Talk:Andrew Wilson (academic)

Undeletion

This article was originally speedied under ASD7, nn bio. But the version that was speedied was this one, which you'll note has absolutely nothing to do with the actual/original article; thus I've undeleted it. --maru (talk) contribs 19:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Source for blockquote

The blockquote in the article is referenced to Wilson's sermon entitled, "Parentism and World Peace", but the link provided leads to a page telling the user to "Please type your ID." However, searching on the Website I found a link to the sermon here, but the passage quoted in the article is not to be found in that text. Perhaps the quote is from a different sermon? Does anyone know which one? MishaPan (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved the quotation here:

From a Jewish background himself, Dr. Wilson comments on the accusation that the Unification Church blames Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus:

Jesus understood that the reason why Jews were ignorant of him was not due to any fault of their own, but because certain leaders, like John the Baptist, had misled their people. Jesus also understood that the people who crucified him were not the leading rabbis of his day, but rather leaders of questionable worth, people like Caiaphas who were simply Roman puppets. These leaders held high office, but they didn’t at all represent the religious spirit of mainstream Judaism.

(link not working at the moment)

Perhaps this would be appropriate for Unification Church and anti-Semitism, but here it seems merely to be a coatrack. -Exucmember (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

References

Unsourced sniping

To new editor Shunam:

1. Sources must be reliable (not a forum entry).

2. In World Scripture, Wilson wrote an introduction to the volume, to each of 5 parts, to each of 21 chapters, and to each of about a half-dozen or so sections within each chapter. Taken together, this is of book length, and is all original work.

3. Many academic books have been printed by Edwin Mellon Press. It is not a valuable addition to an encyclopedia article to complain about the publisher unless this was thought to be significant in a published reliable source; even then it would be highly debatable. -Exucmember (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I was rude. I should have spelled out my reasoning here, but didn't take the time to do so previously. -Exucmember (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Response

Apology accepted. Re World Scriptures, the introduction and sections represent editorial type work, not original scholarship. Any competent academic recognizes what qualifies as original scholarship, and what is a useful compilation of primary sources with editorial classification and annotations. Regarding the reputation of Edwin Mellon, that is a given within the academic community and so it does not matter if you tolerate reference to this in the article or not. I do not think there is much to debate here.Shunam (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Quotes from publishers/bookstores

This topic has already been addressed, without consensus, by RS/N: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_5#Publisher.27s_.22blurb.22_quotes_and_Bat_Ye.27or. Absent specific allegations that the booksellers in question are fabricating quotes, I am removing the reliability tags. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's get a few things straight:

1. That thread covered publishers blurbs not bookstores, let alone second-hand bookstores, let alone (wait for it) a search engine (Alibris) of second hand bookstore listings (who's have thunk it).
2. Comments given on that page were:
   • "I see no problems in quoting from backmatter or dust-jacket flaps, if properly attributed" (to the book blurb) -- this quote wasn't
   • "Not all blurbs are created equally -- I suggest considering them on a case-by-case basis and using common sense."
   • "Another problem with using blurbs is that your source then typically consist of a single, or a few, sentence(s). I believe blurbs should genereally not be used as sources since they are either: (i) taken from a larger piece of work that can be sourced, even if finding that work is difficult, (ii) only consist of a few sentences and can hence be considered as random statements"
3. A consensus existed -- it was that publishers blurbs need to be used with considerable care and particularly with careful attribution.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Does "Monsignor Antonio Silvestri, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, The Vatican" exist?

A Google search for Antonio-Silvestri "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" only turns up hits on this quote in related sites.

Jclemens reverted the tag on this quote with "google ("Antonio Silvestri" vatican) and you'll see multiple pages in italian." However, other than the above hits, this appears to just turn up coincidental juxtaposition of mention of an "Antonio Silvestri" (generally as part of a link to a Youtube video featuring a musician of that name) and the vatican on the same page. I am therefore removing this quote until it can be verified.

My final message to Jclemens is this:
Cite sources not search engines!

WP:RS's title is not "Reliable Search-engines." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Trivia to WP:COATRACK sources to present the topic as more notable than it is.

The footnote "The online version of World Scripture is frequently referenced by collegiate (see, e.g., Southwestern University, Howard University, Austin Community College, among others) and independent websites." was originally used to synthesise "a major work in the field of comparative religion".

When I tagged it, the same footnote miraculously reappeared to substantiate the utterly trivial point that "The complete text of the printed book is available" online. Given that a link to an online copy is already prominently displayed in the ELs, this point does not need to be made in the article body at all, let alone provided with two sources.

This is not good faith editing, it is WP:COATRACKing sources that do not amount (individually or collectively) to "significant coverage" for the sole purpose of attempting to bolster a superficial impression of notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring to remove evidence of notability is hardly good faith editing, either. Jclemens (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a blatantly false accusation! None of the citations for this removed piece of trivia give "evidence of notability" as they do not give "significant coverage" to either Wilson or his book -- they merely mention that an online copy of this book exists. Guess what -- we already know this from the fact that a link to it is in the external links section! The statement is completely and utterly superfluous and the references supporting this doubly so -- which given that one of these references predates' this superfluous statement leads to the obvious conclusion that the statement only exists to coatrack references. This is nothing less than an attempt to WP:GAME the AfD by making the article look more solid than it is. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I removed some of the stuff that isn't about the person but is just promotion for his book. If you think this stuff should be there please explain why. If more than half of the article is about the book (which is how it was before I edited it) then the article should be about the book, not the person. There are certainly stiff enough references left in the article to establish the notability of the book. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've replied in the AfD. Certain editors do not share your opinion that the book's notability is established, hence the disproportionate size of that portion of the article. If the article doesn't have the material, it's accused of being non-notable. If it does, it's accused of being a coatrack. If we want to split out World Scripture into its own article after this AfD is closed, I'm fine with that. For now, let's leave it in, please? Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If the notability of the book is in doubt then the text I removed, such as the quotes from the book's foreword, won't help (forewords are not known for their neutrality). If you have things that don't belong in the article but help to establish it's notability I suggest adding them to the talk page. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You not only removed the forward, but also the dust jacked quotes--from non-UC affiliated professionals, evidence of university libraries linking to the online version, professional citations of the work, and reviews published in reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens' magical footnote sighted again

In its third incarnation Jclemens' footnote now has been applied to the statement "The book is used by universities" -- another blatant piece of WP:SYNTH. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

So rephrase it--"linked to by university library websites" would be a longer, but more accurate way to put it. I don't want to be accused of "coatracking" the point again, though--is it OK to expand the point by net three words to increase accuracy? If so... be my guest to be as WP:BOLD at fixing it as you are at deleting material you requested of me. Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

More accurate, but also thoroughly un-noteworthy. What other academics' articles need to pad their thin material with such trivia? The problem is that you simply want to shoehorn this footnote into the article, when it doesn't actually legitimately substantiate any point of any substance. So this leaves you caught between WP:SYNTH & WP:NOT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to Exucmember

In a recent edit summary, Exucmember states "trying to accommodate Hrafn's criticism of "used by universities" even though he didn't suggest an alternative".

As I already stated above in my response to Jclemens, the only use for this wandering footnote is to make either:

1. a WP:SYNTH exaggeration (as has been done twice) or
2. a completely trivial point (as now has also been done twice).

