Talk:Frank Kaufmann

Initial reaction by new user and apology

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 [2][3][4], as well as the following references which are simply links to/sales-blurbs of/abstracts of material written by Kaufmann: [5][6][7][8]
   • 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[9] and a piece that is explicitly stated as being "by Frank Kaufmann"[10] 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.[11] 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)

I would try to correct the error (namely remove the banner that makes a false claim about the section), but it is frightening to take actions when the banner is placed by an established editor who is trying to have the article deleted, for fear of violating a technicality about reversions. I have already been falsely accused of being tendentious for simply trying to comply.

The editor adds new subjective assessment of information re, "too vague" or challenging "how extensively," despite that the reference does precisely what it is meant to do, namely establish support for the information in the article.

A CV is precisely what is forbidden in this context as it would be cited as "self publishing." Mybesteffort (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:18, 8 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)

The editor who is trying to have this article deleted offers that he or she has the capacity to know the motivations of the American Theological Library Association for describing one of its titles as impressive. I cannot imagine that presenting oneself as having the capacity to know reasons for an organization's statements, and presuming it to be other than what is stated, namely "marketing hyperbole" should count as a legitimate critique of a source. Mybesteffort (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:21, 8 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)

How ironic that Hrafn would accuse misrepresentation. I also took the time to watch this video. No one who was paying attention could possibly honestly conclude what Hrafn asserts. So I have to assume that Hrafn wasn't paying attention to what he was watching, as I'm sure he wouldn't deliberately misrepresent the video. Only 3 people are directly involved in the conversation, the Dalai Lama, Kaufmann, and Kaufmann's associate. These 3 are sitting together and conversing. There is no way it can be called an "audience." There are obvious edits in the video footage during the meeting, so we have no idea how long the meeting lasted, except that we know there was more than the 4 or 5 minutes that appears on the video. Why would we not assume good faith when an editor says it was a long meeting and we have no evidence to the contrary?

As has been the case in the past, Hrafn has made aggressive edits on the basis of assumptions which are informed by his strong biases and lack of knowledge of the subject matter. Kaufmann has his associate sit between himself and the Dalai Lama and lets his him take the lead in talking. This is Kaufmann's style. It is one of the reasons he has been so successful in arranging discussions promoting religious harmony, because, unlike many leading figures in a variety of fields, and unlike headstrong people who can be found almost anywhere, he does not have a big ego. During the period I was most aware of his work, he arranged and hosted several international conferences each year promoting interreligious understanding through dialogue. One such conference included the grand muftis (national islamic leaders) of Syria and of Yemen, which led to a long-term relationship. And there were prominent leaders like this in all the major religions. I'm sure much more has happened in the last decade or two. Although the references may be hard to find, because as one editor mentioned this work takes place quietly without a lot of fanfare, with time the appropriate references can be found, and the text can be revised to reflect what the references say rather than straying too far or taking too much liberty. -Exucmember (talk) 06:27, 8 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)

Registered finally

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

CWR refs

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Kaufmann's main notability deleted

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)

Home court advantage

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)

Editors encouraged to investigate for themselves

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)

Why Exucmember, Jclemens & Mybesteffort hate me

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations

Exucmember's recent edits violate WP:BLP by:

1. 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)
2. 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).
3. 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)
4. 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

On the WANGO point, a detailed (if hostile) look at that organisation can be found at Rev. Moon and the United Nations: A Challenge for the NGO Community. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As context for the claim that D&A is a ""major religion and theology journal", I did a search on Google Scholar, and found that it was very rarely cited by other articles. Of course if somebody would like to find its relative stature (to other theological journals), on the basis of more formal impact measures, that would be a more authoritative assessment. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of important, well-sourced material

Dialogue and Alliance is a "major religion and theology journal" according to the American Theological Library Association (ATLA), an eminently reliable source of opinion on such matters. This key point of notability should certainly go in the lead, as with similar comments in many bios of academics on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Hrafn deleted the the quotation (during an AfD no less) and moved the sentence out of the lead, to the very bottom of the "Activities" section. Now, you'll notice if you look at this version of the page before Hrafn's deletions that in the article I did not make the slightly stronger claim that D&A is a major journal, only that ATLA said it added it to their collection of "major religion and theology journals" (their exact wording, as a direct quote from the ALTA source). After my pointing out in the AfD that Hrafn deleted this impeccably sourced quotation, he might have been cooperative and put it back where it belongs. Instead, he is now arguing on the basis of original research that he doubts D&A is an important journal. I don't think editor Hrafn's doubt (or his opinion based on OR) should take precedence over the opinion as reflected in a direct quotation from the ATLA. Hrafn has provided no reliable sources to give a different indication of the importance of D&A. If the roles were reversed, he certainly would have immediately reverted my deletion and told me to find a reliable source for a contrary opinion.

