Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard L. Thompson

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus that editors coming externally to review this article have found the sources wanting. As such the GNG kicks in and this falls for deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close changed to no consensus by Spartaz, the closing admin. Adjusting it for him at his request. See User talk:DGG/Archive 56 Sep. 2011#Favour DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L. Thompson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no reliable sources independent of the subject that show how he is a notable person who has made any notable contribution to his field of study. Does not pass either WP:SCHOLAR or WP:AUTHOR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge (to Hindu views on evolution initially, but possibly eventually to an article specifically on Vedic creationism). Thompson appears to be known almost solely for his work on Vedic creationism (no reliable third-party sources have been forthcoming on his mathematical work), and even there mainly for his work in conjunction with Michael Cremo (his solo efforts have yielded far less coverage). There appears to be no secondary coverage for biographical matter at all, and even including primary sources the coverage of this area are very very thin. It therefore makes far more sense to cover Thompson's more noteworthy work in an article on the general topic of that work, rather than in a biographical article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to assume that general notability for being Vedic creationism is somewhat not in accordance with the policy for inclusion. This is not a fact, notability is determined by the sources that you feel are right. In other words you confirm that there are reliable sources, but you would rather merge the article, which is an alternative to deletion, but it has very little support and this motion was already defeated on the talk page it seems. Wikid ^as© 10:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass either WP:SCHOLAR or WP:AUTHOR. If there are independent secondary sources that significantly discuss either Thompson or his works, I have not been able to find them. Blueboar (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you try to look on the article talk page. You'll find several "independent secondary sources that significantly discuss either Thompson or his works". Thanks. Gaura79 (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, there are sources, this vote is based on the assumption that "he can not find them". Wikid ^as© 10:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ as a short biography. Thompson co-authored a work heavily and extensively criticized by reliable third party sources either as a direct review of the book, or in commentary on creation/development debates. This work, Forbidden Archeology, was a 900 page historical review of anomalous historical findings of various degrees of credibility reported over the last two hundred years. Based on a review of the documented literature, the work presents the possibility of a far greater antiquity for modern forms of human life then currently accepted in contemporary scientific paradigms. The work argues part of the process of acceptance and rejection of evidence involves the human element inherent to doing science. Even some of the work's most vehement critics have acknowledged it's utility as a sociological and historical study of the discipline (ex: Tim Murray (1995) in the British Journal of the History of Science, and Bradley Lepper's review (1996) in Skeptics magazine.) Thompson was also a prolific author who wrote extensively on religion and science, as well as ancient astronomy, cosmology and world view with reference to Eastern philosophy and Gaudiya Vaisnavism, a branch of Hinduism. Further, he did extensive professional scientific work in the fields of computer biological modelling and satellite remote sensing; all work acknowledged by leaders in the field both in secondary and primary sources (most of which is regularly deleted by Thompson's editorial wiki critics.) Thompson's published personal views (in particular - 2004, "Introduction") are anything but "creationist" - rather, they suggest a deep affinity toward John Hedley Brooke's influential "complexity thesis" analyzing the relationship between religion and science. Thompson is an intriguing figure, though one who also elicits emotive reactions from partisans engaged in creation/development debates. (I apologize for not being more familiar with the technical terminology involving this issue on wiki.) Sdmuni108 (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I offer the following as an antidote to Sdmuni108's Pollyanna interpretation of Forbidden Archaeology:[1]

Besides, many critics had genuine problems with Forbidden Archaeology that went beyond "Darwinism". For all its densely technical discussions of archaeological anomalies, many critics complained that Cremo and Thompson bombarded readers with abundantly useless data. For example, FA devotes 400 pages to analyzing anomalous stone tools depicted in obscure literature over the past 150 years. Worse, these specimens no longer exist. So FA compensated by providing page after page of drawings taken from their original sources. But in his reprinted review on page 103, Kenneth Feder frets that these illustrations are absolutely useless because it is impossible to determine whether these Paleolithic tools are drawn to scale or accurately rendered.