There is no alternative that has a legitimate place in an encyclopaedic article. These marginal sources quite simply do not verify any substantive point. Which is why I think it absurd that you and Jclemens are so desperate to find something to say that you can source to it. It is highly indicative of the slim pickings, in terms of source material, that this topic suffers from -- a paucity that WP:NOTE is, in part, there to prevent (by ensuring that only articles with less skeletal sourcing survive). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Questionable edits

Hrafn has made at least one requestfor improvement in this article, which caused me to add material in response. He then later removed the exact content he requested. Jclemens (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Seminary reference

Exucmember and Jclemens agree that the seminary's importance and accreditation status is worthwhile for inclusion in the article, since it speaks to the man's professional accomplishments; it distinguishes his post from similar posts at a plethora of non-accredited seminaries that exist in less established religious movements. Hrafn disagrees. Until consensus changes, it stays in. Jclemens (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I would suggest merging this article with Unification Theological Seminary as the majority of the lead is about the UTS and not Wilson. This is pure WP:COATRACK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm calling your bluff. Change your vote from delete to merge on the AfD page. Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What bluff? "Delete" is still my preferred position, with merge a fallback. The fact remains that this is an appallingly badly written lead. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Bluff called. The only "merge" on the AfD page, as of the time I'm writing this response, isn't yours. You've let another opportunity to demonstrate good faith, by posting on the AfD page what you stated above, slip by. Out of curiosity... why? Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Two things should be accomplished in mentioning the seminary. [1] That it is the main seminary worldwide, not just in the U.S. (as some readers may assume because the church originated in Korea and is much larger in Japan and Korea). At present this requires one extra word. [2] As Jclemens mentioned, the reader should know that this school is more substantial than an unaccredited seminary or diploma mill, especially in light of the Unification Church's reputation as a bizarre cult. At present this requires five extra words including "a". Calling this WP:COATRACK is simply untenable. -Exucmember (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No. This article is NOT about the seminary, it is about Wilson. Therefore that the lead says more about the seminary than it does about Wilson can only mean one of two things: (i) that Wilson has no notability independent of the seminary, and should be merged with that article (per my only-half-in-jest recommendation above) or (ii) that the lead has been grossly miswritten. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Disguised as references

I removed (again) promotional material which was pretending to be references. Apart from the fact that references are for references, not for hiding puffery, the quotes were extremely bad quality. Quotes from a book's forewords and from the publisher's promotional material do not establish notability (since they will specifically try to make an unimportant book sounds important). DJ Clayworth (talk)

actual biographical material

For everyone who is trying to keep this article in Wikipedia can I suggest that instead of adding quotes from biased people about his book, you actually go and find some real biographical information - where and when he was born would be a good start, and where he got his qualifications from. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've tried. This is complicated by the fact that there exist MANY Andrew Wilsons, including multiple clergy. Ideas and suggestions for additional resources are always welcome. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that this guy is no more notable than other clergy with the same name? If he's that well known then you would think he had more coverage. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there are several factors at work here:

1. Wilson is an incredibly common surname. I'm related to a few by marriage, as a matter of fact.
2. Much of Wilson's career, and the heyday of press interest in the Unification Church, predate the Internet. Rodney Stark studied them in 1971; their presence in America is roughly as old as I am.
3. There are multiple Andrew Wilsons--Wikipedia lists 10, 2 of whom are redlinked from Andrew Wilson and were presumably deleted as non-notable. The Andrew Wilson who was explicitly mentioned in the DAB as not being THIS Andrew Wilson seems to have roughly the same coverage in Google. That doesn't mean that either one is or is not notable, merely that one must include limiting search terms with "Andrew Wilson" (such as "unification" or "world scripture") to limit ghits to probably relevant stuff. There's no question in my mind that the process also eliminates valid hits for THIS Andrew Wilson.

Thus, I think the process to elicit reliable, independent sources is harder, rather than hopeless. Were this fellow named "Wilbeforce Whiddlesnork", the process of discovering all possible sources and making a final assessment of notability would be quite a bit simpler. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-independent, POV sources

Now that we've at least semi-established Wilson's external notability through independent reliable sources, it is probably time to flesh out the biographical and professional material through UC-affiliated sources. To date, here's the number of hits I'm finding in Google using the search string ("andrew wilson" site:x.y) where x.y:

uts.edu 420

tparents.org 392

unification-thought.org 4

unification.net 25

What other sources from within the UC would be good to look for? Are there any anti-UC POV sources which will help provide a counterpoint view of Wilson? Exucmember, do you know? Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

More references to THIS Andrew Wilson

To be added to the article as needed--appear redundant with existing references.

• Church on the Hill Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Peterson's on UTS, lists him as dean Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
• Reference to AW elsewhere (non-UC?) questionable reliability.
• same site
• Wilson is quoted "Excerpted from N. F. Gier, Theology Bluebook, 3rd edition, 1994."
• AW giving matchmaking advice--UC source.
• AW-authored "paper" promoting WS.
• AW quoted by an Australian (fringe?) group
• review Wilson wrote.
• WS recommended among many other books
• referenced to WS on being born again
• WS catalogue entry, references Wilson born 1950. Oregon pub library--circulating book.
• WS referenced in Jain Digest
• PROquest mention of sale of Paragon house--claims WS went through same editorial process everything else did
• POV letter to the editor of BusinessWorld defending 'Moonies' citing WS as a contribution Jclemens (talk) 06:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The bulk of these appear to be not-independent (and often primary) sources, trivial mentions and/or unreliable sources. None of these categories contributes to the notability of a topic. The last category is impermissible, the first should be used with care (per WP:PSTS & template:primarysources). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The only one I've used something from yet is the Corvalis, Oregon library, which lists his DOB as 1950 in their online card catalog. Also, I'm not particularly worried about notability per se--I'm more interested in painting a more complete picture of Wilson. If these don't do it, they may lead to things elsewhere that do.

• The N. F. Gier reference intrigues me--it may well be a legitimate citation. I've not yet investigated it, though.
• The Petersons' one is clearly RS, but says nothing that isn't already supported elsewhere. We can swap out UTS's website for its regurgutation of the same data, if anyone deems that necessary.
• The Paragon House one is interesting, but more applicable to the article on UC-owned businesses. It could be used to illustrate the controvesy around WS, if needed, but Wilson's article has plenty of that already, n'est-ce pas?

Beyond these, the utility of the others is uncertain--many are SPS, but I've tried to find independent SPS's--there are plenty more non-indie SPSs whose utility is almost zero. Jclemens (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Introvigne quoting Wilson Might be good to get a copy of that book and see what all it says--Amazon does not have the text searchable. Jclemens (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• an interesting link describing Wilson as the author of an op-ed piece in the Washington Times. Wilson lists this on his CV: "“WAGING PEACE WITH ISLAM,” THE WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 4, 2001." I have no online access to this text.

Book Reviews of World Scripture

These are reviews Wilson lists on his CV. As expected, most of them are 15+ years old, and it's going to be a pain to get copies of most of them, hence my question: of these book reviews, which ones are likely to be the most valuable? That is, if there's a good reason to impeach a source, I don't want to go through the hassle of acquiring copies of these.

• GÜNTER RIßE, REVIEW OF WORLD SCRIPTURE: A COMPARATIVE ANTHOLOGY OF SACRED TEXTS, EDITED BY ANDREW WILSON. A PROJECT OF THE INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FOUNDATION. THEOLOGISCHE REVUE 89/5 (1993): 416.

• This one appears confirmed here. Still don't see the text online.

• It's apparently the journal of the Catholic Theological Faculty of the University of Muenster (which should make it definitely RS, if not particularly prominent). You should keep an eye out for an alternate spelling of the author as "Risse" ("ß"="ss" in German). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• WILLIAM CURTIS. REVIEW OF WORLD SCRIPTURE: A COMPARATIVE ANTHOLOGY OF SACRED TEXTS, EDITED BY ANDREW WILSON. A PROJECT OF THE INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FOUNDATION. SCIENCE OF MIND (JUNE 1992): 106-7.

• Science of Mind magazine is the magazine of the Science of Mind New Thought denomination. It's contents are inspirational rather than scholarly & it would not be considered a RS on comparative religion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• MILLARD NACHTWEY. REVIEW OF WORLD SCRIPTURE: A COMPARATIVE ANTHOLOGY OF SACRED TEXTS, EDITED BY ANDREW WILSON. A PROJECT OF THE INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FOUNDATION. SPIRITUAL FRONTIERS 24/4 (FALL 1992): 193-94.

• Spiritual Frontiers is the journal of the Spiritual Frontiers Fellowship. Again, no indication that it'd be RS (and I rather suspect that it wouldn't).

