Talk:Frank Kaufmann: Difference between revisions

Incivil reaction to legitimate removal of unsourced material copied straight from topic's own blog

Hi Mr. Hrafn. I know you are extremely aggressive, and have a very virulent agenda against Unification related subject matter.

But please be so kind as to give people a chance. Since you are so skilled it is very difficult to keep up. You are clearly dominant and powerful and your power is intimidating.

Some of us are simply trying to do our best, and trying to lift up the articles to Wikipedia standards in a sincere and honest way, but it is hard, because of your agression.

It is fine to hate anything, and to dominate and intimidate, but this is not really a good approach to a genuine quest for knowledge, as an encyclopedia should be. People should desire to see what is true, and be open to learn.

I cannot prevent your virulent and hateful agenda, but I still think it would be more kind to let people try their best to accommodate the standards of Wikipedia, and then you can see if we succeeded, or perhaps offer to help or correct us or something like that. But honestly it is so hard when we are trying with far less experience than you, and you are lightening fast to make our efforts stumble and difficult.

Thanks for considering a slightly less hateful way, and then see if the sincere efforts to meet the Wikipedia standards really do fail. This would be a more honest and sincere approach to truth and knowledge that should characterize such a wonderful project like Wikipedia.

Thank you 96.224.169.155 (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

---

96.224.169.155: thank you for your ill-mannered, erroneous rant. It violated the following policies:

• WP:NPA
• WP:AGF
• WP:CIVIL

Quite the trifecta.

Thank you. These references are very helpful. Sincere apologies (I asked on the notification page if this should be removed, and if I am the one who is suppose to do so. Thanks

96.224.169.155 (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Should the above be removed? Is this my responsibility? 96.224.169.155 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My only "agenda" is against badly sourced, badly-written puff pieces. Unfortunately, this description covers virtually the entirety of the Unification-related articles.

Thank you for explaining your impartiality, and neutrality vis a vis Unification related material, and the nature of your devotion to Wikipedia standards. There must be a massive amount of this sort of work for you to attend to. 96.224.169.155 (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As to the article, it is a badly-written string of WP:EMBED-ed lists, citing sources that are ubiquitously organisations associated with Kaufmann and/or unreliable.

1. Sorry for the "badly written," I will try to improve.
2. In fact the list of notes had only very few sources of organizations that could be said to be "associated" with Kaufmann, and in fact all but one of them, were from organizations with independent status, governance and purpose. It is unfair to pin on a religious believer "association" with every organization that happens to be associated with people from that person's faith.
3. You are far more expert than me (I am new), but I could not see the fairness in listing the references as unreliable. I double checked them this morning, and found them all reliable. These are independent, active, respectable sites and information sources. 96.224.169.155 (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As template:primarysources states:

Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources...

Such sources were very few, and the "affiliated with the subject" is a matter of subjective assessment, depending on how one treats the faith and beliefs of the subject in the biography. 96.224.169.155 (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTE further states, supporting this view:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

This article does not cite "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so cannot be presumed to be notable.Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It does cite significant coverage in reliable sourced that are independent of the subject. Virtually all the references are from independent sources. Virtually all are "independent of the subject," the one exception being a the history of Dr. Kaufmann's organization (listing 10's to 100's of projects and activities) which should not be seen as "puff" but rather a valuable addition and good research to provide information on the subject. Organizations themselves are the best sources for their own histories. 96.224.169.155 (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through the sources. Ubiquitously they either:

• do not substantiate the grandiose claims made to them -- e.g. prayers from a single Archimandrite (a monastic rank slightly above abbot) at an IRFWP event was grossly exaggerated to claim "Work with major, world religious figures includes: ... Major leaders of the Russian, Greek and Syrian Orthodox churches"; and/or

No they are not ubiquitously so. The article was first written, simply because it was believed that true information would be a benefit to Wikipedia readers. The demand for extensive referencing evolved over time. It is the nature of interreligious activity, even at the highest levels, that it tends not to occupy public reportage as does work in secular fields such as politics, economics, science and so forth. Even figures working collaboratively with the Pope, the Dalai Lama, or Mother Theresa would have difficulty documenting and referencing this sort of work. But it does not mean that it is not true, and that it is not significant or important information. If a figure is guilty until proven innocent, then it is hard to provide worthwhile information in Wikipedia. At any rate an initial effort has been made to provide independent, reliable sources for the article. 96.224.169.155 (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• are to unreliable sources (blogs, self-published material on 'Your Hub, Denver', etc)

No these are not self published. "Your hub" was an public report from a respected and significant Denver area leader, reporting on a major conference in his city. Again it is only if the subject is prejudged as unworthy, that a verifiable reference to major scholarly work and contribution would be called "unreliable and self published." 96.224.169.155 (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:V & WP:RS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The Denver Hub report was neutral, and written from a disinterested viewpoint, unrelated to Dr. Kaufmann's work, other than to find it a valuable contribution to the gentleman's conference. 96.224.169.155 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As to your "trying to lift up the articles to Wikipedia standards" whine, I would point out that this article is three years old

The age of a Wikipedia article is not a fair point of criticism. The standards of Wikipedia evolve constantly, in every way. I would imagine that great many articles gradually fall below the ever evolving standards of the beautiful Wikipedia project. Also, the emergence of a the extensive use of footnotes and references is something that happened over time, as controversial topics became "battle grounds" and referencing and the standards for referencing emerged to govern these intellectual battles. If an expert such as yourself, takes to a community (such as Unification) and finds their entries uniformly problematic, this is right and fair, if you like. But for an entry to need to try to catch up and revise itself to evolving standards once it comes under suspicion based on a general experience elsewhere, should be understandable and acceptable. 96.224.169.155 (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The age of a wikipedia article is of issue when it has remained badly wirtten and unsourced for years. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

and that the majority of the unsourced information in it is a couple of years old.

