Talk:Frank Kaufmann

message: 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)
thread_title: Further efforts to comply

message: 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. HrafnTalkStalk 06:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable independent coverage of Frank Kaufmann 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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. HrafnTalkStalk 14:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

text: If you'd been paying attention, you would have noticed that I'd already corrected it & removed the template here (more than 24 hours ago). A biographical article needs to be more than a CV, but should include highlights of where an academic studied and taught. HrafnTalkStalk 15:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Instruction and Public Life

message: 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. HrafnTalkStalk 15:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is merely a reasonable conclusion on the basis of a factual premise. And I would ask you to desist in these repeated ad hominem attacks, per WP:NPA. HrafnTalkStalk 15:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about arbitrary insertions and arbitrary deletions ''Dialogue and Alliance''

message: :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)
thread_title: Extremely strong POV

message: Apologies for the long run with only an IP.  I registered now.  Thank you Mybesteffort (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Registered finally

message: I would point out that the CWR refs (which have escaped culling, and have had their tags removed) are neither verifiable, nor for "published peace commentary". A Google search turned up innumerable CWRs, none of which seemed particularly relevant. I would suggest that they (and the claims cited to them) should likewise be culled. HrafnTalkStalk 15:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The rewording of the statement probably makes the "published peace commentary" issue moot, but the fact remains that the existence of CWR conference & summit is not currently verifiable, so the existence of these summits cannot themselves verify any claims cited to them. What we would need is a WP:RS documenting (i) their existence, (ii) their stated topic/agenda & (iii) Kaufmann's participation. HrafnTalkStalk 15:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CWR refs 

message: Recent edits have improved the article's compliance with Wikipedia's policies, but Kaufmann's main source of notable work, his more than 20 years of running conferences devoted to interreligious dialogue and reconciliation, has been deleted. This is his main activity, not academics. It will be important for someone to find a reliable source which mentions this work in some way, and put this important fact in the introductory paragraph, preferably at the begininng of the first sentence. -Exucmember (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaufmann's main notability deleted 

message: Last night a TV commentator attributed the "home court advantage" at the olympics in China not only to the cheering crowd's psychological boost to competitors but to its influence on the judges. If charges that Hrafn is biased are true, it would mean that the biased commentary on discussion pages and the content of his edits might adversely affect the judgement of editors participating the AfD, so Hrafn's alleged bias is in fact a legitimate issue here. We all like to think we can't be influenced, but a myriad of psychological studies show that we can be very influenced by subtle factors. -Exucmember (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Home court advantage

message: I simply do not have time to match the massive effort of Hrafn to kill this article. Editors encouraged to investigate for themselves and decide whether or not Hrafn's personal attacks against a newbie and charges that he is strongly biased are reason enough to distrust some of the interpretations and characterizations he provides, both in talk page comments and in edits to the article. -Exucmember (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Editors encouraged to investigate for themselves

message: Exucmember, Jclemens & Mybesteffort (the latter under previous anon-posts) have launched an unceasing campaign of personal attacks on me, both on this talkpage & the AfD. Their descriptions of me have repeatedly included calling me "hateful" and "biased" and my attempts to correct this article's gross deficiencies as "virulent" and an "attack", as well as voluminous lesser snipping.
So why have they been doing it? I suggest that you follow Exucmember's (admittedly ill-intentioned) advice and "investigate" for yourselves. You might like to start with an examination of the state of the collection of UC-related articles prior to my intervention. Evidence of this can be found in:
*The fact that this article itself stood for two years as a simple WP:COPYVIO of Kaufmann's blog autobiograpy.
*the vast number of prod-notices on UC-related articles on User talk:Ed Poor that have resulted in deletion or redirect (you can look at the history of the redirected articles to see what they looked like beforehand)
*The large number of non-notable articles that I've recently merged into List of Unification Church affiliated organizations (a list I created to avoid further prod-ing articles on non-notable UC-affiliated orgs). (likewise you can look at the history of the redirected articles)
*Talk:Divine Principle#Subject and Object to see an outsider's baffled incomprehension of the contents of an article that I had just merged in (at the suggestion of its main author, a UC-regular).
*The woeful standard of sourcing on such key UC articles as Divine Principle, Unification theology & Unification Thought.
The UC-regulars have generally failed to write good articles, and have collectively failed to self-police their claimed area of expertise for quality. Some of them are therefore throwing a hissy-fit that a mere outsider has the audacity to come in and attempt to clean this mess up. These few would like to eject me and go back to rebuilding their house of cards.
I'm frankly heartily sick of this bad-faith, abusive, eliminationist behaviour. I'll take a short break from this group of articles to lower my blood pressure. But do not think that these transparent tactics have succeeded in eliminating me permanently. HrafnTalkStalk 07:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Exucmember, Jclemens & Mybesteffort hate me 