• JOHN KELSAY. “TOWARD A WORLD THEOLOGY.” REVIEW OF WORLD SCRIPTURE: A COMPARATIVE ANTHOLOGY OF SACRED TEXTS, EDITED BY ANDREW WILSON. A PROJECT OF THE INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FOUNDATION. WORLD & I 7/2 (FEBRUARY 1992): 412-23.

• World & I redirects to the UC's News World Communications -- so I would suspect that this review would not be regarded as independent. Pre-redirect it is described as "a monthly educational magazine affiliated with The Washington Times. It was created in response to Rev. Moon's vision in 1986" and was later moved to being purely-online.[1] It might prove reliable (beyond the independence issue), but would need to be run by RS/N to check first. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• MOTILAL JOTWANI. “MANY ROADS, SAME GOAL.” REVIEW OF WORLD SCRIPTURE: A COMPARATIVE ANTHOLOGY OF SACRED TEXTS, EDITED BY ANDREW WILSON. A PROJECT OF THE INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FOUNDATION. SUNDAY HERALD (NEW DELHI), JULY 19, 1992, P. 3.

• There is no Sunday Herald from New Delhi listed in Sunday Herald (disambiguation) or List of newspapers in India (even as a redlink), so it is likely to be sufficiently small & obscure a newspaper that verifiability would be difficult & reliability questionable. The occasional Google hit references it, but nothing more substantial. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Concise list of arguments for the longer/complete version

1. Removal during an AfD presumes that the closing admins are incapable of differentiating between legitimate and illegitimate material. Thus, if it's left in and trash, no harm no foul, since the article will be deleted in short order in any event.
2. Arguments that inclusion is attempting to WP:GAME the AfD are inherently flawed. One CANNOT be guilty of gaming an AfD by adding valid material; adding material designed to improve an article is the expected and proper channel for editors arguing that an article should be kept.
3. Arguments that it is "spam" are spurious. WP:SPAM speaks to people who are trying to sell stuff using Wikipedia. In fact, the full version of the article quite prominently links to the online (free) version, while the shorter version does not.
4. Arguments that it constitutes a WP:COATRACK are spurious. The editors supporting inclusion contend that the material supports the WP:ACADEMIC criteria by demonstrating that World Scripture is a major work in its field.
5. At least one editor who has removed the material had tagged the article previously requesting part of it be added--See Questionable edits above. This same editor has expressed what I have interepreted as biased, anti-UC sentiments in the AfD.
6. Multiple editors arguing for deletion have expressed incompatible requests for correction--if the material is left in the article, it is criticized as too long and unweildy. If it is moved into footnotes, it is criticized as "promotional material masquerading as references."

For all these reasons, I argue that the long version of the article is the one which should be considered by the closing admin. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith accusations by Jclemens

1. This is a bad faith repetition of a spurious argument already demolished on the AfD: "No. What I am saying is that commenting editors will generally not track down every citation, so will tend to voice an opinion on the number of citations, and thus might be misled by the insertion of a large number of spurious or tangential citations. The closing admins role is to determine what the consensus of the discussion was, not to impose their own opinion on notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)"
2. This is not "valid material" -- as your magical reappearing reference demonstrates. 1 reference, 4 different statements attempted to be cited to it -- 2 blatant WP:SYNTH, 2 (including the current) WP:NOT-noteworthy trivia.
3. Citation of WP:SPAM is tendentious. The single reference to "spam" made to date in this article was not made in a narrow reference to this formal policy, but a more generalised characterisation to the loading up of this article with low-quality references to promotional material.
4. WP:COATRACK is spot-on:
   • The lead says more about the UTS than it does about the purported subject of this article.
   • The article body is little more than a superficial recitation of praise for one book.
   • This is not currently an article on Andrew Wilson. It is also nothing even close to resembling an article of encyclopedic quality, or of any actual informational value. It is a puff piece.
5. No Jclemens what happened was this: after you WP:EDITWARed against DJ Clayworth, to restore this mess of a WP:COATRACK, I reverted you back to Clayworth's version. Only a small piece was on these reviews, and the material you gave on these reviews was in any case more superficial puffery: "will help librarians provide quick answers to many questions", "are appropriate for both academic- and public-library collections.", "useful in classrooms, when composing sermons, comparing beliefs on many topics, and in the individual study of comparative religions", "Although published in 1991, it is a timeless compendium of quotations from the most beloved holy words of the world's religions. I recommend it to you." This is hardly insightful analysis of the book.
6. This article is currently a superficial, poorly-sourced, puffery-ridden, off-topic mess. It is hardly surprising then that criticising editors occasionally trip themselves up in attempting to describe and/or correct its myriad deficiencies.

• Reply to 1: It would indeed be bad faith for me to repeat it if I'd ever said I agreed with your explanation. I did not and do not.
• Reply to 3: So what other arguments cited by the deletion advocates don't really mean what they seem to mean? To the extent that particular arguments aren't relevant and are retracted by those advocating deletion, my arguments are obviously moot. Just let me know which ones don't apply.
• Reply to 4: Allow me to quote WP:COATRACK in rebuttal: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats"." Wilson's Magnum Opus is not a "tangentially related bias subject." While good editors may disagree on what constitutes appropriate coverage for Wilson's works in his articles, WP:COATRACK does not apply.
• Reply to 6: Then please--leave it alone, let those of us who want it kept work on this article you deride so much do so without interference, until such time as the AfD is closed. That is really all that either Exucmember or I has ever requested. Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As to your conclusion, as you obviously WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT what I said on the AfD, I will repeat it again:
The closing admins role is to determine what the consensus of the discussion was, not to impose their own opinion on notability.

Actually, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)" See Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators. So yes, admins are indeed supposed to look at the notability of sources, among other factors. Forgive me for relying on the policies and guidelines rather than your interpretations. Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you are not "relying on the policies and guidelines" but upon your own "interpretations". The guideline in question explicitly discussed "determining a 'rough consensus'" (which is exactly what I was talking about) and says nothing whatsoever about making an independent determination on the "notability of sources". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This AfD will almost certainly be closed as 'no consensus, so default to keep', meaning it is not this AfD that you should be concerning yourself with, but the next one that will inevitably occur if the current cruft is not replaced with some solidly-sourced, useful information displaying some genuine depth. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of material about forword and publicitary material from publisher

I have been asked to explain why I deleted material describing praise for Wilson's book. That's pretty simple. Obviously, no sane publisher will include in his promotional material any negative quotes, only positive ones. Hence, at the very least such promotional material (including blurps and whatnot) is not a reliable source, because it is not independent and unbiased. The same goes for the forword to a book. It's the editor (in this case, Wilson), who decides what gets printed in an edited work. Suppose for a moment that someone would be asked to write a forword and would state something like, this is the worst book I've ever seen. Would that get printed? Of course not. Therefore, this is not a reliable and independent source either and such information does not belong in an encyclopedic article. At best such things are misleading, at worst it's simply spam. I had thought that my edit summary was clear enough about this, but apparently not, for which I offer my apologies. --Crusio (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You are certainly correct about the material on a dust jacket pull quote or foreword being favorable; I think we can all agree that such sources (for World Scripture or any other book) are not best viewed as NPOV appraisals of the material. However, I would contend that the variety, credentials, and actual text of those materials speak to a book's reception. Getting the right person to say the right thing about a book can make or break sales--or so say the folks I know who've authored books. To elaborate a bit, variety speaks to the breadth of reception: at least one presumably notable Jew, Muslim, and Roman Catholic endorsed it. The credentials of the folks in question speak to its notability or lack thereof. Obviously, getting John Paul II to endorse the book would have been much better than some (poorly documented, as Hrafn apparently correctly points out) Monsignor in the Vatican. Finally, the actual words used by the endorsers matter--a quote that calls the book "most needed and very beautiful" is much less of a ringing endorsement than it might have been. That is, we must use form and source criticism to fully appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of such quotes. Throwing them out entirely does a disservice.

On a slightly different tack, the revision took out the Booklist and JRPR reviews. Both are clearly RS which substantially mentioned the book. Hrafn asked for substantiation of what they said, and I provided it rather than disagreeing. Again, form and source criticism are instrumental in understanding the specific quotes and their authors in these sources as well. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of the "credentials" of the dust-jacket's quotees -- what are Bruce Schuman's? The only reference to him as a "founder" on the UCoS site I could find did not have him as the founder of the UCoS, but merely of 'Origin Research', the company that created the website for them. Even if he is the "founder of United Communities of Spirit", there seems to be no indication that this is a prominent organisation.

