Talk:C. John Collins

Independent sources

I would note that none of the following are independent:

• David Klinghoffer, who like Collins is a Fellow at the Discovery Institute
• The Discovery Institute
• the ESV Study Bible (which he is a contributor to)

This leaves the Challies review as the sole independent source -- but it makes only a bare mention of Collins. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC) … and also appears to be nothing more than a blog. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Publishers Weekly article

The Publishers Weekly article can be found here. It makes only bare mention of Collins' book, and no mention at all of it being "well received among conservative evangelicals such as J.I. Packer, J.P. Moreland, and Henry F. Schaefer, III". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

On closer examination, this fans-list turns out to be from Publishers blurbs (e.g. here on Amazon). Such blurbs are not considered to be a WP:RS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Christianity Today article

Collins plays a significant role in this article. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOMBARDMENT

I would draw editors attention to WP:BOMBARDMENT, and that larding up this article's uncontested opening sentence with numerous citations (solely for Collins' existence and position) does not improve the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I didn't add those references, and you are correct that some of them did not independently add value, and that appending them to a bland opening statement was not optimal.

But why not fix the problem, rather than simply destroying swaths of the article? Some of the references that you wantonly deleted were in fact substantial; having actually read them (did you?), it took me a few minutes to write a more appropriate sentence for them to append. And you could have easily spent the half-a-minute that it took me to find a source for this paragraph, which instead you wantonly deleted.

The best I can say is that your editing on this page today has been irresponsible. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No BlueMoonlet, I do not typically look at the individual citations contained in a blatant bombardment. This is not being "irresponsible", it is merely making efficient use of my time. Removal of such a bombardment is not "destroying swaths of the article". I would further note that a number of these sources are of poor quality. The best of them is a couple of short paragraphs on Collins & his book buried deep in an 8 page article (which itself is in Christianity Today, hardly the most independent of publications). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If you, by your own admission, do not have the time and/or inclination to properly do the job of editing the articles you edit, then perhaps you should reconsider which (or how many) articles you choose to edit.

And it is destructive. Most of the time you do this, I'm sure, someone like me is not around to call you on your excesses. Thus, while it is true that the information you delete still exists in the page history, it will most likely never see the light of day again.

And what is your problem with Christianity Today? It is the flagship publication for its particular community. Serving a particular subset of the world's readership does not lessen a publication's independence. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

1. No, BlueMoonlet I DID NOT admit to "not hav[ing] the time and/or inclination to properly do the job of editing the articles [I] edit" -- kindly cease and desist putting words in my mouth.
2. No, removal of superfluous citations IS NOT "destructive" -- it is normal editorial practice.
3. My problem with CT is exactly that "particular community" -- which just happens to be the exact same particular community (i.e. Evangelical Christianity) that Collins himself is part of -- hence its not being rather less than perfectly independent on this topic.

You have pervasively misrepresented and demonised my statements and actions. I would request that you stop. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

1. I stand by my statement, which is only partly a characterization of what you said and is also partly my judgment of it. You admit that you frequently do not take the time to evaluate material before you delete it. I am flabbergasted that you clearly think that is entirely proper.
2. You are the one who has narrowed the scope of my criticism to "removal of superfluous citations." If you look again at my original post, I am critical of your removal of non-superfluous citations, and even more so of your removal of text that could easily be sourced if you took half a minute to think about it.
3. This makes no sense to me, but I'm not sure what to say to it. Are you saying that sources that serve a particular community, rather than a general (secular liberal) readership, are inherently suspect? If so, can you cite any policy in support of such a position?

I don't believe I have misrepresented you, and perhaps my point #1 above helps to clarify that. I remain strongly critical of your posture and your actions, but I have been careful to criticize your actions and not your person. I reject the charge of demonization, and I would request that you retract it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet: this thread is explicitly on the WP:BOMBARDMENT of the lead sentence. Your original criticism of me was explicitly on the topic of the citations I removed (even linking to that edit). Now I'm meant to believe that you were in fact criticisng me for some other unspecified crimes committed through unspecified edits. I would point out that this complaint is (i) off-topic (ii) unsubstantiated & thus (iii) WP:Complete bollocks. As such I am completely disinterested in your further tortuous self-justifications. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for using your usual level of careful attention, respectful dialogue, and good sense. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Pastor todd...

In reference to this edit:

1. You need to include a title=... parameter with all {{cite web}} templates.
2. Crossway, the publisher of ESV Study Bible, is NOT a third party source on the subject of Collins, the "Old Testament Chairman" for this bible. The cited webpage is there specifically because he is one of their "contributors".

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Regarding two sources recently tagged as problematic:

• This source (flagged as WP:SPS) is an online-only WP:NEWSORG, run by people with experience in journalism and publishing who previously ran hardcopy sources. I do not see clear guidance from WP:NEWSORG as to the thresholds for such sources.
• This source (flagged as WP:PRIMARY) is an interview with the article subject. But the fact that a WP:RS found the source significant enough to devote this kind of an interview to him supports the relevant statement, which is that he is a significant voice in a current debate.

I would be in favor of removing both tags, but I would like to solicit input from others. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• WP:NEWSORG states ""News reporting" from well established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less well established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact."
• The Aquila Report describes itself as "a new and independent web magazine for news and information from, for and about the Presbyterian Church in America and other churches in the Reformed community." As such it would appear to fall at the least reliable end of the range. There is really little or no difference between such a "web magazine" and a collaborative blog.
• An interview with any person is, by definition, a WP:PRIMARY source on that person -- it is a person describing himself, in his own words. The fact that byfaithonline is explicitly the "web magazine of the Presbyterian Church in America" (Collins' & CTS's own denomination), does not add anything in the way of distance.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Which part of the Aquila Report's description makes it "fall at the least reliable end of the range"? Is it that it is a web magazine or that it focuses on the Reformed community? The former seems like a tricky issue to me, as new media become more prominent and as more reputable publications move to online-only models; the latter I see as having no relevance, though I perceive that you may disagree.

