Talk:Andrew Wilson (theologian)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Undeletion
This article was originally speedied under ASD7, nn bio. But the version that was speedied was this one, which you'll note has absolutely nothing to do with the actual/original article; thus I've undeleted it. --maru (talk) contribs 19:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Source for blockquote
The blockquote in the article is referenced to Wilson's sermon entitled, "Parentism and World Peace", but the link provided leads to a page telling the user to "Please type your ID." However, searching on the Website I found a link to the sermon here, but the passage quoted in the article is not to be found in that text. Perhaps the quote is from a different sermon? Does anyone know which one? MishaPan (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I moved the quotation here:
From a Jewish background himself, Dr. Wilson comments on the accusation that the Unification Church blames Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus:
Jesus understood that the reason why Jews were ignorant of him was not due to any fault of their own, but because certain leaders, like John the Baptist, had misled their people. Jesus also understood that the people who crucified him were not the leading rabbis of his day, but rather leaders of questionable worth, people like Caiaphas who were simply Roman puppets. These leaders held high office, but they didn’t at all represent the religious spirit of mainstream Judaism.[1]
(link not working at the moment)
Perhaps this would be appropriate for Unification Church and anti-Semitism, but here it seems merely to be a coatrack. -Exucmember (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Unsourced sniping
To new editor Shunam:
1. Sources must be reliable (not a forum entry).
2. In World Scripture, Wilson wrote an introduction to the volume, to each of 5 parts, to each of 21 chapters, and to each of about a half-dozen or so sections within each chapter. Taken together, this is of book length, and is all original work.
3. Many academic books have been printed by Edwin Mellon Press. It is not a valuable addition to an encyclopedia article to complain about the publisher unless this was thought to be significant in a published reliable source; even then it would be highly debatable. -Exucmember (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I was rude. I should have spelled out my reasoning here, but didn't take the time to do so previously. -Exucmember (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Response
Apology accepted. Re World Scriptures, the introduction and sections represent editorial type work, not original scholarship. Any competent academic recognizes what qualifies as original scholarship, and what is a useful compilation of primary sources with editorial classification and annotations. Regarding the reputation of Edwin Mellon, that is a given within the academic community and so it does not matter if you tolerate reference to this in the article or not. I do not think there is much to debate here.Shunam (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