On the subject of reviews, they should only be included if they are very prominent or contain insightful analysis of the subject -- neither bare mention of their existence, nor superficial puffery has any place in an encyclopaedia. The sort of reviews that should be in this article are ones in serious comparative religion journals, that give in-depth, expert analysis of the book's contents and merits -- material that adds to the reader's understanding of the book (and thus its author). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You would be absolutely welcome, encouraged even, to add such. As Exucmember has pointed out, however, the book was published before the Internet Era. I only have access to a few periodical databases, none specialized in this subject area. We are agreed that more comparative religion-specific sources would help improve the article. Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoreview 'bait and switch'

One of the footnotes starts off by stating "World Scripture was reviewed favorably in Booklist" -- but does not actually say anything specific about this book, merely the reviewers' general comments about a list of "12 volumes" that happened to include it. If the reviewers in question cannot be bothered reviewing this book in detail, why are we bothering to include this group pseudoreview? Incidentally, I could not find this 'review' on the online version of Booklist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

further on reviews, could somebody please explain to me why the Journal of Religion & Psychical Research, and its publisher, Academy of Spirituality and Paranormal Studies, Inc. are WP:RS? They look to be decidedly WP:FRINGE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Lester Kurtz is a full professor who lists Gandhi first among his research interests. Ninian Smart is a Gifford Lecturer! Their comments and actions in response to this book are significant, are representative of their relevant academic spheres, and are indicative the book's notability and thus Wilson's. Repeated attempts to remove the references (or now to demean them) are not appropriate. I have refrained from complaining for days, but I have to say that in more than two years of editing on Wikipedia Hrafn is by far the most contentious editor that I have ever encountered (ten times more than anyone else). -Exucmember (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither Lester Kurtz nor Ninian Smart were in fact the the topics of the two posts above -- which were about the Bibel & Clark reviews. Exucmember's comment is therefore a complete non sequitor. I resent his personal attack, but will not respond in kind as to his own shortcomings -- though these can be inferred from my opinion of the abysmally low quality of the article he is determined to foist onto the wikipedia community. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer the questions originally posed. JSTS is indexed in EBSCOHost Academic Search Premier, one of the limited periodical databases I have access to. The link to the record is here, although I don't know if that will help as a non subscriber. Beyond that, I really didn't check the detailed background of the journal. Further, it's possible that Clark herself is a Unificationist. She claims to have a Ph.D., but not in what. Other than appearing as a regular constributor to JSTS, the only other exact match I see on her is for is in a yoga manual.

The booklist review is collected in ProQuest, my other accessible periodical database. The record is here, again of limited use to non-subscribers, I expect. It offers praise for the group of 12 volumes, as quoted, and just comments on the contents of each one. The blurb specifically about each book just talks to the organization and coverage of each work. It doesn't praise or point out weaknesses in any of the works. For World Scripture, it talks about the organization and coverage--about the closest thing to specific praise or criticism of WS it says is "All denominations and sects within these religions are represented", which is clearly not anything a religious specialist would ever say without substantial qualification.

Hope that helps. Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

A further look into the JSTS reveals that its subject matter is decidedly WP:FRINGE, with articles on "Are Organ Transplants Metaphysically Contraindicated", "Posthumous Personality, Reincarnation and Liberation", & "Report about the Teleportation of a Living Person" (sample cover can be found here). It is thus not a WP:RS. I propose removing it. If anybody wishes to object, we can take this to WP:RS/N.

Just because it's an offbeat publication doesn't mean it doesn't meet the criteria for an RS. Looking at the purposes of the society, I would expect it to be more able to review a comparative religion text than, say, Nature. Of course, I wouldn't look to them for medical advice. Would you do the honors an open an RS/N question on it? Jclemens (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Done: WP:RS/N#Is Journal of Religion & Psychical Research a RS on comparative religion Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Kindly wait for more people to weigh in before assuming that one deletion advocate plus one other editor equals a global consensus. I'm expecting to find a lasting resolution, rather than a temporary advantage for one side or the other. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that personal attack on Crusio. Can we likewsie refer to you as a "trivial cruft advocate"? We have two opinions on RS/N, both unequivocally against the reliability of this source. That is certainly enough for its interim removal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Crusio, my personal apologies if you were offended by my calling you a "deletion advocate". It was not my intent to be offensive, merely to summarize the positions of those who had weighed in, and point out that no rebuttal had been posted. Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern about the Booklist 'review' is that the information currently given is in no way specific to the book in question -- it is about a homogenised average of the twelve volumes in question -- which is probably why the description is non-specific to the point of uselessness, in terms of giving any impression of this book. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it's useless. It is a generic endorsement of several volumes by librarians, rather than comparative religion specialists. At the very least, it shows notability for the source by a favorable reference--no matter how generic--by the wider academic community. Note specific part of the quote that it was suitable for academic collections. If you want to trim the quote down to that bit, I'd be OK with it. I don't want to give it undue weight, but it does say something meaningful about the book's reception in greater academia. Jclemens (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Mere favourable mention does not establish notability (plus there would be hundreds of thousands of non-notable texts that are "suitable for academic collections"). Please read WP:BK#Criteria for what does. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Read. "The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience." Looking at the definition of [2], there's no question that the Booklist review counts as a source under criterion 1. Of course, the "general audience" criteria would presumably exclude the JSTS reference--I think we're agreed it's not a work serving a general audience. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"non-trivial" -- and you have presented us nothing but trivial mentions. Comments about a list of "12 volumes" that includes this book -- trivial. Mention of an online version of it in an article -- trivial. Inclusion in a few (very long) lists of resources by libraries -- trivial. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about the triviality, else I wouldn't have placed and advocated retaining those references. It's pretty clear we don't see eye to eye on this. How do you propose we constructively move forward? Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Given your repeated introduction of blatant synthesis, inability to tell the difference between 'creating' an organisation's website and 'founding' the web-creation company that did so and 'creationg'/'founding' the organisation itself, and a mile of other errors, you will perhaps forgive me if I do not value your judgement, and thus your disagreement and advocacy too highly. The only legitimate way forward is to remove all the trivia (per WP:NOT) synthesis (per WP:OR) and unverifiable claims (WP:V). Given you have repeatedly opposed all such efforts, I do not see that you are making any constructive contribution to this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't like my contributions, although I disagree with your assessment of them. Please, show me up me by demonstrating better additions to the article than I have made. I'm simply trying to improve the article, not advocate for or against the UTS or Wilson. Jclemens (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename to book?

One of the suggestions of the AfD closing admin is that the article be renamed from Andrew Wilson (theologian) to World Scripture. Based on the difficulty gaining good BIO data on Wilson--e.g., none of us have even been able to establish (let alone reliably) his date of birth--I'm not opposed to that topic--provided we can keep what bio data on Wilson we DO have in an "about the author" section. Can we get a !vote--rename, keep as named, or neutral. I'll start off by voting Neutral. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As this article is currently (mis)written, it should be renamed "Trivial praise of a book that Andrew Wilson wrote". It contains absolutely NOTHING substantive. I do not see any indication that an encyclopedic article is achievable, under any title. My vote is therefore "neutral" (as "delete this steaming pile of faeces" is off the table until the next AfD). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Since you're committed to the deletion of this article rather than its improvement, would you be willing to walk away from it for a while and let those of us who are working on it refine it? You may return in, say, a month, and be pleasantly surprised. If you don't feel like doing that, I'd really appreciate either a more collaborative and less confrontational tone, or that you take the recent AfD Keep decision to WP:DRV. Deletion Review is a valid process for deletion decisions that editors believe to have been made improperly, whatever the outcome, and is certainly open to you. Jclemens (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Puffery

The amount of promotion for this book in the article is ridiculous and must be cut back. Quoting publishers promotional literature is absurdly non-neutral and amounts to promotion, which will get you banned from Wikipedia if done frequently. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

How about we delete the dust jacket quotes and summarize them with the names and positions of the reviewers? My contention is that the primary notability support these provide is the diversity of religious traditions endorsing the article. I'd rather bring back the Catholic Monsignor in the process, if you're agreeable to that. Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens: dust jacket endorsements DO NOT establish notability!.