No. The majority of the information is not unsourced. Also the age of references is not a proper consideration. Especially if the achievements of the subject would have had contemporaneous reportage. No scholarly standards (except perhaps in evolving fields, especially sciences) presume the age of references in and of itself is a point of unsufficiency. 96.224.169.155 (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The majority of the material is unsourced, as the citations you have given do not verify the statements cited to them. This material was added in August 2006, so it (not the references) are two years old. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The information was added prior to the time, Wikipedia had evolved to become a battleground of references. If that Aug 2006 point was problematic at the time it was entered, and pointed out as such, then the two-year accusation would be legitimate. The attention to the article is new, and the sincere efforts to accommodate the guidelines recommended is likewise au courant. 96.224.169.155 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There has been plenty of time "to lift up the article[] to Wikipedia standards". Its editors have quite simply not done so -- and continue not to do so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, to cite the 3 years as "plenty of time," is a bit hard. I can only imagine a great many of the millions of Wikipedia articles have not been constantly edited and revised. If someone had written that article sincerely in the hopes of making an important contemporary figure generally known to Wikipedia readership, it is quite possible that whoever wrote that thought they had done something worthwhile, and left it there for readers to benefit.

It is only if a person such as yourself finds all or much of the work by or about a given group (in this case Unification) problematic, then a spotlight will suddenly turn on articles that have been peacefully in the Wikipedia canon.

The fact of the matter is that the work of Dr. Kaufmann from the 70's until today has been very deeply and broadly devoted to interreligious peace, and has transpired on a genuinely grand and public scale. It is not "puff." It would be beneficial for Wikipedia readers to know of the interfaith activities of the latter part of the 20th century in which Dr. Kaufmann as been involved at high levels, involving many major leaders at subtle and difficult areas. But if the subject is prejudged as a charlatan, and referencing his work is treated as a needed defense from attack, rather than a support for the information, then it would be difficult for contributors to flesh out what is honestly a good and positive biography.

I try to take up the issues you've raised after the effort to provide some references, and try to strengthen the article. These are here below.

I will register now, so I can add that element of respect in trying to work with you on this article. Thank you 96.224.169.155 (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to do the best I can to be responsive to your guidelines. 96.224.169.155 (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 1 is said: "not in citation given." But Dr. Kaufmann's name is listed as an invited reviewer for an important interfaith initiative among the world's most leading religious figures. Why is this said to be "not in citation given"?

Footnote 2. What is meant by "improper synthesis" for a major, live, news website ("organizing the world's news") to provide a long list of published articles by Dr. Kaufmann?

Footnote 7. This page provides a lists 100's of conferences and projects (a partial list) executed under Dr. Kaufmann's responsibility over the course of 25 years. It lists (as a partial list 10's of countries and so forth). Why is this not considered support for the sentence describing his work?

Footnote 8, Common Ground News Service is a very elite and very selective news service dealing with Middle East peace. This cited page lists a significant article by Dr. Kaufmann on the peace process in Israel and Palestine

Footnote 9, Why is Novelguide, a respectable information source, listing the world's preeminent Interfaith organizations, including IRFWP called an unreliable source? The work of Dr. Kaufmann on the Eritrea/Ethiopia border is in the citation given

Footnote 12, does indicate that Dr. Kaufmann works closely with major religious leaders in Israel and the Holy Land. Why is it written that this is not the case?

Footnote 13, shows that Dr. Kaufmann chaired a session involving contributions of major religious figures including Chief Rabbi's of Israel. Why is it said that he did not work with them?

Footnote 14, this comes from a site hostile to Unification efforts. It very much does constitute having to work with leaders of this stature to arrange events such as the one described here.

Footnote 15, offers clear and extensive reportage on a rare and very high level of collaboration and work with Indian religious leaders. Why is it said that "it is not in the citation given."

Footnote 16, why is video footage of a long private meeting with the Dalai Lama not considered sufficient reference to working with Buddhist leaders?

Footnote 17, a major Christian thinker and writer includes in his Vita publication in a serious scholarly compilation of Ecumenical essays from major thinkers in the Western hemisphere? Why is this said to be "not in citation given"?

Footnote 18, Peter Lang is one of the preeminent, scholarly religious publication houses. The citation describes clearly the teaching areas of one of its authors, Dr. Kaufmann? This citation (#18) tells explicitly all the areas listed just above it.

Important - this reference in an important religious publishing house, responds to the banner put about the teaching areas of Dr. Kaufmann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.169.155 (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 20, why is Your Hub, Denver an extensive and reliable site treating significant events in Denver, called an unreliable source?

Footnote 21, you write "not in citation given," but in fact there is a major and significant section on Dr. Kaufmann in the citation given.

Footnote 24, why is citation and reference in a significant international organization that clearly uses Dr. Kaufmann as a resource said to be "not in citation given"?

Footnote 25, why is an article about Dr. Kaufmann invited to an accredited seminary (UTS) to speak on his interfaith expertise, said to be "not in citation given."

Thank you for your help on these matters.96.224.169.155 (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have given justification for all (or nearly all) of these tags as 'hidden comments' next to them.

