Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JP Holding

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Though I will move it to J. P. Holding. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JP Holding

• Keep No harm done here, keep it!

Just one of thousands who are using the Internet to spread his religious views. Dunc|☺ 20:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. A verified author who has been featured on the nationally syndicated "Bible Answer Man" Broadcast of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) hosted by Hank Hannegraff (one of the largest broadcasts of it's kind in North America). He further has 6 publications with CRI including a recent book critiquing The Davinci Code. See CRI's website[1].--Nicodemus75 22:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - his views may be objectionable, but we can write a factual, verifiable and neutral article about that. Trollderella 23:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to have a reasonable presence. I do suggest a move to J. P. Holding in accordance with naming conventions. David | Talk 23:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Nicodemus75 and Trollderella. -- DS1953 00:51, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, as above. --Agamemnon2 14:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Very popular apologist. Notable for his published books and articles. Has been very influential in popular apologetics. Has a very large reader base on the internet in particular. -- User:Gilbertggoose 22:00, August 22, 2005 (CST)
• Delete. For the purpose of an Encyclopedia a biographical entry ought to be about a person of historical interest, academic significance, or be a contributor of new ideas or fresh perspectives in a given field. This apologist could not at this stage in history be identified as a major contributor, a seminal thinker who has produced new ideas or perspectives, or be ranked as an important popular writer. Once his career nears its end then it would be possible to make a mature assessment of his contributions. One way of contemplating which pop apologists deserve mention in Wikipedia is to consider their career and training. This apologist does not have any theological training, in contrast to other popular apologists such as Josh McDowell. This apologist only holds credentials in library science, and thus the output of his work can be measured in a few ways. One is by the originality of his work at a pop level - does this apologist rank as someone who has lucidly summarised the work of academic apologists and hence made their work more accessible to a non academic reader? Another test is to consider the comprehensive nature and understanding of the apologist when writing on a given topic. A good illustration of this is the article he wrote against the atheist Richard Packham. Packham, a lawyer, had written a critical piece on John Montgomery's legal apologetic. The apologist's article was lacking in proper background research, and this was reflected in the content of the article. For example, the apologist dismissed Montgomery's legal apologetic but was unaware of the fact that in the history of apologetics more than 120 apologists have engaged in legal apologetics. It is a school of thought in the history of the field, which has only just started to be recognised in its own right. While the apologist is entitled to dislike legal apologetics, the substance of this particular article was not at a standard that could be rated as properly researched or making a significant, valuable contribution to a specific debate. The apologist's output on the Mormons is likewise not of sufficient quality or depth to be deemed a vital or important contribution that improves on comparable publications in the subject. While this apologist has had a strong web-presence, this factor by itself does not establish significance, mere prolixity of words or pop traffic to the site is not a good indicator of importance. As one who has taught the subject at a tertiary level, I have not included this apologist in course references. This is not prejudice but on the grounds that he would not be rated as important enough to merit inclusion for a course bibliography, whereas pop apologists like Strobel and McDowell would be included. This latter comment is not to devalue his efforts or dismiss his website. It might be noted that in the Wiki article "apologetics" his website is listed as an external link. In my opinion that is sufficient presence for this apologist at this time in Wikipedia. User: philjohnson 9.42 am August 24 2005.
• strong keep I believe Holding's work the Impossible faith is very noteworthy. [2] I also thought his Exodus/Scythian argument was noteworthy. [3] To give one more example of work I think is notable of JP Holding, I think his commentary on resurrection accounts which discusses the ANE cultural aspects was very helpful in regards to this issue.[4][5] In addition, I believe Holding covers many topics that are often offered by skeptics but which I believe are not often covered by other apologists such as the "copycat Christ" argument. [6] Also, I believe Holding offers a useful service to the Christian community in having a very large library of articles on various Bible verses many of which I have found helpful.

