"

Even if Godman was a ""scholar"" (haha) of/on UG, I don't see why he should be mentioned in the article. It's an encyclopedic entry, not a ""scholarly"", ""repected"" (hilarious) analysis. It's not an exposition of UG's theories that would necessitate critical enquiry. Do you want to know - encyclopedically, IN BRIEF - who UG was and what he said? Read the article. Do you want to know whether he was - this, that or the other? This is not the place. Look elsewhere and exercise your judgement.
The notion that JK and MLK ""are far better articles by any measure"" because of ""number of hits, being quoted etc"" is childish. Popularity is no measure of ""betterness"", especially on the internet.

"