Arbitrary break

I have responded to every 'hidden comment' with clear explanation, in the article as well as in the talk page. If the critique of this biography is being carried out in good faith, honest brokers should recognize Dr. Kaufmann's as a notable biography based on the information available, and the public recognition given Dr. Kaufmann's organization, publications, and life of service. If Unification efforts are considered by definition unworthy of Wikipedia inclusion, then this matter should be publicly discussed among Wikipedia leaders.

And I have reverted these. Hidden comments in the article is not an appropriate (or even practical) venue for a lengthy argument. Please make the comments here, on talk. I will reply to your points here on talk (and where practical, also take note of the reverted ones in mainspace). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you sorry. I will proceed as you advise. 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

E.g. for 'footnote 1':

This source merely lists him as one of those "Individuals and Organizations that received a 'formal' request to Review this Proof"

Last I checked, 'reviewer of a proof document' did not equate to 'peace activist'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

But the list of leaders who were identified as reliable resources to check the founding of an important organization does indicate that Dr. Kaufmann was already very highly regarded even at that time. 96.224.169.155 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As was already mentioned, the field of interreligious activism is not highly reported on, further people in this field do their work quietly and persistently.

The fact that Dr. Kaufmann was nominated for one of the most prestigious and highly awarded interfaith prizes, among a tiny elite list of the best known religious figures on earth, would convince any impartial observer that Dr. Kaufmann's record in the field in formidable. It is impossible to become a candidate for an award of that distinction without a substantial interfaith record. There happens not to be a great corpus of interfaith reportage, for any figures in the field.

The role of Dr. Kaufmann as editor in chief of one of the longest running interfaith journals on earth, also testifies to a long and extensive history in the field.

The article also links to video footage of a long, private meeting with the Dalai Lama.

Under ordinary circumstances, these would indicate his to be a noteworthy biography, even if the Wikipedia contributors to the article are just learning the technicalities of referencing and citation.

There are a significant number of undeniable indications that this is noteworthy biography, but these seem to be under siege or are being ignored. 96.224.169.155 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Even were all this true (of which I am skeptical), and even if this were not impermissible synthesis (which it is), NONE of this indicates that Kaufmann is a "peace activist" -- which is the point that the citation was meant to verify -- not that Kauffmann is a "very highly regarded" leader, etc, etc, etc. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out that you frequently misrepresent the statement that the citation is for (footnote 1 is for "peace activist, not reviewer of "important interfaith initiative" -- which is itself a dubious characterisation, footnote 7 is for a statement that includes "at times in physical danger and life threatening circumstances" -- which is clearly not a description of conferences), and misrepresents the reliability of a number of sources (e.g. Daylife Labs is not "a major, live, news website") -- please read WP:RS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The citation attempts to speak as best as possible to the facts. It is not a court of law, but an attempt at an academic enterprise in good faith. In fact, Dr. Kaufmann has worked in life threatening circumstances on several occasions. This is not an infrequent reality for peace activists. This should be of interest to Wikipedia readers. That these cannot be referenced is a difficulty, but guns were drawn in Alexandria, Mindanao, and other places where Dr. Kaufmann was involved in peace negotiations. These sorts of realities are not readily and easily referenced, but even moreso when the subject of the biography is suspect simply due to his association. 96.224.169.155 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

1. "The citation attempts to speak as best as possible to the facts" is quite simply not good enough -- the citations have to verify the exact claims that the statement makes -- not "speak as best as possible" on something that bears vague relevance.
2. "It is not a court of law..." No, the restrictions placed upon it are actually stricter in many ways than a court of law: specifically no original research and a prohibition on original synthesis.
3. "...but an attempt at an academic enterprise..." Again, no -- "academic enterprise[s]" involve original research, wikipedia (and encyclopedias in general) do not.
4. "In fact, Dr. Kaufmann has worked in life threatening circumstances on several occasions." Then WP:PROVEIT with reliable sources.
5. "This is not an infrequent reality for peace activists." Given that you haven't even substantiated that Kaufmann is a "peace activist", this is irrelevant. In any case, what is 'not infrequent' for peace activists generally, is no indication of what is the case for Kauffmann, specifically.
6. "That these cannot be referenced is a difficulty..." No. "That these cannot be referenced..." means that they CANNOT be included in wikipedia. Read WP:V
7. "...but guns were drawn in Alexandria, Mindanao, and other places where Dr. Kaufmann was involved in peace negotiations" -- you have not established (i) that Kaufmann was in either of these locations, (ii) that "guns were drawn" there, (iii) that these two events were sufficiently closely juxtaposed for it to amount to "physical danger and life threatening circumstances". This claim is therefore without any substance whatsoever. Further, you have not established that "Kaufmann was involved in peace negotiations" in either of these locations.