In regards to the Packham commentary I would say that I did not entirely agree with Holding's essay on Packham although I agreed on some points. I do think Western legal standard apologetics have their place for example. Also, Holding did say that Montgomery made some legitimate points. [7]However, I don't think that Packham really deserved a rebuttal essay given his legal commentary although I am glad some Christians with legal backgrounds have responded either directly or indirectly. To give one example, Packham didn't cover the obvious argument for the pro resurrection testimony in regards to the exception to the hearsay rule from a legal standpoint -namely "statements against interest" given in this code (Cal.Ev.Code §1230; F.R.E. 804(b)(3).)[8]. Packham's rebuttal to someone who critiqued his essay just mentions this issue but does not comment on it very much and Packham currently offers a dead link to the statute![9] [10]

I personally think Packham's work was sloppy, ill thought out, and did not cover the major issues. Part of the reason is that I think his heart was not in it and I suggest looking at Packham's career as a lawyer to decide if this was the case. [11]

In addition, I think you dwelled entirely too much on his Packham essay and did not cite and did not comment on Holding's more well known essays like the "Impossible Faith". I only addressed the Packham essay to show it was not very notable and Holding's quick dismissal of it was not a tragedy. In short, I think it was an exclusion fallacy you were practicing. Also, you claim Holding's commentary on the Mormon religion was not quality work but you did not say why. Given your comments on legal apologetics, I think you should have practiced the principle that the burden of proof is upon the claimant.

In short, even Babe Ruth missed few pitches so I think your dwelling on the Packham essay was insufficiently gracious. I don't think I was being unfair to the Packham essay but I will let each person decide for themselves in this matter based on a review of the legal apologetics that have been written. [12] [13]ken 19:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Brief rejoinder: The comments above made on the article where Mr Holding replied to Packham, and hence dealt with Montgomery's legal apologetic, was concentrated on as an illustration of the difficulties that can beset a popular apologist when tackling a technical subject that it would be prudent to leave to those with juridical credentials. I indicated to Mr Holding in an e-mail shortly after his article was published that his position was vulnerable from inside the history of Christian apologetics given that at least 120 legal apologists have published material in defence of the faith. The Montgomery legal apologetic has been defended in a special issue of Global Journal of Classical Theology (2002), and one of the essays there provides bibliographical data on at least 90 legal apologists.

I offered the remarks made on the previous day about the legal apologetic article as one tangible example that could be considered by a Wiki panel in deciding whether to delete or improve on the existing entry about Mr Holding. In submitting the prior post I believed that it was inappropriate to make a protracted presentation of difficulties that can be pointed to in other items (such as the material on the LDS).

My initial post indicated in passing that I have taught apologetics at a tertiary level. I also happen to be extensively published with books and articles, and have been a practitioner since 1978, but I do not believe that an article about my work should appear in Wiki. But whether my personal commitment is that of a Christian or not, has no bearing on the merits of an article about Mr Holding as an apologist in Wikipedia. I indicated on the discussion page that I was not making comments to support his non-Christian critics. In light of the fact that I briefly identified my worldview (and hence potential bias in Mr Holding's favour), and simultaneously avoided ad hominem commentary about Mr Holding, a final comment on the above rejoinder is warranted. I believe that the following remarks made above violate the Wiki netiquette, as well as being gratuitous and offensive: "Perhaps Mr. Packham gave you lessons on how to present a convincing case in this matter." user; philjohnson25 August 2005 11.19 am.

Brief comment on rejoinder You made many statements that legal apologetics are valid. I agreed with you that they have their place. Now given your many comments about legal apologetics it seems to me that it is fair that you follow judicial standards and if you make claims about JP Holding that you have the courtesy to support them or refrain from making them. It seemed to me you want the privilidge of making a critical claim without the attendant responsibility of supporting that claim in regards to Holding's Mormon commentary. I suggest you retract the claim and apologize for not supporting it or support it. I certainly hope you do not believe that critics are immune from criticism or that critics should not support their claims. Now I agree that my comment was overly pointed and sarcastic. It just appeared to me that you needed to be knocked off your high horse though. I would remind you that criticism without supporting that criticism is easy but nobody ever built a monument to a critic who did not support his criticism.

ken 17:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.