Talk:Albert M. Wolters

From the page Albert M. Wolters

From the page Albert M. Wolters created 00:27, 15 Apr 2005 user:Reformatikos before making Albert M. Wolters a redirect to this page. Please merge any extra information into this article. Philip Baird Shearer 17:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Albert M. Wolters is a philosopher and teacher of religion at Redeemer University College, Ancaster, Ontario, Canada. After graduating in philosophy from Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Wolters studied philosophy at the Free University (VU) in Amsterdam. He wrote his dissertation in the reconstruction of the text with a commentary of a section of Plotinus' Enneads. His best known works are an essay on "Vollenhoven's Problem-Historical Method" and a worldview-book outlining his understanding of a Reformational worldivew. Wolters is a dedicated exponent on Reformational philosophy, and classicist in the Semitic, Greek, and Latin languages, their philology and exegesis.

Requested move

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request.

• Talk:Al Wolters Hi! Is it possible to move the Al Wolters article to Albert M. Wolters please? I couldn't do it using the move facility as there is already an entry under Albert M. Wolters. Once it is moved I can then combine the two articles. Thanks, Steve Bish 15 April 2005
  • The information at "Albert M. Wolters" was a stub. I copied it to "Talk:Al Wolters" and made Albert M. Wolters a redirect to "Al Wolters". Philip Baird Shearer 17:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support. move "Al Wolters" to "Albert M. Wolters" now "Albert M. Wolters" is a redirect. Philip Baird Shearer 17:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support SteveBish 14:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• support the copy merge under 'Al Wolters' and then the move/redirect to more formally titled page "Albert M. Wolters.' Reformatikos 01:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• support Rudi Hayward
• Support Philosophisingplasterer 09:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Thanks for doing that [(the copy merge)] - but it would be best under 'Albert M. Wolters' rather than the informal 'Al Wolters' - is it possible to swop them around, so that Al Wolters redirects to Albert M. Wolters - where the details presently under Al go to Albert M.? Steve Bish 10.52 (BST) 16 April 2005

It is better if the page is moved and not copied because of the history attached to the page. As the target page has been edited, it has to be done by an administrator (hence the WP:RM request). If enough people vote for the move an administrator may choose to do it after five days. Please read WP:RM for the details of how the request is processed.

Note the sentence "If you want to merge two articles please make a request at Wikipedia:Duplicate articles instead of here." All I've done is the equivelent of what is recommended on the duplicate articles page, but it clears the way for the requested move you have requested. BTW If ever you want to have a page deleted then see Wikipedia:VfD. -- Philip Baird Shearer 22:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thnaks Philip for your help. Cheers, Steve SteveBish 08:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Please advise if I have or have not figured out how to reply properly to you, Philip. And thanks for your assistance to Steve Bish and myself. Yours, Reformatikos

Wolters

Wolters is not only a senior professor, he's also a published author. I can only imagine that those who decided this article should be deleted because they were operating in robotic mode. We don't delete articles about people so significant. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tony. I'm one of the "robots" who voted for deletion of the Albert M. Wolpers page. In my vote I called the article a vanity page. This is not an attempt at an insult, the vanity guidelines are an official Wikipedia policy; violating them is grounds for deletion. Please read them.

The problem with vanity pages is that they do not establish notability, are of concern only to an isolated minority, and are not subject to verification. While I admit the current page is significantly better than the earlier one, it still has vanity problems.

You seem to claim that being a "senior professor" and a "published author" are significant enough for an automatic inclusion in Wikipedia. This is contrary to the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion of biographies.

For comparison I just checked Wikipedia for the names of several professors from my university and the dean of my university department; none of them have Wikipedia pages. This is one of the top-ranked universities in Canada, with over 20000 students. One of these professors is also a member of the Royal Society of Canada, another has appeared on national television. All of them have multiple publications, degrees, public and academic awards.

The problem is that none of this is notable outside the communities in which they work. They are mentioned in the university's web site and those featuring professors, but Wikipedia is not one of those sites; Wikipedia is for general, non-professional information. This is official Wikipedia policy; if you do not agree with it you should not be participating in Wikipedia.

