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