This article remains an unsubstantiated puff-piece. It meets neither WP:V nor WP:NOTE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is not an unsubstantiated puff-piece. This is a subjective statement. It is an article in which steady effort is being made by a newbie, under withering conditions to meet (proper and legitimate) Wikipedia standards. Much of the declarations of the article's unworthiness are personal opinion, and are being debated and discussed with sincerity in an effort to strengthen the article. 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

1. "Footnote 1 is said: "not in citation given." But Dr. Kaufmann's name is listed as an invited reviewer for an important interfaith initiative among the world's most leading religious figures. Why is this said to be "not in citation given"?"
   • As I stated above, it makes no mention of "peace activist"
     • It lists Kaufmann as a resource among the leading religious figures in the world. The request to review founding documents of an important organization is based on Kaufmann's activism. 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
2. "Footnote 2. What is meant by "improper synthesis" for a major, live, news website ("organizing the world's news") to provide a long list of published articles by Dr. Kaufmann?"
   • It is not a "major, live, news website", and all that it does is list Kaufmann's writings – from which you attempt to synthesise that he is a "peace activist".
     • There is not a technical definition to what constitutes what a "peace activist" is. References provide clear evidence that Dr. Kaufmann has worked in 10's of countries with 1,000's of leaders. If the subject matter were not under assault, it would easily and naturally be recognized that decades long record of effort, plus influence through publishing on conflict issues does constitute activism. The desire to deny this is a subjective assessment. 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
3. "Footnote 7. This page provides a lists 100's of conferences and projects (a partial list) executed under Dr. Kaufmann's responsibility over the course of 25 years. It lists (as a partial list 10's of countries and so forth). Why is this not considered support for the sentence describing his work?"
   • This document makes no mention of Kaufmann. Therefore it does not verify which of these events Kaufmann himself attended, let alone support "physical danger and life threatening circumstances"
     • The list is the work of the organization of which Kaufmann himself is the director. It is his work. If "in physical danger" though absolutely true, and in fact one of the more interesting dimensions of this biography is undesired because it cannot be referenced, then it can be deleted, though it removes important and interesting facts about the subject. 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
4. "Footnote 8, Common Ground News Service is a very elite and very selective news service dealing with Middle East peace. This cited page lists a significant article by Dr. Kaufmann on the peace process in Israel and Palestine"
   • Your unsubstantiated and hyperbole about this "news service" and "article" is irrelevant. Writing an article is not a "peace mission".
     • Common Ground News Service is selective. If the point is to catch contributors on technicalities, the language can be changed. The desire of Common Ground to include the contributions of Kaufmann is based on his history of work in the region. 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
5. "Footnote 9, Why is Novelguide, a respectable information source, listing the world's preeminent Interfaith organizations, including IRFWP called an unreliable source? The work of Dr. Kaufmann on the Eritrea/Ethiopia border is in the citation given"
   • It is not a WP:RS because (your mostly irrelevant hyperbole notwithstanding) it is an obscure online publisher of anonymous content of unknown editorial oversight. In any case, it makes no mention of any involvement by Kaufmann personally in this dispute. [After this point you inserted a reference, so all numbering is off by one]
     • Please help me correct the disordering of the reference, or I will go try to figure that out myself. Thank you for pointing that out. The reference makes note of the organization that Kaufmann is director of and responsible for. The reference should not have to make mention of Kaufmann by name every time a reference refers to his organization. 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
6. "Footnote 12, does indicate that Dr. Kaufmann works closely with major religious leaders in Israel and the Holy Land. Why is it written that this is not the case?"
   • This does not mention any "Muftis", or any representatives of "Syria, Yemen, … and Gaza", or any Islamic representative of "Israel".
     • While the claim is true, if independent sources cannot be found, the language will be modified. 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
7. "Footnote 13, shows that Dr. Kaufmann chaired a session involving contributions of major religious figures including Chief Rabbi's of Israel. Why is it said that he did not work with them?"
   • It was only a single Chief Rabbi, and "chair[ing] a [conference] session" is too brief and superficial an interaction to be considered 'working with'.
     • That is a subjective call. It is on the foundation of Kaufmann's work on the ground with Chief Rabbi's in Israel that they cooperate with him internationally. 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
8. "Footnote 14, this comes from a site hostile to Unification efforts. It very much does constitute having to work with leaders of this stature to arrange events such as the one described here."
   • This document only demonstrates that a single Archimandrite (a mid- level leader, not a "major" one) "offered prayers" at an IRFWP co- sponsored event.
9. "Footnote 15, offers clear and extensive reportage on a rare and very high level of collaboration and work with Indian religious leaders. Why is it said that "it is not in the citation given."", "This citation reports on Kaufmann speaking to 300,000 Sikhs, together with top Hindu religious leaders at a national level event the 300th Khalsa. Dr. Kaufmann is alone among Western peace activists for a massive international religious event in India"
   • Sikhs are not Hindus, so this bit is utterly irrelevant. The article makes no mention of "top Hindu religious leaders" attending this Sikh event.
     • Anyone familiar with the event or who care to research it further know the obvious fact that a major religious community celebrating a 300th anniversary in India is attended by top leaders of all religions. The fact is that Kaufmann has a long and extensive history of work with Hindus. If precise independent references cannot be found, the language will be changed, but this will diminish the truth of the biography. 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
10. "Footnote 16, why is video footage of a long private meeting with the Dalai Lama not considered sufficient reference to working with Buddhist leaders?"
    • (i) because a videoed audience is not a "private meeting", (ii) because the Dalai Lama grants audience to many people beyond those he 'works with' and (iii) because it makes no mention of Buddhist leaders from Sri Lanka, Thailand, China, Japan, and Korea.
      • The term "works with" is being subjectively defined here. The extent of involvement with the Dalai Lama to obtain a lengthy private audience is not a matter of course, and recognized by anyone as reflecting a serious relationship. 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
11. "Footnote 17, a major Christian thinker and writer includes in his Vita publication in a serious scholarly compilation of Ecumenical essays from major thinkers in the Western hemisphere? Why is this said to be "not in citation given"?"
    • A single academic (whose pretensions to being "a major Christian thinker and writer" you have not substantiated) listing Kaufmann as the editor of an anthology one of his articles featured in is not evidence of "work with" a "spectrum of the Christian traditions on Christian ecumenism and Protestant-Catholic relations"
      • One must work with the leaders and contributors to a book precisely on the matter that is being cited. A fair and impartial assessment of having this publication in one's corpus would be recognized as requiring "work with" the Christian thinkers and leaders involved. 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
12. "Footnote 18, Peter Lang is one of the preeminent, scholarly religious publication houses. The citation describes clearly the teaching areas of one of its authors, Dr. Kaufmann? This citation (
13. 18) tells explicitly all the areas listed just above it." "Important - this reference in an important religious publishing house, responds to the banner put about the teaching areas of Dr. Kaufmann"
    • All that this establishes is that Kaufmann wrote a book on Foundations of Modern Church History. It does not establish that he has taught at a university/graduate school level on "Systematic Theology"
      • It does establish that Kaufmann taught these subjects, unless one wants to accuse Lang of publishing false data. 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
14. "Footnote 20, why is Your Hub, Denver an extensive and reliable site treating significant events in Denver, called an unreliable source?"
    • Anonymous content of unknown editorial oversight, therefore not WP:RS
15. "Footnote 21, you write "not in citation given," but in fact there is a major and significant section on Dr. Kaufmann in the citation given."
    • No, it is not a "major and significant section on Dr. Kaufmann" – it is merely an abstract on the paper he presented on Religions as Conscience: The Interfaith Imperative. In any case, this is a conference, not "University and graduate school teaching".
      • This work was presented at the invitation of an important US Graduate school, but under the conditions (and perhaps rightfullY) the language will be modified. 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
16. "Footnote 24, why is citation and reference in a significant international organization that clearly uses Dr. Kaufmann as a resource said to be "not in citation given"?"
    • This piece merely demonstrates that Kauffman wrote an article, not that he is an "Advisor, consultant, board member" on "Fundamentals of interfaith leadership."
      • Thank you, language will be be changed 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
17. "Footnote 25, why is an article about Dr. Kaufmann invited to an accredited seminary (UTS) to speak on his interfaith expertise, said to be "not in citation given.""
    • This is the small and undistinguished seminary of Kaufmann's own church. In any case it likewise does not demonstrate that he is an "Advisor, consultant, board member" on "Fundamentals of interfaith leadership".
      • Many if not most seminaries are small. It is subjective to assert that it is undistinguished, merely expressing a personal view. Kaufmann helped the institution develop a course in the area of expertise, but since this the subject is under question, the language can be changed.68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