message: Exucmember's recent edits violate WP:BLP by:
#Introducing grandiloquent self-descriptions of IRFWP & ATLASerials into the lead (I would also point out that the discussion of D&A's ATLA affiliation is excessive for a lead, which it gives a WP:COATRACKy feel to). (See WP:BLP#Criticism and praise)
#Reintroduces the Dalai Lama -- when Kaufmann was only one of 75 nominees with him (a point that Exucmember's edits delete) -- and when we have no indication that the Dalai Lama even acknowledged the award. This is little better than name-dropping (and again has a WP:COATRACKy feel to it).
#Cites the claim that "Kaufmann has worked in the area of religion and conflict resolution for 29 years in over 65 countries" to an "author biography" that is a mere copy of his blog biography -- i.e. merely his own self-description. (see WP:BLP#Reliable sources)
#Cites "consulted with national governments during the Gulf War and the Ayodhya Mosque controversy" to WANGO, which has close ties with the UC, unclear (non-UC-affiliated) NGO membership and is not the main international NGO organisation (CONGO is). I would therefore assert that it is not a reliable source.
I am removing numbers 3 & 4, per WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. I will replace the irrelevant mention of the Dalai Lama winning the prize with the relevent mention of the size of the field. I will remove the self-descriptions and move the D&A'/ATLA material into the 'Advisory roles and other activities' section where it belongs. Should anyone object and/or revert, I will be happy to take this up with WP:BLP/N. HrafnTalkStalk 04:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On point 3, Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source seems to apply more than WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material or WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Toddst1 (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even on that section, I would question if such a broad claim as "Kaufmann has worked in religion and conflict resolution for 29 years in over 65 countries" should be based upon a self-assessment. I would suggest that it fails completely on Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source #6 (as most of the article is based on similar information) and is in doubt on #2 (as such a broad self-assessment could easily be considered self-serving). However as I have stated, if you wish to challenge my assessment, I would be happy to place the issue in front of WP:BLP/N. HrafnTalkStalk 16:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BLP]] violations 

message: Exucmember has removed the -tag which M introduced to query "why award is important". While I agree that this is an imperfect tag, the fact is that there is no inline tag appropriate to query this (the closest was an inline notability tag, which has recently been deleted). We have only one citation to a major news source for the nominations of the award (The Tribune piece), a year ago, and no major news source at all for the conferment of the award itself this year (let alone whether the Dalai Lama even acknowledged it or accpeted it in person). The conferring organisation, Hofstra University, although a solid institution, is hardly world-renowned, and appears to have done little (if anything) to publicise this award. So my question is why this award is sufficiently important that mere nomination for it (along with 74 others) is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant mention in the article, let alone in the lead? HrafnTalkStalk 08:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because, being nominated among 74 people for this award IS noteworthy.  The argument against it here includes a subjective assessment of a University, a subjective assessment whether sufficient efforts at publicity have ensued (!), and finally the challenge that His Holiness go accept in person an award that will not be given until later this year !  Mybesteffort (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so it is is noteworthy because Mybesteffort says it is, without offering any argument or evidence whatsoever. Proof by assertion and absolutely worthless. Even "subjective" evidence is better than no evidence at all. If you don't want to take my word for it, take a look at this ranking of the US's top 124 colleges. Hofstra University isn't on there. Incidentally it either the prize, or Kaufmann's connection to it, is so obscure that the sole RS linking Kaufmann to it can't even get its name right -- it is in fact the Guru Nanak Interfaith Prize (no mention of it by its correct title also mentions Kaufmann). And the Dalai Lama has already accepted it, via his U.S. representative, via phone. HrafnTalkStalk 19:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prominance of the 'Guru Nanak Interfaith Award' 