Being a "published author" is even less notable. About a half-million books are published in Canada and the U.S. each year; only a tiny fraction of which ever become notable. This is even less relevant for academics since academic presses publish Masters and Ph.D. theses.

It is nearly impossible to become a professor in Canada without being a "published author"; I know several grad students who are published authors. Nor is being an "award-winning" or "best-selling" author especially significant in academia, given the number of academic awards and the small pool of authors to choose from. An undergrad professor of any large university can easily become a "best-selling" author by making his book the course text.

The guideline I use for establishing notability is not "has this person published a book?", but "has a book about this person been published". According to the article, Mr. Wolpers does not meet this mark.

Finally, the article as it stands is unverifiable. It contains claims such as Mr. Wolters' personal correspondence, conversion experiences, and personal interests. While these are, no doubt, important to Mr. Wolters, they cannot be independently verified by someone not personally connected to him.

As I said before, this page is considerably better-written than before, but still does not pass the Wikipedia vanity guidelines. -- Corvus 18:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you read the vanity guidelines? The article specifically says, and I quote: "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion".

Also look again at criteria for inclusion of biographies. For academics, you're referred to Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies/Academics. There is no guideline there as yet because we were not able to arrive at a consensus.

Now go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents, and you'll see the following:

• Authors and writers are notable if they have released a book (other than through vanity press)
• Professors are notable if they have made significant contribution to one or more books (not just papers)

Wolters qualifies under both of those.

Now you obviously think these criteria are too sloppy--for heaven's sake, you might say, we'd have to include most of your faculty! To which I reply that I do not find this prospect at all unpleasant. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Expert status

Snowspinner has already rightly said that Wolters has been cited as an expert on a NOVA documentary. There's also this, from the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, which mentions in passing that his published overview of the Copper Scroll "is the text of the article which W was asked to write for the Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Lawrence Schiffman and James C. VanderKam; New York: Oxford University Press, forthcoming)." I think this seals his expert status one and for all. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 09:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge?

• No mergeI can't see what can be gained by merging this article with the Copper Scroll. Wolter as well as being an expert on the Copper Scroll is also influential in the Reformational movement. SteveBish 17:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• No Merge- The Copper scroll may be an area of Wolters' expertise, but it is a very different subject that necessitates its own article. While the Copper scroll may need to be mentioned in the Wolters article, and Wolters in the Copper scroll article, they should definitely not be the same article. --Benwildeboer 00:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Wolters' notability outside of the copper scrolls is not established; hence the argument for a merge. No-one is suggesting that the copper scrolls article become about Wolters - rather that he is mentioned in conjunction with the scholarly efforts surrounding them. Eusebeus 04:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No Merger, retain free-standing Wolters article - It's false to say "Wolters' notability outside the copper scrolls is not established...." Wolters has produced a hugely successful worldview book that is known around the world; it's a distillation of his religion-studies / biblical /archeological expertise coupled with his expertise in the history of philosophy, which embraces the problem of encyclopedia and variety of spheres of life. As to its approach to structure, the hardwork is embedded and the results made accessible; as to its approach to religious direction, it is committedly explicatory of a Christian worldview. It is known and recommended by many philosophers who are themselves unable to write for non-philosophers, for students just entering into undergraduate or graduate studies. It is suitable for non-Christians who want an intelligent exposition of one extremely learnèd multlingual scholar's contribution. I don't agree with every single jot or tittle in it, but that is not important to notabliity resulting from width of understanding or generosity across religious differences, especially when the phliosophical problem-couplet of structure/direction (Cassirer, Vollenhoven, Dooyeweerd) is made accessible to non-philosophers. - Reformatikos

• No Merge Al Wolters Book Creation Regained has been translated into eight languages and is the classic introduction to a reformational worldview. refphilosopher

• No merge. This is a biographical article; that is an article on a ancient near eastern manuscript. If you think that the subject of the article is non-notable, nominate it for deletion. — goethean ॐ 20:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• No Merge!. Albert Woltors, aside from his expertise in the copper scrolls and reformation theology, has also established himself in the study of Plotinus. His work Plotinus on Eros (III.5). Amsterdam, 1972 has had a great deal of influence on the field of study, and is referenced within Wikipedia already. Trit (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)