In many cases in the past when he reverted an editor with far less justification based in Wikipedia policy, it was accompanied by a sarcastic comment, and in some cases a virulent personal attack. I am hesitant to point this out, as he will surely accuse me of making a personal attack on him (perhaps even smearing me by grouping me together with and quoting a newbie who clearly didn't know Wikipedia policy yet, as he did above).

Jclemens already pointed out (in the only other Unification Church related article I can remember him being involved with) that of the hundreds of AfDs he's participated in, he can't remember any editor besides Hrafn who ever deleted sourced material that another editor believed contributed to notability. Hrafn, can't you see that this could be misinterpreted as an attempt by you during an AfD to suppress valid, sourced material that contributes to notability, thus influencing the outcome of the AfD? When this happens in more than one article on related subject matter, other editors (especially a heavily involved newbie who may already feel that his religion is "persecuted") may start to wonder if you're really being fair. You often accuse others of being tendentious editors, but can't you see how other editors might view some of your edits (such as deleting a quoted phrase from an ATLA decision which undeniably supports notability - during an AfD) as tendentious? This is not a personal attack, and I have no desire to offend you (and that has never been my motivation in the past). This is questioning your edit. -Exucmember (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• No. A press release from the journal's own online publisher does not count as a WP:RS for such fulsome praise. Especially as (as I substantiated above) there is little in the way of objective evidence to support this description.
• All evaluation of the reliability of sources requires a degree of what would be WP:OR or at least WP:SYNTH if explicitly stated in the article.
• I am rather bored with this constant repetition of personal attacks against me. Not only are they against policy, but they are completely off-topic. You don't like me. You really really don't like me. I get that. Why should anybody care?

I will raise this issue on WP:BLP/N, given that you have disputed it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There must be some mistake or misunderstanding. "The journal's own online publisher"?!? "Such fulsome praise"? We are talking about the American Theological Library Association. What they say about theological journals is significant. We are talking about the single word "important" (their selection criteria) that they used in their own press release about adding to their own collection, which includes the academic journal Dialogue and Alliance. The publisher of Dialogue and Alliance is the Inter Religious Federation for World Peace. The two are completely independent. If the American Theological Library Association refers to something in the sphere of theological writing as "important", that is noteworthy. Are you confusing part of this with a different reference? -Exucmember (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So, in addition to it widely being ignored (per lack of citations in above search), it is self-published by Kaufmann's own organisation. Incidentally, what is the hard-copy circulation of it (as opposed to its circulation via the ATLA collection)? How would you define ATLA's relationship to D&A, if not as its "online publisher" as part of its "collection"? As far as I can see, ATLA never described D&A specifically as "important". Also, press releases are not serious scholarly analysis, they are a format specially intended to attract attention, and are therefore liable to include hyperbole. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is what the article said before you deleted the quoted phrase:

• He is editor in chief of the journal Dialogue and Alliance,[5] which in 2005 was added to the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) ATLASerials online collection of "major religion and theology journals".

Here is what the article said after you deleted the quoted phrase:

• Kaufmann is editor in chief of IRFWP's journal Dialogue and Alliance,[17] which in 2005 was added to the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) ATLASerials online.

I misremembered that the word you are describing as "such fulsome praise" was "major", not "important".

It really doesn't matter whether the American Theological Library Association is the only organization that provides online access to Dialogue and Alliance or whether they are one of hundreds of libraries and/or library associations that provide such access to it as part of their collections. An argument to exclude their phrase "collection of 'major religion and theology journals'" because it is not trustworthy (even though it comes from the American Theological Library Association) - "liable to include hyperbole" according to you - is certainly the most bizarre argument I have ever heard in my years of editing Wikipedia. I honestly don't know what to say. -Exucmember (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dialogue and Alliance is not listed in the ARTS & HUMANITIES CITATION INDEX - RELIGION JOURNAL LIST of Thomson Reuters, the major publisher of journal impact factors & Journal Citation Reports. Running Publish or Perish on D&A's 294 papers it has published, it has only 22 citations (for 0.07 citations per paper). In comparison a run of the first 1000 papers (the maximum number it can handle) over the last decade from journals with 'theology' in their title, yielded an average of 0.42 citations/paper. This would indicate that D&A's impact is well below average in the field. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Further research and sourcing is in progress

Further research and sourcing is in progress, despite efforts to kill this article that include re-writing, and undoing work of established wikipedia editors.

Please allow the rescue effort to continue. Thank you Mybesteffort (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Prominance of the 'Guru Nanak Interfaith Award'

Exucmember has removed the {{fact}}-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? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.[12] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, if anybody is interested, you can find the nominating procedures for this prize here:

Nominators should provide a brief description of themselves (no more than 100 words) and a two-page letter describing the individual or organization being nominated and the activities the nominator believes qualify the nominee for consideration. Nominations may be submitted electronically at http://www.hofstra.edu/gurunanak, in writing to Dean Bernard J. Firestone, Hofstra College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, 200A Heger Hall, 115 Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549-1115, or by e-mail at GuruNanakPrize@hofstra.edu .

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

References

More POV-pushing on Dialogue and Alliance; notability

I see that Exucmember has:

1. Moved this WP:PEACOCKery back into the lead.
2. Omitted the fact that it is the IRFWP's own journal (so that Kaufmann appointed himself to the editorship-in-chief)

1. Editing is not an "appointment," I refrain from describing this remark for what it is. Editing is work. You edit a journal, you publish it. People do not concern themselves with "appointments" as though the term editor is some sort of an honorary title. Mybesteffort (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Reinserted ATLA's self-assessment of "collection of major religion and theology journals" (have you ever heard anybody call their collection "minor" or "obscure"?), in spite of the fact that we know that D&A is not listed in the ARTS & HUMANITIES CITATION INDEX - RELIGION JOURNAL LIST of Thomson Reuters and that almost nobody cites it, casting severe doubts on the accuracy of "major" label as it applies to D&A.

1. Who on earth with a neutral pov challenge the ATLA? Mybesteffort (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Cited an apparently unpublished (and thus unverifiable) letter.

On the subject of notability, Kaufmann's claims to fame appear to be:

1. Self-appointed editorship-in-chief of a journal that is largely ignored by the academic community.

1. Again, appointment? vis a vis editing a journal?

1. Being one of 75 nominees for a not-particularly-major award, for which anybody can nominate anybody else.

1. POV and bias. If anyone could nominate anyone, there would be just 75 nominees, including the world's foremost religious figures and leaders, seeking a $50,000 award? The POV drips from this sort of challenge.

1. Convenor of a number of conferences, which have gone unnoticed outside UC-published sources.
2. Writer of a number of articles, that are only published in UC-controlled sources.

I have therefore restored the 'notability' tag that Exucmember recently and unilaterally deleted. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What Exucmember doesn't want the reader to know about Kaufmann

In this edit, Exucmember eliminated:

• the fact that Dialogue and Alliance (a journal insufficiently important to be listed by the major journal impact rating agency, and whose articles are almost never cited) is the IRFWP's own journal (so that Kaufmann effectively appointed himself editor in chief of it;
• the fact that the "collection of major religion and theology journals" claim was merely from ATLA's own press release.
• the fact that Kaufmann was "one of 75 individuals and groups" nominated for the Guru Nanak Interfaith Prize (which in any case (i) is a fairly minor award & (ii) allows open nomination);
• the fact that all the 'Peace activism' articles that this article trumpets were published in UC-controlled media outlets. Would anybody really like to argue that this is a coincidence?

In this edit Exucmember also added back the apocryphal "Letter from ATLA Executive Director Dennis A. Norlin to Dialogue and Alliance Associate Editor Clair Bowles" reference. Where is this "letter" Exucmember? If it is unpublished then it is not a WP:RS.

In a later edit Exucmember also obfuscated ICRF's degree of affiliation to the UC by including the ICRF's vaguely-worded non-denial of it. In actual fact, the ICRF is headed by Dan Fefferman and Richard Steinbronn (who is also an officer of UC-owned One Up Enterprises[13]) and also includes Michael Jenkins on its board. I don't know how many other members of the board have UC-affiliations, but I can certainly find out if anybody really wants to make an issue out of this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you agree that organizations created by UC members to fulfill goals of the overall Unification Movement ought to be described in terms of their links to Rev. Moon? With 6 of its 9 board members being prominent members of the UC, and its president being a former (?) prominent member, I would think our readers would be interested in the connection.

If so, perhaps you would like to join me in describing the various UC-related organizations - starting with the most significant (or newsworthy?) and moving on down to the less well-known or effective. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of tags

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)

Misuse of tags

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)

New World Encyclopedia

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)

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'? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Independent sources

WP:GNG states:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. [Emphasis added]

{{primary sources}} 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). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

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? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

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 {{dead link}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)