message: I removed the irrelevant tag.
The application of the 'irrelevant' tag unnecessarily clutters up this article, using the face of an article to carry out personal POV arguments and agendas (making Wikipedia look bad).  Furthermore "irrelevant" does not coincide with these particular efforts to malign the subject of this biography.  "Irrelevant" concerns "wandering off topic."  Editors please be more careful to utilize Wikipedia guidelines, and please resist from cluttering up the face of articles with POV agendas.  Mybesteffort (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Misuse of tags

message: I removed the "neutrality disputed" tag.
The application of the "neutrality disputed" tag unnecessarily clutters up this article, using the face of an article to carry out personal POV arguments and agendas (making Wikipedia look bad).  Furthermore "neutrality" does not coincide with this particular efforts to malign the subject of this biography.  "Neutrality" is not even questionable in this case. The reference simply supports the statement in the article. Editors please resist putting graffiti an article with an inapplicable reference like "neutrality," in cases like this when a simple statement of fact is supported by a reference.  Editors please be more careful to understand Wikipedia guidelines.  Please resist cluttering up the face of articles with POV agendas.  Mybesteffort (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Misuse of tags

message: I'm surprised to find nothing about Dr. K's involvement with the Encyclopedia Project. It's the most mammoth undertaking, in terms of budget and manpower, to unify and normalize Wikipedia content. 
I think someone tried to remove it from "forks and mirrors", too. (I hope this is not Wikipedia:Censorship.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly because there appears to be nothing in the way of WP:RS supporting its importance. Incidentally, what exactly is the function of an 'Editor in Chief' in an organisation that also has a 'Managing Editor' and a 'Chairman of the Editorial Review Board'? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[New World Encyclopedia]]

message: WP:GNG states:
 states "Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article."
So which sources are "affiliated"?
*ATLA -- online republisher of Kaufmann's journal (2,3)
*Paragon House -- UC-owned publisher (5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,14)
*Written by Kaufmann himself (15,16,17,20)
*IRFWP (7)
*Unification Theological Seminary (18)
*Peter Lang Verlagsgruppe -- Kaufmann's publisher (19)
*ICRF --UC run & funded (21)
*New World Encyclopedia -- UC run & funded (22)
That leaves only sources #1 & #4 as independent. These are cited simply for the facts that Kaufmann is the "director of the Inter Religious Federation for World Peace" and was "nominated for Hofstra University's first Guru Nanak Interfaith Prize" respectively (with the latter being a bare mention in a list of minor nominees). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Following up on this point, can anybody demonstrate that third parties have even noticed Kaufmann's 'Conferences and commentary' & 'Academic and advisory work' activities? And lacking such third party notice, is it appropriate to include sections on these activities? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would note that almost two years after I originally posted this issue, nobody has attempted to respond to it. I see no reason why the 'Conferences and commentary' & 'Academic and advisory work' should be restored lacking ANY third party notice (let alone substantive coverage) of these activities. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Frank Kaufmann. 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/20090105190925/http://www.atla.com./news/press/press05.html to http://www.atla.com/news/press/press05.html
*Added  tag to ftp://ftp.atla.com/public/atlas/atlas_titles0508.xls
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified