Talk:Irving Hexham

Clear sources and footnotes

Regardless of who is editing this article, in order to comply with Wikipedia policy it is imperative that all claims (especially those regarding a living person as per WP:LIVE) be properly referenced and footnoted. An ambiguous statement that simply says that the specific information appears somewhere "in the bibliography" is simply not sufficient to safeguard either the personal rights of the subject individual or the need for verifiability in the encyclopedia itself. regards Deconstructhis (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Irving Hexham writes: Thank you for correcting me on this issue. I have made the appropriate changes so that the references are to published sources. This is, I believe, not against Wikipedia policy since the information is "neutral" and corrects factual mistakes in an article about myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvinghexham (talk • contribs) 19:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Irving Hexham writes: Since my earlier comment all of my original changes have been removed and the page was re-written by a Third Party. So the COI issue is no longer a concern. Perhaps someone can check the history and remove such comments. I again apologize for not knowing the rules when I added my changes. Irving Hexham (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI#Autobiography & WP:AUTOBIO. "Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases." Likewise, per WP:COI#Close relationships, creating a biography of your wife Karla Poewe‎ (or editing Christian apologetics‎ to mention her) is frowned upon. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"Notability"?

I believe that the actual "notability" of this scholar is hardly the issue here is it? A quick search of Wikipedia easily turns up a number of some of his obvious colleagues, none of whose articles are challenged for appropriateness on that basis:

Eileen Barker, David Bromley, Douglas Cowan, Jeffrey K. Hadden, Reender Kranenborg, J. Gordon Melton, Anson Shupe,

In fact, I obtained those names from a list in an article that originally contained Hexham as well. Also, despite the fact that the recent edits were authored by an editor who chose to use "IrvingHexham" as his account name, I've not seen any direct evidence that in fact that editor actually is Irving Hexham, if someone has concrete evidence of that, I'd like to request that they present it here for other editors to examine. I'm going to leave the "compiled" template in place for the moment, but without sufficient supporting evidence (especially on the "notability" issue), I intend on removing it as inappropriate, to be replaced with the templates that were already in place. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Notability needs to be established via significant, reliable third party coverage, not merely asserted on the basis that 'he looks like he should be notable'. The article lays claim to a lengthy career of solid scholarship, but nothing sufficiently stellar to make WP:ACADEMIC a slam-dunk, even if verifiable.
2. As far as whether IrvingHexham is Irving Hexham, (i) WP:AGF would indicate that we should take him at his word on this unless we have information to the contrary & (ii) he uploaded and claims authorship of both the pictures of Hexham himself and of his wife Karla Poewe, which would seem to support his contention.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Irving Hexham writes: my intervention here was to correct mistakes and add appropriate published refernces. Therefore, it does not violate policy. As far as the question of "notability" goes I use my own name and do not hide behind a pseudonym. As a well published author who is listed in the Canadian Who's Who I do qualify under the notable category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvinghexham (talk • contribs) 19:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Irving, I understand your position, but please WP:AGF. The article will get cleaned up and fixed. In the meantime don't exacerbate issues by accusing others of vandalism or edit warring. The outcome of that, especially when you are the subject of the article, is not positive. We66er (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

From Irving Hexham: To be honest I really do not have the hang of how Wikipedia works and apologize for my earlier comments. The fact of the matter is that I provided standard academic references which someone removed. Then I was accused on not providing references and of conflict of interest when all I was trying to do was add useful information to a Wikipedia page. As far as I am aware I have acted in accordance with the guidelines that do allow the subject or an article to add comments if mistakes are made in the original article. The guidelines also allow for people with close relationships to write articles provided they are neutral, objective, and include citations which is what I tried to do in the case of my wife Karla Poewe and of a former colleague Hugo Anthony Meynell. Yet my citations were removed and I was accused of conflict of interest which I do not believe is true given the factual nature of what I wrote. Perhaps you can advise me further on this issue. Thank you. Irvinghexham (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 02:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Notability (academics), this scholar has achieved notability and template will be removed as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

moved comment

(moved off-topic comment to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Irvinghexham#Pseudonyms) Theserialcomma (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability of source

Border Crossings: Explorations of an Interdisciplinary Historian appears to be unpublished (it is not listed on either Google Books or Amazon). As such it would be unverifiable and unacceptable as a source. If somebody wishes to contest this, then I suggest that they post the ISBN number of this book.

Even if it is published, a long lines of 'Ibid's is unacceptable, both from the viewpoint of verifiability and from a Manual of Style viewpoint. I will be tagging them for lack of page numbers and would strongly suggest that when they are corrected WP:CITE#Shortened footnotes be used to replace this ugly repetition. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(Parenthetically, if "van der Heyden and Feldkeller 2008:12" means page 12, this needs to be made clearer. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC) )

You are correct, the Ibids are not allowed under the Manual of Style. It is also my understanding that the "12" is the page number. Madman (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Festschrift

Although "usually not sufficient individually" to satisfy notability policy requirements,WP:ACADEMIC points out that the publication of a Festschrift "dedicated to a particular person" in and of itself can contribute to establishing an individual's academic notability. Provided that the publication originates under the auspices of a reputable educational institution, I find it somewhat strange that a Festschrift can be legitimately utilized to bolster an individuals academic notability according to one policy and simultaneously rejected as "unverifiable" and unsuitable as a source by another. Thoughts? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is an unusual sitation, I would agree -- but if you can't buy a book through Amazon (or any 2nd-hand book dealer), and if you cannot get it through a library, even through interloan, then how is it verifiable? How many copies of this 'Festschrift' were created? I suspect that this situation is not uncommon for primary sources -- which might exist only in hardcopy, in a single archive, but very uncommon for the secondary sources in which wikipedia is most interested. WP:ACADEMIC specifically allows for such a situation, by suggesting that "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. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability."

I've posted the question of what level of accessibility is needed for verifiability on WT:V. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It has three listings in WorldCAT: besides the publisher (Harrassowitz Verlag), there is the Graduate Theological Union and Rice University. While not beyond the theoretical capacities of interlibrary loan, this is scarcely ready availability. (The existence of the Festschrift can be verified much more simply, by citing the library catalogs, and does speak to notability.) The independence of a Festschrift is much more doubtful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

True -- at minimum, WP:NPOV#Attributing and substantiating biased statements would seem to apply. And per WP:SELFQUEST #7, the article should not be primarily based upon such a source, as it currently is. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A possibly more fruitful line of inquiry is: What part of this information is useful to any reader but Prof. Hexham? We are not a collection of resumes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This viewpoint would probably be given weight by the rider in WP:ACADEMIC: "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." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we can safely ignore this work for a moment. His website (and the company he produced it for) was considered one of the top "Christian" travel guides by the one reviewer, and his one pocket dictionary is on most purchasing websites. The 3000+ library holdings for his works also suggests notability within academic circles, so there should be enough with outside work to establish him without having to worry about the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I will quite happily "ignore this work" when the vast bulk of the article ceases to be cited to it. This rather renders it the elephant in the room. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations don't have to be sourced to notability. However, it is a reliable source for biographical data, so it can be used for simple things, such as dates when works were published and other minor events. Don't worry too much about it, I'm going to clean up the citations shortly. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I added in two more paragraphs, one on each of his major books. He has some other major books with some other reviews, but these two plus the notable website production should be enough that there are no more notability problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irving Hexham. 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/20061025040840/http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/author.pl/author_id=273 to http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/author.pl/author_id=273

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)