Talk:Michael Barkun

Notability

Closed discussion about a resolved dispute
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Micheal Barkun meets the notability criteria for academics according to the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) page. --Loremaster (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC) be more specific? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC) For example: The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. “ Barkun’s contributions won the the 2003 Distinguished Scholar award from the Communal Studies Association and the Myers Center Award for the Study of Human Rights for his book Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement. ” --Loremaster (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC) if it is a really highly prestigious and notable award, award should have some entry in wikipedia. [1] [2] 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC) after getting a feedback from other users, it seems you will have to find better reliable secondary sources to keep this article around. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC) What other users? And who are you? --Loremaster (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Who am i is inappropriate question for wikipedia user (see WP:OUTING). Users on Wikipedia:Help_desk and Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics). 212.200.205.163 (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC) It certainly is an inappropriate remark. It would be good if you made an argument. Much better than a reference to "others." But it's not necessary for you tell us who you are. Just make your argument as logical as possible. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC) i made argument above. i don't think those prizes are highly prestigious, and i think there should be other secondary reliable sources talking about the subject. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC) If you've been here since October 16, 2009 we're supposed to treat you with "kid gloves." --Ludvikus (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Good point. But it shows an omission on the part of Wikipedia instead: [3]. Here's your point: Gustavus Myers Center for the Study of Bigotry and Human Rights. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC) We don't even have the founder: Gustavus Myers. This is another person. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC) actually it seems to be that person. read the first 2-3 paragraphs. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC) You're correct: [4]. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC) See here: GUSTAVUS MYERS, 1872 - 1942. The Program, founded in 1984, is named in honor of the pioneering historian who authored History of Bigotry in the United States, NY: Random House, in 1943. ::--Ludvikus (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Ludvikus, just because someone or something doesn't a Wikipedia article, it doesn't automatically mean that they are not notable. It simply can and often does mean that no one has gotten around writing a Wikipedia article for it... --Loremaster (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC) User:212.200.205.163, if you take pride in your work, enjoy improving Wikipedia as a reliable open-source encyclopedia, and don't tolerate public unsubstantiated speculatory accusations of bias, I strongly recommend that you create a user account since it is extremely useful for an editor (such as giving him the ability to more easily watch over pages he is interested in) but it also contributes to a culture of accountability on Wikipedia. Despite the fact you will probably use a pseudonym, it's easier for other editors to discern your motivations when a track record of contributions is attached to your user account. People rarely speculate about my motivations because they can see my track record of contributions to Wikipedia has made many stubs become good and even featured articles. Lastly, as the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article gets closer to becoming a featured article, it will most probably become a target for vandalism by cranks so an administrator will have to put a semi-block on it which will prevent them as well as good anonymous contributors such yourself from editing it. So seriously think about it. That being said, what and who were you talking about when you said “after getting a feedback from other users”? --Loremaster (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC) don't you read my replies. i gave links to help desk and notability talk pages above (Wikipedia:Help_desk and Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics) i asked for feedback there). anyhow," ... easier for other editors to discern your motivations.. " it is faaaaar more easy to discern the content on its merit and merit of its sources than to analyze other's motivations. you know, it is easy to avoid ad hominem "arguments" 212.200.205.163 (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC) I confess I was in rush so I missed the last part of your sentence. Anyhow, although it is your right to remain anymous, I don't take people who post anonymously seriously in light of how this ability can and has been abused by so many on Wikipedia. --Loremaster (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Beyond the numbers of hits for Michael Barkun on Google (roughly 56,000), here are some other items: In Winter 1998, the Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report referred to his book Religion and the Racist Right as “definitive.” In his editorial introduction to Millennial Violence: Past, Present and Future (Frank Cass, London, 2002), Jeffrey Kaplan (University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh) referred to Barkun's book, Disaster and the Millennium, as a “classic.” The same volume contains an essay by me, “Project Megiddo, the FBI and the Academic Community,” that describes FBI consulting by scholars including Barkun. Another description of some of that consulting in which he is mentioned is Jean E. Rosenfeld, “The Importance of the Analysis of Religion in Avoiding Violent Outcomes: The Justus Freemen Crisis,” Nova Religio 1 (October 1997): 72-95. --Loremaster (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)