• Per WP:NOTE, they are neither "significant coverage nor "independent of the subject"
• Per WP:BK they are neither:
  1. "non-trivial" nor "published works whose sources are independent of the book itself"
  2. "a major literary award"
  3. adaptation into "a motion picture"
  4. indication that the book is "the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country"
  5. indication that Wilson is so "historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable".

This is how you demonstrate notability -- NOT 'I can find a few people who briefly say something flattering, a couple of whom are even notable (but some of whom I can't even demonstrate prominence, or in one case even existence)'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And no, you cannot bring back your "Catholic Monsignor" as:

1. We can find no independent evidence of his existence.
2. This difficulty would indicate that, even if he does exist, he is not even remotely a prominent source.
3. WP:REDFLAG would apply -- as it would be out of character for one of the guardians of the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church (which doesn't even acknowledge mainline protestant churches as true churches), to acknowledge the work of a theologian of a church that is well outside the mainstream.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you appear to be working under the assumption that the notability of Andrew Wilson is still in question, and that these quotes support it. Per my reading of the AfD closing admin's notes, I was wrong on the second point. Keeper76 pointed out that they needed to be cleaned up: "Mr. Wilson's credentials, (Harvard), his academic position (academic dean of a prominent (within its field) seminary), his writing of a widely (again, within his field) book, the availability of reviews for said book, all add up to notability of subject. I agree in part with those advocating deletion that this biography is skewed towards being too coatrack-y, however, and want to urge all editors to not let the focus of the article be simply the book he wrote. The article definitely needs more citations specifically that talk (independently and reliably) about Mr. Wilson instead of "Mr. Wilson wrote a notable book"." Thus, our marching orders are to improve the article by adding biographical information about Wilson himself. I have not contested the removal of the dust jacket contents and other such non-review endorsements, but believe they should be referenced in footnotes. Not for notability, but to document the book's reception. Jclemens (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Dust jacket notes are not even relevant to indicate the book's reception. This may come as something of a shock to you, but publishers are often selective in what they put on dust jackets; they also do deals with authors along the lines of "you write something nice about this author's book and I'll get him to write something nice about yours". Dust jacket quotes are not relevant to anything. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely this ground must have been covered elsewhere on Wikipedia previously. The one RS/N discussion about it that I found was far from as unequivocal as the position you just stated. I've looked for a blanked condemnation of them, but haven't found one. Do you have a better cite to a policy or discussion where wikipedia consensus was reached that supports your conclusion? Find it for me and I'll be happy to abandon them, since, as established above, the book was deemed sufficiently notable without them. Jclemens (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"My contention is that the primary notability support these provide..." Jclemens

I'm sorry but you raised the issue of notability -- by stating "My contention is that the primary notability support these provide"'. If you did not want these dustcover endorsements discussed in the context of notability then you should not have said "My contention is that the primary notability support these provide"'. As you did say it, you can hardly throw a wobbly when these endorsements are discussed in the context of how they "support notability".

As to the closing admin's comments:

1. "Mr. Wilson's credentials, (Harvard)" -- adds little to notability -- while a prominent institution, thousands attend it who do not go on to achieve any prominence
2. "his academic position (academic dean of a prominent (within its field) seminary)" -- being a big fish in a small pond does not add much notability. I am amused that this 'foremost' 'Unification theologian' is not mentioned even once in Unification theology -- shows his impact in his field.
3. "his writing of a widely (again, within his field) book, the availability of reviews for said book" -- as I have just been demonstrating, here & on WP:RS/N, there are no reviews on this book specifically, that are (i) RS, (ii) independent of the book itself. I am amused that he could not find a verb to go with the adverb "widely" -- widely what? It would seem he had difficulty thinking what it was "widely...".

I did not agree with his closing explanation, but did not see the difference between a weakly-justified 'keep' & a 'no consensus so keep' worth raising a 'Deletion Review' over. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As to the "one RS/N discussion about it" -- that was on reliability not notability. Dustcover endorsements are never "independent" and so never add to notability. The RS/N thread also seemed to reach a consensus that these endorsements were a marginal source that needed to be handled carefully, and particularly with careful attribution (which closely resembles the approach mandated in WP:NPOV#Attributing and substantiating biased statements -- which may also apply). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well, I misspoke, then. Sorry about that, but I've been defending notability for such a long time, it must have simply slipped out. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Jewish-Christian reconciliation

I have yet to see any indication that Wilson has made a substantive contribution to Jewish-Christian reconciliation. Here it mentions that he has participated in the UC's Middle East Peace Initiative (MEPI), a largely symbolic/nominal initiative by the UC that seems to involve mostly UC ceremonies/marches/'declarations' with no official Jewish/(non-UC) Chrsitian/Muslim participation, and no apparent impact (either on the ground or even in third party press). "Has participated in the Unification Church's Middle East Peace Initiative" is about the most that can be said about it, without breaching WP:V (and making a complete mockery of WP:UNDUE). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at his writings, it seems to be a serious concern of his. That should be the test for WP:UNDUE--not whether he's been effective, but whether that's a substantial area of his interest. This article USED to be Andrew Wilson (scholar), but is not called that presently, so the scope and breadth of his religious thought is more important than his actual effectiveness as a peacemaker. The effectiveness of MEPI would be a great topic to cover in its own Wikipedia article--I don't think we should coatrack it here. Jclemens (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Then state that it is a serious concern of his, using his own words where possible (to avoid WP:SYNTH). But do not state that he is actually doing something about it without verifiable facts to back it up. This was my point on MEPI -- none of its 'reconciliation' activities are verifiable. It is little more than a press release & a website. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at that sentence again and see if the additional references have improved it. From my reading of his writings, it seems to imply that Wilson himself was originally Jewish, but I can't find that documented. I'm not attached to the word "focus", and am quite open to a rephrasing that accurately characterizes the proportion of his writings (see the additions to that footnote) as "emphasizing" or "desiring" or "explaining the theological need for" Jewish-Christian reconciliation. I agree that I have not seen anything, especially independent sources, which describe his work in that area as productive or successful. Jclemens (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Why was it changed from Andrew Wilson (scholar) to Andrew Wilson (theologian)? Surely not just to say he's not a notable theologian - that would be gaming the system and WP:POINT. I can tell you WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But the article wasn't deleted, so stick around and improve it, okay? Anyway, I added a photo I took of him. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Ed, and thanks for adding the picture! Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

He was moved (over two years ago) because at the time "Nothing in the article indicate[d] he is known for anything else"[2] (other than as a theologian). Whether he is a "notable theologian" is a question that has been tap-danced around, but then again no solid evidence has been provided that he is "notable" for anything else, and the claim that he is notable for having written a notable book is looking increasingly flimsy due to the fact that no WP:RS & non-trivial (i.e. that give the book specific treatment, rather than dealing with it as a package of books/websites) review of it has been unearthed to date. Your accusation that this ancient change was in some way "gaming the system and WP:POINT" is gross violation of WP:AGF -- as well as absolutely absurd (both due to the time lapse, and the fact that the moving editor took no part in the AfD). As to 'improving' the article, there is simply "a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject" (per WP:ACADEMIC), making it largely unimprovable, which is why it is wallowing in trivia. The only viable 'improvement' is to minimise this trivia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

... or to add more sources. Hrafn, can you take a look at the book reviews cited under "Book Reviews of World Scripture" above, and let me know which ones, if any, you believe would be non-independent and/or non-reliable? Thanks. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