FWIW, byFaith does have a print edition. I don't see how "distance" as a linear variable is relevant. Collins has no involvement in the content of byFaith, so I see no problems per WP:INDY. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

1. "Which part"? (i) "new" -- being the opposite of "well established" & (ii) "web magazine", as (a) web-only publications tend to have less (and less formalised) editorial oversight than print sources & (ii) a "magazine" likewise tends to have less (and less formalised) editorial oversight than a newspaper. WP:NEWSORG provides nothing, in terms of either explicit endorsement, or implicit suggestion, that a web magazine should be considered a WP:RS. Many (most?) web magazines would not be considered WP:RS and, as I have already pointed out, there is little differences between many of them and collaborative blogs -- and in fact the two would appear to overlap sufficiently at a functional level that distinguishing the two would be highly problematical.
2. It is not merely "focuse[d] on the Reformed community", it is written by PCA members for PCA members ("from, for and about the Presbyterian Church in America and other churches in the Reformed community"), so I think I can be pardoned for questioning their objectivity in an article written about a PCA member who works for the PCA seminary.
3. byFaith is repeatedly described by itself (both in its banner and in its 'About' page) as an explicit "web magazine"). No mention is made of a print version.
4. I take it from your silence that you are admitting my point that "an interview with any person is, by definition, a WP:PRIMARY source on that person"?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

My main concern here is that Collins appears to garner little attention from beyond the PCA community. This is problematic for two reasons: (i) such narrow attention does little to establish notability. (ii) Such closely-affiliated attention raises concerns about objectivity. I'm not saying that such sources can never be used, but I am suggesting that it is highly problematical to rely soley (as this article does), or mainly, on such sources (or ones demonstrating a similar level of affiliation). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

1. This source (which is only a press release) says more about the editorial oversight of the Aquila Report. Interestingly, the word "new" is missing from the description; FWIW, I believe it has been around for the better part of a decade, but not more than that. I don't think I buy the general deprecation of magazines; I've never heard of U.S. News and the like being denigrated specifically for that reason.

2. It seems instructive to me to compare the limited readership to other publications whose readership is limited by geography. Perhaps Tucson Weekly would be a good example, as the number of conservative Reformed Christians in the U.S. is roughly similar to the number of people who live in Tucson. You make a good point that notability beyond one's limited community needs to be established (I'll address that below), but I don't see how the publication's objectivity is questionable simply because it serves a limited readership, especially since all that is being asked of the source is to establish that an event took place (as for Aquila's "objectivity" towards the article subject, it is actually hostile).

My larger point here, which I think is an important one, is that sources of this type should be considered reliable reporters of events that take place within a limited community, to the extent that those events are relevant, even if the source does not turn out to make a significant contribution in this case (see below).

3. Here is information about the print edition of byFaith. Again, I don't think this is an important issue, but you apparently do.

4. No, I ignored your point about an interview being a primary source because it was not relevant to my original point, which was that byFaith's decision to run an interview was a testimonial (perhaps a small one, see below) towards his notability, even if the interview's content (which is not part of the reference's usefulness) is primary.

I was just looking more carefully at WP:PROF. I think the argument that is currently being made for this article subject's notability is basically #7 in that guideline: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." So the question is whether Collins' impact has been "substantial," and I have to admit that it seems to be on the bubble. As I said above, you make a good point that the Aquila and byFaith sources establish little more than local notability (akin to being locally famous in Tucson). On the other hand, the Christianity Today and Christian Post sources speak to notability in the wider evangelical community (perhaps akin to being well-known throughout a medium-sized region of the U.S.). I will concede that, overall, Collins' notability appears to be a borderline case per WP:PROF #7. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Given that Doug Vos appears to have no background in journalism, this press release raises more questions than it answers, and gives no confirmation that AR is a reliable news organisation.
2. Size is a misleading comparator -- Tucson would be a lot more heterogeneous than "conservative Reformed Christians in the U.S.", and (except perhaps in such issues as sports) would not consider themselves to be bound together in a common cause.
3. It's still an interview (thus a primary source) by the official magazine of his seminary's denomination (a fairly closely affiliated source).
4. No, the PCA's own magazine doing an interview with a reasonably senior staff member of the PCA's own seminary is simply business as usual, and not a "testimony" to anything. That he doesn't even merit his own article in Christianity Today, which at least extends its field of view to the American Evangelical community, demonstrates just how narrow the interest in him is. If even the wider American Evangelical community isn't interested in this Evangelical religious academic, why should Wikipedia care about him?
   • To take your 'Tucson' analogy, he would be the equivalent of a minor city official (probably not even a council member), who has not garnered significant coverage outside his city's own papers. Under WP:POLITICIAN that'd be slam-dunk non-notable. Or perhaps a teacher at the Tucson city community college (but certainly not at a state university) would be an appropriate analogy (given that he isn't a member of the church's hierarchy, merely of its teaching institution).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with that. Better might be a graduate-level professor (though not at a state university, I agree) whose comments on a matter of regional public interest have been moderately followed. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

My point was that of an institution that gets its students (almost) exclusively from within the city (analogous to students from within the denomination -- though as PCA < "conservative Reformed Christians in the U.S.", even this is an exaggeration). Such institutions generally do not have "graduate-level professors", so I did not use that terminology. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, a seminary is a graduate school, and not comparable to a community college in terms of academic prestige. But I do see your point also. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)