User:JonHarder/Archive
When is a link a duplicate one or not?
[edit]Signyred (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Hi Jon, You obviously do a lot of good work for Wikipedia but I noticed you "Remove link that duplicates internal link in lead sentence" for the entry for Birmingham Humanists (on 8th November I think it was).
I'm not an expert on Wiki, having only written a half dozen or so entries, and so didn't want to click on the "undo" button without checking:- The lead sentence has an INTERNAL link to the Wikipedia article on the British Humanist Association but the link you removed was an EXTERNAL link to the British Humanist Association's own website. Therefore, I don't see that it was an exact duplication and would like the external link to be restored. Maybe Wikipedia rules say differently though. I'd be interested to know your views on this. Best wishes John Edwards, Solihull UK
The Trinity article: Two links to two books
[edit]Hello! JohHarder.
I added two links to two books in the Trinity article in November, which were subsequently removed. May I request you to reconsider the appropriateness of the links and the possibility of reinstating the links to the article.
Before inserting the two links, I had noticed that one of the two books were cited by someone else in the reference section of the article on the 'Theology of Karl Barth' in Theopedia. The title of the book is Jesus' Revelation of His Father: A narrative-conceptual study of the Trinity with special reference to Karl Barth. This book was strongly recommended by the late Prof. Daniel Hardy, the most senior theologian in Cambridge University then, who wrote the foreword of the book. Also, the book received a number of very favourable reviews including a theologian and a Biblical scholar, both from Oxford University. These two reviews can be seen at http://trn.sagepub.com/content/25/2-3/166.extract and http://trn.sagepub.com/content/25/1.toc . It is no coincidence that this book was included in the reference section of the article 'Theology of Karl Barth' in Theopedia; it was included because of its high quality. Now, Theopedia is a more specialist reference resources for theology than Wikipedia. However, it is appropriate to include such reference from Theopedia into Wikipedia if the latter is to contain as much useful information as possible. Concerning the link to the other book, The Forgotten Jesus and the Trinity You Never Knew, it needs to be said that this book is highly recommended by no less than seven eminent scholars and theologians from around the globe. These endorsements/commendations can be seen on http://wipfandstock.com/store/The_Forgotten_Jesus_and_the_Trinity_You_Never_Knew or http://www.jesus-trinity.co.uk/gallery. By virtue of the quality of these two books and the strong recommendations given to them, they are qualified to be included into the appropriate articles in Wikipedia so that they can be made known to the public, who may then access them if they desire to find out more.
In view of the reasons given above, may I request you to kindly consider reinstating the two links for these two books in the following two articles in Wikipedia: 'Trinity' and 'Jesus in Christianity'. Your favourable decision will avail the public some useful resources on these theological topics.