The Harvard Crimson cite is relevant to establishing the date of his MTS. His resume lists an MTS, which is only granted by Harvard Divinity School, and the Ph.D. is not. The Crimson says... "Wilson, who graduated from the Divinity School last spring,"--that can only be his MTS, since the Divinity School neither offers undergraduate degrees nor doctorates of philosophy. I explained this in the reference, but removed the explanation when Hrafn tagged it as "improper synthesis." A timeline of BA '71, MTS '80, and Ph.D. '85 is consistent with all the sources, but no sources I've found to date reliably establish the dating of the last two. "last spring" in a 10-80 article and the publication of his Ph.D. thesis in 1985 are as close as I've been able to come so far. Jclemens (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH: neither source states that he "obtained an M.T.S from Harvard Divinity School (in 1979 or '80)". Therefore this is not permissible. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH prohibits synthesis "which advances a position" To the extent that trying to establish dates is actually advancing a position, you might be correct. Since I do not believe that it does, I am removing your tag. If you'd like to seek a 3rd opinion on this matter, feel free to do so, and I will abide by the results. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. Turns out from a copy of Wilson's CV that the Crimson got the dates wrong anyways, so I'm not going to argue a point on principle that arrives at a false answer. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens makes it up -- again

Jclemens: please point to where in the article 'Tikkun Olam’ in Jerusalem it states that "Wilson holds speaking and leadership roles in the Unification Church's Middle East Peace Initiative, with a focus on Jewish-Christian reconciliation." Because as far as I can see, you're just making this up.

The article says nothing whatsoever about Wilson's own activities -- it is his description of a march & ceremony put together by the UC (without, as far as I can see, any participation by legitimate representatives of any other religion).

Read WP:V
Read WP:NOR
Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Documentation provided, courtesy of quick Googling. It would probably be less effort to use Google yourself and add to the article personally, rather than tagging and waiting for me to get around to it.

If you'll recall, you've accused me of adding too much information to certain parts of the article, so I'll just keep adding references as you tag sentences. Nothing that I put into the article will be OR, because I know nothing about Wilson save what I read. Please WP:AGF while you continue poking at it, however. I'm glad for your continued challenges, in that I see them making the outcome of a DRV or future AfD more certain, but I would appreciate a more collegial tone. We disagree, but please don't take it personally. Jclemens (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens, you have engaged in:

1. Repeated poorly sources edits;
   • More specifically repeated poorly-sourced edits on this point
   • When pulled up on this, you replied with a very snarky edit summary: "So don't call it a conference--it's a speech, or a sermon if you prefer. Want more cited to establish the number? tparents has plenty--add one you like."
   • Overall, this gives the impression that you think that WP:PROVEIT only applies to other people
2. Repeated accusations of bad faith. Your first response to me on the AfD here didn't assume much good faith, and you've gone down hill since. You have levelled repeated accusations of bad faith against myself, Crusio and DJ Clayworth.

In summary, your behaviour has been to throw any old thing into the article (that Keeper76, is why I have described this article as "steaming pile of faeces" -- it has been a ubiquitous stream of misrepresented, poor and/or marginal sources) and throw accusations at anybody and everybody who opposes you in this. This is not good faith editing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't like my style. I disagree with your assessment of it, and I've sought outside opinions on my conduct. I haven't found anyone besides you, including the two authors who you allege I accused of bad faith, agreeing with your representation of my conduct. I think their weighing in on the matter would be more helpful than simply reiterating your complaints. If you'd like to invite an unrelated third party to review both our edits, contributions, and conduct, I would endorse such scrutiny. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I would note that having edit-warred to remove a WP:SYNTH-tag from the MTS dates, you've since had to remove those dates yourself as they proved to be false. This clearly establishes (i) the problems of relying on (in this case fairly loose) SYNTH, and (ii) why I have a problem with your 'fast and loose' editing style. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not edit-warring. I do not agree with your interpretation of SYNTH, and the underlying problem has nothing to do with SYNTH: The Crimson simply got the date of the MTS wrong. Had it included the specific date, it would have been a verified, but incorrect, date. Note that previous versions of this article were even more incorrect when they relied solely on the Crimson, and did not cite Wilson's UTS faculty bio. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is that you synthesised a specific pair of possibly years and a specific degree from the Crimson's very vague mention of a 'degree last spring' and information in his UTS Bio. Neither source mentioned 79/80, neither source mentioned any sort of timeframe for the MTS specifically. Removing WP:SYNTH-tags/re-inserting removed SYNTH text at least three times ([3][4][5]) is not WP:BRD, it is WP:EDITWAR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Your second link there doesn't show the removal of a syn tag at all. I'd appreciate it if you'd correct it or apologize for the error. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The 2nd link was "re-inserting removed SYNTH text" (per above). I'd appreciate it if you'd get your facts straight before demanding apologies. Your repeated inability to get your facts straight throughout this conflict has been a major aggravating factor, and has substantially diminished your credibility. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you meant / to mean or--that wasn't clear from your post. So the whole sequence is that you tagged it, I deleted the tag and affected text once, added similar text back in with a explanation (of why I didn't think it was synthesis) on the talk page, you tagged it a second time, and I removed the tag a second time, and then I removed the disputed text a second time. That's a pretty aggressive view of WP:EDITWAR, and one that doesn't seem supported by the page in question. As a reminder, please WP:AGF. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Relying on Questionable Sources

"Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves, and only if:

1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed;
2. it is not contentious;
3. it is not unduly self-serving;
4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
7. the article is not based primarily on such sources. "

So, assuming for the sake of argument that JRPR and Schuman's org are questionable, they still have a valid place here:

1. Yes, the material (book review and endorsement) is relevant to the notability of the subject (Andrew Wilson and/or World Scripture) in that it demonstrates the breadth of non-UC reception. Even if these reviews were negative, they would serve this purpose.
2. Nothing about either is contentious. Both are favorable book reviews.
3. Nothing about either is self-serving. Neither Clark or Schuman gains any foreseeable benefit from praising Wilson's World Scripture.
4. No claims are made about third parties. Clark writes what Clark thinks, Schuman writes about what Schuman thinks.
5. It does not involve claims about any events whatsoever. The closest they come are that 1) Wilson wrote a book, 2) Schuman or Clark, respectively, read it.
6. No reasonable doubt exists that Schuman controls the Origin.org website. Clark is a repeat contributor to JRPR, so there's no reasonable doubt that she is known to the editors.
7. This article is not based on such sources. In fact, all they are is footnotes documenting reception.

Before I remove the "unreliable source" tags, can anyone refute this logic? Since this is from WP:V, WP:RS can only be an interpretation of it, and cannot be used to trump it. Jclemens (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Asked and answered -- WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

As I have already stated on the RS/N thread, the policy that you are quoting clearly states "questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves" -- and this is not "about themselves", it is about a book written by somebody else, in an article about that somebody else. As you replied to that RS/N comment by stating "We can take this back to the talk page now", you cannot be unaware of it, so I can see no way of reading your claims as being other than tendentious and in bad faith. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Schuman is being used about what Schuman said, Clark in JSTS is being used about what Clark said. Neither are referring to third parties--unless you count the book as a third party. Neither is being used as a source about what Wilson said or did, nor would I propose such, because then your logic would apply. Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This, thoroughly tendentious, interpretation would completely gut the "about themselves" part of that policy. The statements are "about" the book. They are about a third party's book. This is nothing short of an end-run around the consensus on RS/N. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The consensus, and you'll note that I market the issue closed, is that these are questionable sources, and must be used according to the rules for questionable sources, which I quoted above. It's not an end run, it's more pointing out that because what those sources said is so uncontroversial, they don't need to be RS's, which solves things nicely for everyone: no one has to call them reliable, and we can un-template them because there's no dispute whether the sources are questionable--they are. You and I are reading the policy on questionable sources differently, and THAT might be a good topic for a third opinion. Jclemens (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You failed to mark it correctly as closed (just provided a link to the template rather than the template itself), and I've removed that as you have re-opened this issue by this end run. One of the commenters on the thread clearly stated: "Based on the information that I have seen, there is no clear reason to believe that the source in question meets RS standards, which would seem to disqualify it from inclusion for any reason." (my emphasis) This does not seem to offer any sort of support for slipping it in under WP:SELFPUB. None of the other commenters gave any impression that they would support its inclusion under WP:SELFPUB. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. However, since we're agreed those sources do not meet the reliability criteria, RS/N really doesn't have any bearing on it. Not an end run, just the fact that SPS and Questionable Sources aren't within their jurisdiction--the inclusion of those sources is governed by the relevant parts of the policy WP:V rather than the guideline WP:RS. Jclemens (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You are attempting an end run around the RS/N consensus with your ludicrously tendentious interpretation of WP:SELFPUB. As far as I am concerned, this consensus stands, unless and until you can get consensus support for your interpretation from WT:V. As far as I am concerned you are WP:GAMEing the system by seeking repeated appeals on these flimsy sources. Enough is enough. I am deleting these sources until you can establish that they meet WP:V. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The consensus at RS/N is that JSPS is not a reliable source--period. The permissable use of a questionable source within the limited context of this article is something upon which we do not agree. There were never any comments, and hence no consensus, on Schuman. Since the notability of World Scripture is established without either reference, I don't see the need to add them back in immediately. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving Forward