These footnotes quite simply do not verify the statements cited to them.

Most do, and all others are being discussed. 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your statement here that "Not every source covers every fact" is precisely the problem. Every statement in the article must be verifiable to a source. That is the core requirement of WP:V, itself a core wikipedia policy.

I will work to meet the criticisms being raised here.68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Failure to do so is simply unacceptable.

The work on the article is not representative of simple failure. 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have wasted a lot of time documenting quite obvious problems with very poor quality referencing. I am not interested in wasting further time, and will most probably simply tag or delete future poor quality referencing without further comment.

Of course the article cannot withstand the determination of a Wikipedia administrator to remove it, even though we are discussing a biography involved with a very important area (international, interreligious effort), that has been recognized among a tiny elite few as a candidate for a prestigious award in the field. The subject matter should be of special value for Wikipedia readers especially at this time, due to the intense area of concern (conflict and interreligious relations) in which Kaufmann has worked and continues to work at this time. 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless sources can be found that verify the specific claims made in the article, these claims will be deleted.

The power of a Wikipedia administrator to utilize the technicalities of Wikipedia to get an article removed, even while a newbie is trying to contribute positively to the Wikipedia cannot be withstood. 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, unless "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"

The sources provided are independent of the subject. 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

can be found (by "independent" we mean not written by Kaufmann himself, and not published by one of the UC's organisations, or by Kaufmann's own publisher), the entire article is likely to be deleted per WP:NOTE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Only one reference was "written by Kaufmann," and that reference is very legitimate and comes in a place that is very proper and helpful to the article. So by this definition virtually all references meet the qualifications identified above.

None of the references refer to "Kaufmann's own publisher" unless every book ever published would have to be called an author's "own publisher." There are authors and there are publishing houses. Publishing houses have reputations to uphold. Peter Lang Verlagsgruppe can hardly be called "Kaufmann's own publisher."

The refusal to acknowledge legitimate references for Kaufmann because they appear in Unification sources is religious bias. There is no reason why legitimate references should be disallowed because of the faith community from which the references generate.

If Mr. Hrafn plans to delete the article, there is little a newbie can do given Mr. Hrafn's massive command of Wikipedia paraphernalia. Nevertheless, the evidence in this article clearly shows it to be a notable biography in an important field, using legitimate verifiable sources for crucial elements of the biography. Singling out references from a particular faith community as illegitimate should not be a standard with which the Wikipedia allows as a characterization of Wikipedia's organizational and leadership standards.68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sick to death of tendentious arguments

I am sick of this anonymous editor:

1. Ubiquitously misrepresenting obscure sources, organisations and individuals as "major", "very elite", "preeminent", "major religious leaders", "a major Christian thinker and writer", "a significant international organization", "an important organization". Such ludicrous unsubstantiated hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion.
2. Making arguments that are ludicrous WP:SYNTH based on speculation so wild as to make conspiracy theories look like a WP:RS.
3. A 'Humpty Dumpty' 'words mean whatever I want them to' interpretation of 'peace activist', 'work with', etc.
4. A completely ludicrous claim that "Only one reference was "written by Kaufmann" -- when these stand as obvious contradiction [1][2][3], as well as the following references which are simply links to/sales-blurbs of/abstracts of material written by Kaufmann: [4][5][6][7]
   • And this is doesn't include the throng of other sources that Kaufmann has close associations with.

I am heartily tired of this and will WP:AFD this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought the rule of Wikipedia was not to make personal attacks WP:NPA, assume good faith WP:AGF, work with civility, and not to communicate in a way that consists of personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress WP:CIVIL. Is it permitted to declare oneself "sick of" someone who is in dialogue in good faith.

The writer is responding in sincere dialogue and making changes. Is it permitted to denigrate a fellow Wikipedian, resort to name calling, declare oneself sick of people who differ and are in respectful dialogue?

Your list of notes "written by Kaufmann" are not accurate:

Footnote 1, lists Kaufmann's position by the World Media Association. This entry (on Kaufmann's work) was not written by Kaufmann.

Footnote 2, Shows a website concerned with issues of war and peace using Kaufmann's work. The use of Kaufmann's work was the decision of the site editors, it was not "written by Kaufmann."

Footnote 3, yes Hrafn is correct. I didn't notice those articles were written Kaufmann, my mistake. This must be deleted as a reference.

Footnote 4, a news aggregate of contemporary published news and opinion is not "written by Kaufmann." It lists his published writing as a function of that site's mission.

Footnote 5, The Common Ground News Service uses Kaufmann's published writing, Common Ground News Service is not "written by Kaufmann"

Footnote 6, The website of the educational organization Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies uses Kaufmann's published writing as one of its resources. It is not "written by Kaufmann"

Footnote 7 is from the website of an scholarly publisher. The listing of Kaufmann's book, that shows the academic fields that Kaufmann teaches, was not "written by Kaufmann" it was written by the Peter Lang Verlagsgruppe

It seems belittling and mocking to compare a discussion of peace activism with Humpty Dumpty. That is not a respectful way to make a point. It seems uncivil to describe a sincere effort to dialogue as tendentious. It seems uncivil to describe the efforts of a dialogue partner as ludicrous hyperbole, to say that efforts to comply "add nothing to the discussion could also be seen as hyperbole. The belittling of sincere efforts to provide referencing, mocking it by comparing it to conspiracy theory, also seems in violation of several of Wikipedia standards and regulations, and efforts of the leadership to create a collegial and welcoming atmosphere for contributors.

If there is a rush to delete the article for some reason, a Wikipedia administrator certainly can manage to do so easily, I imagine. But why the rush? Clear evidence has been provided to indicate that that is a notable biography. Together with a seeming rush to delete this article, there has now emerged for some reason a string of offense, insult, belittling and mocking.

I do not know the rules of how articles are deleted. If administrators are free to do this unilaterally, then of course it is clear from the outset, and all throughout the conversation that this has been the direction of Mr. Hrafn conversation with a writer who is trying to comply.

If however Wikipedia is organized so that Wikipedia administrators are not free to personally delete articles unilaterally and without peer oversight, if it is the case that some form of a committee has to review such decisions as a way to protect the integrity of Wikipedia from the possibility of bias in a single administrator, then it should be clear to other reviewers that valid points have been made by both sides. The conversation continues. The seniority and authority of the administrator has been respected throughout (following initial instruction and apology), and in fact for some reason, late in the conversation the newbie suddenly has come under personal attack, mockery, and belittlement, for doing nothing other than offering differing opinions.

If there is a committee involved in decisions to delete articles, there is clear evidence that the biography of Kaufmann is notable, or at least possibly so, and there should arise some question as to why there is so great a rush to delete this particular article while sincere discussion and efforts to comply and modify the article continues? 96.224.169.155 (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Humpty Dumpty

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

— Through the Looking Glass

In 96.224.169.155's usage, a transcript of a speech by Kaufmann[8] and a piece that is explicitly stated as being "by Frank Kaufmann"[9] are not material "written by Kaufmann". I see no point whatsoever in further attempts to engage with this tendentious editor. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It is improper to vilify this writer as tendentious. Efforts to comply with Mr. Hrafn's guidance on references has NOT "displayed editing which is partisan, biased, skewed—in other words, (that) does not conform to the neutral point of view." A call to provide references naturally requires that those seeking to comply find evidence supporting the content of the article.

There have NOT been "repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors." There have NOT been "repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles" but rather the effort to provide an article with references." In fact, there has been little alteration of content at all. I am not sure if Mr. Hrafn's, name-calling, mockery and denigration of my efforts could be "characterised as POV, that is usually an indication of strong opinions," but every effort is being made in good faith to comply with and learn from this experienced Wikipedia administrator. From the explanation page, it seems improper to refer to my efforts as tendentious.

This article will be re-written piece by piece according to the guidance offered by Mr. Hrafn. However, it will take some time and effort, to undertake the steep learning curve to learn and follow the markup (or whatever is used here) properly. Wikipedia leaders should show patience and support, keeping on line this biography until a fair, impartial review is made to assess if it is notable or not. This biography is in an area relevant to current international issues, and tensions (namely issues of religion and peace).

Since I do not know Wikipedia well, I do not know if contemporaries and colleagues of comparable status to Mr. Hrafn are following this conversation, and if there is any assessment if I am being treated in ways that violate WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. Also does Wikipedia condone public denigration of particular communities of faith? What are the POV rules about particular communities of faith? 96.224.169.155 (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Further efforts to comply

The "Public life" section has not yet been edited in the effort to improve the article 96.224.169.155 (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable independent coverage of Frank Kaufmann

WP:NOTE states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Similarly:

• WP:BIO states: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." and
• WP:ACADEMIC states: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject."

So what is the reliable independent coverage of Frank Kaufmann? Feel free to add to this list (but also be aware that others may comment challenging its reliability or independence). AFAIK it is:

• Bare mention as one (of 75) nominees for an award.[10] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The 'Eden Project' -- "an important interfaith initiative among the world's most leading religious figures"?

I have been attempting to do some background research on the 'Eden Project' (one of large number of unrelated groups to bear that name). It appears to be simply a 'one man band' of one Donald Sagar, for who the only mention I can find is sparse but repeatedly dismissive & disparaging coverage from the blogosphere. I am therefore tagging the citation to it as being unreliable, as well as failing to verify the claim cited to it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Here Mr. Hrafn bases his contention on the blogosphere, but earlier on presented blogs as illegitimate for Wikipedia purposes.

Nevertheless, it is not a problem to remove this note, though keeping it would improve the article. A secondary, supportive footnote should be considered helpful, even if someone finds bad information about an organization from the blogosphere.

It has already been stated that the invitation to the group signifies the status of Kaufmann. Even if Mr. Hrafn's disparagement of Donald Sagar were correct, it would still makes the point that a person trying to show his organization to be important in the field, and to collect as impressive a list of names in the field as possible, chose to use Kaufmann in a list that was designed to impress.

The note is helpful and supportive, but it is not vital. Keeping it helps the article, removing it does not negatively impact the article content it supports. 68.160.253.64 (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Here 68.160.253.64 makes it up again.

• First he claims that this is "an important interfaith initiative among the world's most leading religious figures" without a shred of evidence.
• Then he misrepresents my statement that the "only mention I can find" of Sagar was on the blogosphere (meaning that he is too minor to get coverage on more substantial sources) as my "bas[ing my] contention on the blogosphere" -- whereas I was 'basing my contention' on the lack of coverage from anywhere other than the blogosphere.
• "It has already been stated that the invitation to the group signifies the status of Kaufmann" -- proof by assertion -- worthless.
• "...it would still makes the point that a person trying to show his organization to be important in the field, and to collect as impressive a list of names in the field as possible, chose to use Kaufmann in a list that was designed to impress." No -- all it proves is that "birds of a [ WP:FRINGE ] feather flock together" -- being called upon by (and answering) an obscure crank's invitation, suggests that Kaufmann has little profile in more influential circles.

This is quite simply more absurd WP:TE. 68.160.253.64 is not editing in good faith. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Instruction and Public Life

This section carries a banner claiming that information is missing as to where Kaufmann taught. Footnote 29 states clearly that Kaufmann taught at Pace University (NYC) including the areas study, and footnote 33 states clearly that Kaufmann taught at Unification Theological Seminary. 68.160.253.64 (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 29 makes no mention of Pace University,

Correction footnote 25 makes that mention. Thank you for the correction. 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

footnote 33 only mentions him give a single talk at UTS, not regularly teaching there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 33 makes clear mention of Kaufmann teaching at UTS. Why is it permitted to repeatedly present errant information? 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No. The source explicitly states that this was a "visit to UTS" for a "talk"/"lunch seminar". And get a dictionary -- "errant" means "traveling or given to traveling".

What are the rules about removing banners, once the issue raised is satisfied? 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

First rule is correct the error: "This article or section is missing information about: institutions where Kaufmann has taught." The fact that some thin gleanings of this information are contained in the sources, does not mean that the article or section contains this information. The trouble is that the information is too brief and vague to actually ascertain when and how extensively he taught at either of these locations. It is probably sufficient for "he has taught at Unification Theological Seminary and Pace University" -- but we'd expect a far more extensive CV from an academic who actually met WP:ACADEMIC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Question about arbitrary insertions and arbitrary deletions Dialogue and Alliance

In a section on the journal the significant mention of its membership in the ATLA corpus is presented. In an evident attempt to diminish this significance an editor listed the number of journals ATLA carries. The ATLA made a press release calling Dialogue and Alliance an impressive title. Why is the number of journals that are part of the ATLA proper to include, but the clear praise for DnA not proper to include?

Is it permitted by editors simply to put information in an article that they believe harms the strength of an article, but simply remove valid and legitimate (in fact more direct and pertinent information) they believe will strengthen the article?

Certainly there must be some rules that govern editors arbitrarily adding or deleting information simply to damage the content of an article?

ATLA has an interest in promoting their online collection. That it called these four serials (not 'Dialogue and Alliance' individually) "impressive titles" is therefore hardly a neutral evaluation. Such marketing hyperbole has no place in an encyclopaedic article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Question about arbitrary insertions and arbitrary deletions Guru Nanak Interfaith Award

In a section on the journal the significant mention of the article subject being nominated among an elite world leadership for an award is listed. An editor in a seeming effort to diminish the importance of the nomination listed the number of nominees. Yet among the nominees were many of the most famous religious leaders alive, including the award winner.

The fact that people nominated for the award include His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and Archishop Desmond Tutu is more important information for the reader than an extraneous fact that 75 (still a small number) individuals were nominated for the award.

Is it permitted by editors simply to put information in an article that they believe harms the strength of an article, but simply remove valid and legitimate (in fact more direct and pertinent information) they believe will strengthen the article?

Certainly there must be some rules that govern whether or not editors can arbitrarily add or delete information in an effort to discredit the subject of an article. 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Because I do not know the rules about reversion, and the damage to the article is being done by a Wikipedia administrator, I am a bit hamstrung. Arbitrary additions and deletions are being made in an effort to harm the article content, but I do not know the rules about how to handle these violations. 68.160.253.64 (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There were 75 nominations for this award. Yes, some of them were very prominent -- but many of them were not. This is how the source described Kaufmann, at the very bottom of the article:

Others individuals nominated for the award include Steve D. Martin, president of Vital Visions, Ruth Broyde-Sharone, a film maker, Dr Sayyed Hussain Nasr, University Professor of Islamic Studies, Dr Paul F. Knitter, Gary Krupp, Dr Frank Kaufmann and Dr Harold Kasimow, a pioneer in introducing the study of non-Christian traditions in the curriculum.

The article didn't even bother to say anything about him (a doubtful honour he shared with two others), indicating that the source considered him to be very much an 'also-ran', not in serious contention, and only barely worthy of mention at all. Connecting him to the Dalai Lama, and Archishop Desmond Tutu on the strength of this therefore amounts to little more than name-dropping. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

More misrepresentation -- "video footage of a long private meeting with the Dalai Lama"

I finally got around to wasting 20min watching this video. It is 20 minutes long -- but most of it is a lengthy travel-log of the journey to Dharamshala, the video of the "meeting" (more an 'audience') was only about 5 minutes long (approx 14min to approx 18min into the video), included at least half a dozen individuals (including a still photographer as well as the video photographer) and Kaufmann himself did not appear to talk at all during the meeting. "Works with" the Dalai Lama? I don't think so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Complete lack of corroboration of "Collaboration with religious leaders"

The article states:

As IRFWP director, the responsibility to develop and convene dozens of international, interreligious conferences,[original research?] as well as to oversee[original research?] the publication of 10's of monographs on religion and peace [16] has required Kaufmann to collaborate[original research?] with major, world religious figures and political leaders including Imams and Rabbis from Israel and Palestine and surrounding countries, [17][not in citation given] [18][not in citation given], major leaders of the Russian, Greek and Syrian Orthodox churches[19] [20][not in citation given], Indian religious leaders, His Holiness the Dalai Lama,[21][not in citation given], Christian leaders involved in Christian ecumenism and Protestant-Catholic relations in North and Latin America.[22][23][not in citation given], and others.

• There is no evidence that as "IRFWP director" he had any such "responsibility" -- this is pure speculation
• There is likewise no evidence that he "develop[ed] and convene[d] dozens of international, interreligious conferences"
• The citation verifies a number of "monographs on religion and peace", but gives no mention of Kaufmann's alleged 'oversight' -- so this is also pure speculation
• The claim that Kaufmann has collaborated with "with major, world religious figures and political leaders including Imams and Rabbis from Israel and Palestine and surrounding countries" is cited to his membership in the Advisory board of Middle East Peace Initiative (another Unification Movement org of little notability) whose large (40) membership is mostly US residents, former heads of state/government (many of whose names turn up on other Unification junkets), a couple of minor Israeli chief Rabbis (of Ramat Gan, & Saviyon) and an Israeli Greek Orthodox bishop. This is therefore a considerable exaggeration of the source -- as to both the seniority of & extent of the alleged 'collaboration'.
• "major leaders of the Russian, Greek and Syrian Orthodox churches" is sourced to "The Trinitarian Basis of Christian Unity Conference, Moscow, USSR, October 28th to November 1st, 1991" (no verification that such a conference occured, let alone that Kaufmann or "major leaders of the Russian, Greek and Syrian Orthodox churches" attended), and to a source (which is itself merely quoting Kaufmann) that merely has an Archimandrite (a monastic title slightly above abbot), of unknown affiliation giving prayers at an IRFWP event.
• "Indian religious leaders" is currently unsourced
• "His Holiness the Dalai Lama" I have already dealt with in #More misrepresentation -- "video footage of a long private meeting with the Dalai Lama" above
• "Christian leaders involved in Christian ecumenism and Protestant-Catholic relations in North and Latin America" is sourced to him having edited a couple of anthologies.

I will not give an accurate description of the complete lack of integrity or adherence to wikipedia policy that this passage demonstrates, as my last such accurate description of a similar lapse in standards continues to get Jclemens' knickers in a twist a month later. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Extremely strong POV

Research is ongoing to meet the standards that guide notable biographies for Wikipedia. Also major investment and time and energy is also being done to diminish and discredit this biography.

The POV of the editor working to discredit and diminish the notability of this subject, and the efforts to provide sourcing presumes the stance that the subject is guilty until proven innocent. References are studied for technicalities on the assumption (with the strong POV) that the biographical information is false.

The editor who instantaneously deletes information that helps and supports the notability of the biography, and does extended research to add as much data as possible to diminish the notability of the biography takes the strong POV that the biographical information is untrue, though there is no reason to presume so.

The assessment of the critique of sources clearly displays an editor with a strong POV against the subject matter, who is devoting substantial time and effort, not to help the article, but to take every measure, often with lightening speed to harm the article.

There are many who like to contribute to Wikipedia who do not have the leisure to spend hours either to support or attack Wikipedia articles.

Ongoing and further research is being made to defend the article under this extensive and devoted attack, so this notable biography should remain and permit gradual but steady efforts at repair to be made. (Even though many efforts seem to be removed or attacked the moment they are entered). 64.134.50.220 (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)