pretty long as it is.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The interview itself on CNN is the source (not Cameron himself). If you don't have access to the interview, and other editors do, then removing material derived from that source was inappropriate, especially when you could've made attempts to verify that the material was indeed in it by communicating with other editors. Since CNN reposted portions of the interview on its website, including his comments about his children, then it's reasonable to include that information, regardless of whether other sources did. Nightscream (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Do either of those sources include a reporter (or someone independent of Cameron) discussing his comments on his children, or are they just Cameron talking about it, himself, during an interview? If all we have are Cameron's words out of his own mouth, then Cameron is the source. As I said above, weight is the issue here, not verifiability.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work that way. CNN is the source, and CNN is a reliable secondary source. The source is not "Cameron". Piers Morgan is talking to Cameron in the interview, and asked him about his children. Piers Morgan is independent of Cameron. An example of something for which Cameron is the source would be if Cameron placed the information on his own website, which is not the case here. It is perfectly valid to include the material in the passage, as doing so does not violate anything in WP:WEIGHT. Nightscream (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really. We're talking about an interview in which Cameron, himself, said something. What he said received no outside coverage anywhere as far as I can tell. So, why is it pertinent we include this in the article? Independent coverage is important. We're placing a lot of weight on the comment on his children (which has no independent coverage), and no weight on other portions of the event which did receive coverage. That is, indeed, a problem. Since you very recently added this section, and have already received two requests to remove it, I'm going to invoke BRD and tentatively take it out. I'm happy to continue discussing it, and we can take it to RSN for a broader opinion if you'd like. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Needs to be a change to the names of his children. He posted on his facebook that that his daughter "Anha" not Anna turned 19 today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.120.112.114 (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2019

Please Change: As a child actor, Cameron made several other television and film appearances through the 1980s and 1990s, including the films Like Father Like Son (1987) and Listen to Me (1989). In the 2000s, he portrayed Cameron "Buck" Williams in the Left Behind film series and Caleb Holt in the drama film Fireproof (2008). His 2014 film, Saving Christmas, was panned by critics and peaked the IMDb Bottom 100 List within one month of its theatrical release.[3]

To this: Since then, he’s appeared in numerous television and movie productions, including the “Left Behind” series, “Monumental,” and "Fireproof" - the marriage-centered film that became the #1 grossing inspirational movie of 2008. His newest film, "Connect", offers "real help for parenting teens in a social media world." Kirk’s exclusive online community of faith and family is called “The Campfire”. In the fall of 2016 and 2017, he hosted live Fathom theater events called “Revive Us” — a “national family meeting” urging the family of faith to return to the principles that will bring blessing and protection to America. The live events took place in over 750 theaters across the United States and were attended by over 200,000 people. Kirk tours the country speaking live in 30 cities a year as part of the “Living Room Reset" marriage and parenting conference. CAMFAM Studios (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: The writing here is not neutral. CAMFAM Studios, you have a direct conflict of interest as Kirk Cameron is part of your team. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists

@ValarianB: if you maintain that Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists is a defining characteristic of Kirk Cameron, please provide some reliable sources that support this. The word "conspiracy" is not in Cameron's article at all, and none of the sources in Cameron's Covid-19 section, except Cameron himself (rhetorically), use the word conspiracy theory/theorist. Having maskless parties during a pandemic is irresponsible, but not a conspiracy theory. Criticizing lockdowns is not a conspiracy theory. Making hyperbolic statements invoking communism and other boogeymen is not in and of itself a conspiracy theory. Being wrong is not a conspiracy theory. Being anti-government, or conservative, or religious or even perpetuating COVID-19 misinformation is not being a conspiracy theorist. A single quote of "Something doesn't seem quite right about all of this" need not invoke a conspiracy (and using it alone to label Cameron a conspiracy theorist when reliable sources do not is WP:OR plain and simple). I have yet to find any reliable source that calls Cameron anything more than irresponsible. The closest I've found is the New York Daily News reporting Cameron airing his anti-mask views on Newsmax, a network "which has been criticized for pushing baseless conspiracy theories about the 2020 presidential election"[2] (guilt by association at best, and not about COVID-19), and The Hollywood Reporter mentioning one of Cameron's maskless rallies as well as a different anti-mask rally organized by a different person pushing conspiracies of Bill Gates and global cabals.[3]. Lastly, WP:RECENTISM and disproportionate coverage is on display here, when events from the past year take up as much article space as his 2000-2010 career. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The content of Kirk_Cameron#COVID-19_views is all that is needed. "Perpetuating COVID-19 misinformation" is the textbook definition of a conspiracy theorist. ValarianB (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find that logic utterly ridiculous. Misinformation is not the same as conspiracy theory, although they may overlap. The amount of text recently added does not make something defining, nor even relevant, it often means editors are not writing with a broad, longterm perspective. And you have yet to make the case that Cameron is commonly and consistently referred to as a COVID conspiracy theorist, or even COVID misinformation monger, per WP:DEFINING. For the record, I do not support Cameron's COVID-related views, but can spot recentism and flimsy logic from a mile away. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

"'Perpetuating COVID-19 misinformation' is the textbook definition of a conspiracy theorist."

Um, no it isn't. One who perpetuates a conspiracy theory — in particular one not supported by evidence that survives the scrutiny of scientific skepticism and critical thinking — is the definition of a conspiracy theorist. "Misinformation" and "conspiracy theory" are not synonyms, although the former does sometime take the form of the latter. Nightscream (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)