Assuming for the sake of argument that the contested sources remain removed from the article, what is the best way to improve this? Does anyone who participated in the AfD believe that the article, as it stands now, merits deletion? If so, how can it be improved? Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's first survey what we have, to date, in the way of reliable, third party coverage:

• A student newspaper report on his deprogramming, and later protest -- issues only tangentially related to his purported notability as an academic
• An endorsement of a list of 12 volumes that includes his book
• A number of bare mentions of him/his book in passing

Let's next survey what we don't have reliable, third party coverage for:

• his work on Unification theology (most coverage on this subject appears to go directly to the horse's mouth on this -- Moon himself)
• reviews of his book that are either expert, or even specific to the book itself.

This does not come even close to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:NOTE, which WP:ACADEMIC echoes in stating that "a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject" may render a topic not "an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia" (even assuming that Wilson can be considered to meet the criteria set out in that guideline, which is doubtful). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but look how far we've come! Always look on the bright side of life. :-) Jclemens (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite amazing how much unencyclopedic trivia you can accumulate, if you throw WP:NOT out the window. The fact that this tells us virtually nothing about the man or his scholarship is, presumably, beside the point. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Which specific paragraph(s) of WP:NOT do you believe apply to this article in its current state? Not trying to play dumb here, but I don't see that any of them apply, so it's hard to address your concerns--WP:NOT doesn't really cover the failure of WP:N, which is what I understood your complaint all along to be. Jclemens (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#Content: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" -- the collection of information for this article has been entirely indiscriminate, and appears to be an effort to bring together every mention of Wilson or his book, irrespective of the brevity of mention or the obscurity (or even lack of reliability) of the source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This is of course related to WP:N (as is explicitly stated in WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wilson's primary contribution to Unificationism has been the books he wrote and edited, and his academic work at UTS.

• He wrote Communism:Promise and Practice, which compares the policies and goals that Communists said they were planning to achieve with what they actually did (and finds such a great contrast as to call their sincerity into question; it seems they only really care about power and wealth, just like the "capitalists" they overthrew).
• He edited World Scripture (which is his biggest claim to fame).
• He has been for a long time a professor of Old Testament at UTS.
• He has been in recent years Academic Dean of UTS.

Less known is his work on a Unification encyclopedia, a project which stalled in the mid 1990s but was revived in 2005; see New World Encyclopedia.

The other interesting thing about him is that he survived a "deprogramming" and has a (voluntary) arranged marriage with a Chinese woman. He's also short, and looks a bit like Woody Allen (but we can't put in trivia like that! ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

None of these points seem to come close to meeting any of the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria. And to meet it he must have done more than make a "contribution to Unificationism", he must have made a contribution that garnered significant notice from outside Unificationism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it would be better to merge his bio into the Unification Theological Seminary article? A section on faculty and their accomplishments would, perhaps, go down well. Please answer in terms of what you think readers are looking for when the come to Wikipedia to check out what we can tell them about Dr. Wilson. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have no problem with that. Both articles are sufficiently short that a merger would not be problematic (nor even diminish Wilson's prominence of placement by much -- as he'd become the sole non-lead section to date). Additionally, both WP:AFD & the notability template instruct us to contemplate merger before we look at outright deletion. His relevance to that article is fairly obvious, and once we move to a section rather than a stand-alone article, WP:NOTE no longer applies. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there's several parts of the article: The bits about Wilson's activities and minor publications would fit fine, but I have two concerns: 1) The deprogramming doesn't fit well, happening before he joined UTS faculty, and that's really the most Wilson-centric RS coverage we have for him, and 2) World Scripture is almost big enough to have its own article--especially since several of the "coatracky" arguments evaporate if the book section is broken out. If no one else thinks #1 is a real issue, then that's not as big a deal. The more research I do in support of this article, the more I'm convinced that WS is a notable book. Jclemens (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

[written before Hrafn's comment above]: Some editors on Wikipedia seem to equate notability with number of mentions in news articles that can be accessed on the web. Michael Jenkins and Tyler Hendricks easily passed AfD because of their mention in news reports, but what about their real accomplishments? To me Wilson seems more genuinely notable than any other Western Unificationist, even though most of the references were pre-Internet an are hard to find. He is certainly the most accomplished and prominent living Unificationist academic. It would be inappropriate to merge into the Unification Theological Seminary article. Additional material and hard-to-find references are needed, and time needs to be given for that to happen. Jclemens is to be applauded for his efforts in this regard, and he should be helped, especially by those who know something about Wilson and can track down facts and references. I didn't know, for example, that Communism:Promise and Practice, the second most important book on politics in Unificationism (and Unification Church political involvement has been mentioned in probably thousands of news articles), was written by Wilson. (At present there is no mention of this book in the article.) What else is missing? Come on Ed, stop holding out on us! -Exucmember (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

[written after Hrafn's comment above]: The closing admin at the AfD (result: Keep) suggested we contemplate renaming to World Scripture if nothing else of note can be found about Wilson in the next few weeks/months, linking to the essay Wikipedia:There is no deadline. We need to give this article time to improve first before talking about merger. -Exucmember (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

All three AfDs demonstrate the problems with basing decisions on assertions of notability rather than solid evidence. The Tyler Hendricks article makes this article (which I have criticised on occasion) look like a paragon by comparison. The closing admin (on this article's AfD) seemed to be particularly impressed by 'reviews' -- that have since turned out to be unreliably sourced, not independent and/or insubstantial, making a rename/refocus onto the book problematic. Before we can evaluate the notability of being the "most accomplished and prominent living Unificationist academic" we first would have to evaluate the size, prominence and impact of the "Unificationist academic" community. This is, in the US, a relatively small church, known mostly for the aspirations and political connections of its leader, rather than its academic accomplishments. WP:RSs discussing Communism:Promise and Practice would definitely help in this regard. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if we are confusing Frank Kaufmann with Andrew Wilson. Kaufmann is more of a theologian; he edits a bimonthly magazine on theological topics. He's more involved in peace-building (there's has perennial involvement with the Middle East Peace Initiative. I think of Dr. Wilson as more of a professor and school administrator than as an activist or author. But both are editors: Wilson edited World Scripture, and Kaufmann has been editing New World Encyclopedia. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it. The problem is that if Wilson isn't notable as a theologian or peace activist (and there's no evidence that Kaufmann is particularly notable as those either), then what is he notable for? The lack of any reviews of WS of any real depth or expertise, means that we cannot claim that he is notable for this book alone -- and we have nothing whatsoever on his scholarly contributions more generally. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Andrew Wilson (educator)"?

Ed has renamed this article with the rationale "more of an educator than a theologian, being an academic dean and all that". I would point out the following:

1. No "and all that" has been established. The sum total of Wilson's verifiable educational accomplishments to date is that he is Academic Dean of UTS -- whose 120 students (as of last count) puts it smaller than most high schools and many elementary schools. Hardly a source, or even a contributor, of any substantive notability.
2. "Dean" is more of an educational bureaucrat than an 'educator' (just as superintendent is at a secondary level).
3. The normal description for a tertiary 'educator' is 'academic'. I am curious as to why this more common and less clumsy description was not chosen.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I completely concur here. I am BOLD-ly moving it to Andrew Wilson (academic). S. Dean Jameson 03:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agreed, much better than either "educator" or "theologian". I tried to move the page just now, but it was already moved! -Exucmember (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure any of these things capture him. He's documented to be professor/dean, translator, unitarian theologian, and deprogramming survivor/protestor. His notability stems from these many diverse accomplishments, not any one of them taken in isolation. Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ummm, I think you mean unificationist theologian, not unitarian. And the problem is that we have no more than bare mention on most of these. We have somebody declaring him a "leading unificationist theologian" (or similar), but not stating why. We have a citation that he led the translation team of Exposition of the Divine Principle, but nobody outside the church seems to have noticed. His status as a "deprogramming survivor/protestor" was only noticed by the student newspaper of the university where the protest occured. To use the phrasing of a footnote to WP:NOTE, there is no "strong evidence of interest by the world at large". Lacking this, we do not have notability, and we are unlikely to have the basis for a solid article (as we have no WP:RS to provide details on his theological work, educational accomplishments, etc). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Heh, you're right. I'm neither a unitarian nor a unificationist but I do know the difference--musta been thinking about that church shooting in the news recently. At any rate, I think we've both made our points clear on our disagreement re: notability. I was bringing up the diversity of his pursuits not to reopen that debate, but rather to note that his claims to notability are not constrained to any one of those areas. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The label 'educator' usually brings to mind (to me at least) the impression of some reformer of centuries past who was trying to bring literacy to the fringes of society. Hardly an impression that is accurate, or the least bit flattering to the students in Wilson's care. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• No problem. It seemed patently obvious to me, so I did it. S. Dean Jameson 03:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, "educator" makes me think of a junior high school teacher--not a flattering title for a Harvard Ph.D. :-) Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll just say that some people with advanced degrees choose to teach middle school--and edit Wikipedia articles regarding "real" acadmics--just for the record... ;) S. Dean Jameson 03:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict - also responding to Jclemens comment] He's also a full professor, as well as a scholar whose work has been praised by Hans Kung, Huston Smith, Templeton Prize winner Inamullah Khan, John Kelsay (Florida State U), in addition to scholars who contributed to World Scripture. -Exucmember (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we have RS'ing for any of that? Much of it is new to me. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

UTS size and students?

Hrafn, the way the lead reads now seems to coatrack info about UTS into Wilson's article. I'd recommend a few changes:

• Small is a relative term/value judgement. How big are most seminaries? We simply don't know.
• The fact that it serves primarily asian students is interesting... but how relevant is it? What is it telling people, and why does it need to be in the article?
• I do like the link to MSACS, but I'd "hidden" it because it was a mouthful, and I thought it the best way to deal with the disagreement over how to represent it. Putting it in a footnote works just fine, as far as I'm concerned. Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed point 1, as it seemed obvious. I also agree on point 2. What's the justification for including a statement that can be read as a veiled criticism of the seminary, that it has (only) 120 students, and that they are shipped here from east Asia? The makeup of the student body has varied a lot over it's history, and I don't think it was majority east Asian in any year until the early to mid 90s. In any case, these two facts (why 2003?) would seem to be a detail appropriate for the UTS article (if at all) but certainly not here. -Exucmember (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Those items are already mentioned on Unification Theological Seminary. I took them off this article, also the point about the school's accreditation. It seems to me that a lot of effort is being spent on this article, but I don't think very many people will end up reading it. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Small is not a "value judgement" -- it is a characterisation of its size. Yes, it is relative -- it is relative to the size of other seminaries (relative to which, UTS is "small").
2. The reason I included the characterisation was the insistence of other editors on including "international" & "accredited" -- which gives a far more substantial impression of the seminary than the facts demonstrate. Although seminaries tend to be on the small side for tertiary institutions, UTS is on the small side even for them.
3. The relevance of its student makeup is to the aforementioned insistence on top-billing to "international". I must admit I find it odd that an institution that primarily serves asian students was formed in the US. In this instance 'international' does not mean 'large' (as readers might otherwise assume), but merely 'transplanted'.
4. Both of these facts (size & makeup) are prominently displayed in the lead of Unification Theological Seminary -- so it is no more "veiled criticism" than "international" & "accredited" is 'veiled eulogising' of this institution.
5. And I un-hid the link to MSACS because it is a ridiculous & misleading easter-egg link.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide a RS for 120 students being a small for a graduate-only seminary, then by all means, let's include it. As is, it's a relative statement of unclear accuracy. UTS is certainly small compared to a major state university, but it's not clear to me how it compares to other seminaries as a whole. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The sizes I came across, on a brief search of wikipedia articles were of the order of 200-400. However, as I can find no RS on average seminaries sizes I won't fight over this one "small" word, and will let the figure speak for itself (both in terms of size relative to seminaries & to tertiary institutions generally). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Jclemens: "The importance and accreditation of the seminary has direct bearing on Wilson's notability."[6] Are we now claiming that the UTS's size is irrelevant to its importance and thus to Wilson's notability? Or are we claiming more generally that only issues that positively reflect on this importance/notability should be mentioned? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Taking Jclemens' point one step further, what does define the "importance" of a tertiary institution, and the "interest by the world at large" in it? Obvious indicators would be:

• size;
• prestige;
• influence of its graduates in academia;
• influence of its graduates in other spheres (e.g. in business or politics).

UTS's size has already been dealt with, the prominence and tenacity of mentioning its accreditation I think answers the question of its prestige (can you imagine bothering with such information over Harvard, Yale, Oxford or Cambridge?). As to its influence, it is difficult to find any of its graduates who had any especial prominence outside the UC. Lee Shapiro probably comes closest. I'm not arguing that UTS itself is non-notable, merely that its coattails are very slim from the point of view of bestowing notability on its senior staff. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Harvard Divinity School has 450 students. That makes UTS about 1/4 their size.

• Most theological schools, regardless of religious affiliation, are small when compared with other institutions of higher education. Enrollment in the largest school in 1993-1994 was 3,458 students, which translates to a full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment of 2,656 students. The smallest school had 16 students (13 FTE). Overall, 23 schools had a total enrollment of 75 or less, and 34 had more than 500. The modal school has a total student enrollment of between 151 and 300 students. [7]

I'll grant that UTS is a bit smaller than average, but I hesitate to present this as original research. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The population that they were working from was 219 schools, making the <75 group the smallest 10%, and arguably 'very small'. Given they don't give numbers for groups between this and the largest 34, it is fairly difficult to assess where UTS stands, but 120 not being that much higher than 75, and it being outside the 151-300 'modal' group implies that 'small' is not an unreasonable label. However as you say, this is OR, and I already conceded the point on this adjective above. Incidentally, who is the academic dean of Harvard Divinity School? Does (s)he have their own wikipedia article? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In answer to my own question, the dean of the (far larger & more prestigious) HDS is William A. Graham (John Lord O'Brian Professor of Divinity, and Murray A. Albertson Professor of Middle Eastern Studies), and no, he does not have a wikipedia article. While this is not a sufficient reason for not giving Wilson an article, it is I think reason for closer scrutiny under WP:ACADEMIC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. That'd be a great article to start--looks like he has his CV up on the HDS website, too. Want help? Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Andrew Wilson (academic). 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/20120216022110/http://www.uts.edu:80/my-profile/userprofile/wilson.html to http://uts.edu/my-profile/userprofile/wilson.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512012742/http://www.howard.edu:80/library/Divinity_Library/Reference.htm to http://www.howard.edu/library/Divinity_Library/Reference.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821215412/http://www.southwestern.edu/library/religion.html to http://www.southwestern.edu/library/religion.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512012742/http://www.howard.edu:80/library/Divinity_Library/Reference.htm to http://www.howard.edu/library/Divinity_Library/Reference.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724183305/http://library.austincc.edu/w3/RLG/ to http://library.austincc.edu/w3/RLG/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110327062557/http://journals.uts.edu:80/wilson-andrew.html to http://journals.uts.edu/wilson-andrew.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)