I would also point out that, outside this piece of Vedic Creationism, coauthored with Cremo, Sdmuni108 offers no third party citations to support notability of Thompson's work -- implicitly acknowledging my point that Thompson is only notable for this material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there are sources outside of the VC work, as illustrated on the page. So it is more than just ONEVENT. Much more. Wikid ^as© 10:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ai carumba - no one disagrees the FA project is the most notable feature of the entry. It attracted severe criticism, much arguably deserved - no argument. While it touched upon a lot of sensitivities in a notable way, not all the criticism, even from some of the most severe critics, was entirely dismissive. It is what it is. The rest of the article; right now it is primarily supporting bio info that is easily referenced. Nonetheless, there was most certainly other third party sourced information (Zygon, Hinduism Today) concerning Thompson, all consistently deleted. There were also ~~notable~~ significant primary source materials that could be worth consideration, though all were quickly (and rather patronizingly) dismissed on technical grounds. That honestly appears to me where the issue currently stands. Sdmuni108 (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"notable primary source material" is an oxymoron under Wikipedia WP:Notability guidelines. And I'm unaware of reliable third-party sources being removed from the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In response to these retroactive additions: yes I admit I forgot the Hinduism Today review -- all two sentences of it ("significant coverage"? I don't think so!) As to Zygon, the Henry review is still in the article -- in the 'Further reading' section -- all that was deleted was your vacuous 'I liked the book' summary of it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for any distracting cross talk on my part. There were also challenges and deletions regarding the prominent British evolutionist, J. Maynard Smith, favorable, if not enthusiastic appraisal of Thompson's conference paper published in Smith's edited volume, Organizational Constraints on the Dynamics of Evolution (1990). Currently this work is listed in the bibliography. In addition, I recently found a favorable 3rd party reference to the quality of Thompson's (Sadaputa dasa) scientific work in an otherwise generally critical volume. The title of the academically published book is, Belief Transformations: Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Science and Religion in TM & Iskcon (Oxford UK: Aarphus University Press, 1996) pg 209, ISBN 8772884215. The author brought samples of Thompson's work to physicists at the notable Niel Bohr's Institute in Denmark for assessment. Thompson has multiple listings in the index. Sdmuni108 (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge The article has little merit as a stand alone article. The only notability appears to be from some criticism he has received for a book and a tv appearance. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. It is not the "only notability". There are other sources that are independent of the subject, both sectarian and academic that talk about him as a "leader" for this religion. Wikid ^as© 10:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; non-notable. There are some content problems too. bobrayner (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that there is content problem. However just saying "non-notable" is the argument to be avoided in AFD discussions. Wikid ^as© 10:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No impact on mainstream scholarship. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

in apparent conflict to what appears to be our current consensus on a lack of scholarly attention.... The following quotations are from: Mikael Rothstein, Belief Transformations: Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Science and Religion in Transcendental Meditation (TM) and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), (Oxford: Aarphus University Press, 1996). These are favorable comments.

Rothstein is Associate Professor at the Department of History of Religions at the Department of Cross-Cultural and Regional Studies at the University of Copenhagen. He has a short Danish wiki bio.

His 1996 work reports that Sadaputa dasa (Richard Thompson) is a "dominating figure" and "leading person" in ISKCON exploring the relationship between science and religion, and "the leading figure" researching ancient Vedic cosmography and astronomy. Within an extended discussion, Rothstein specifically devotes eight pages to Thompson's ancient cosmology work.

According to Rothstein:

"ISKCON's dominating figure in science, Sadaputa dasa, write about 'Science: The Vedic View' in nearly every issue of ISKCON's bimonthly Back to Godhead Magazine. . . . In discussing ISKCON's relationship to science these articles are excellent starting points, and as Sadaputa dasa is the leading person in this field of work in ISKCON, it is necessary to focus attention on his contributions" (126).

"The judgement of ordinary scientists is well known to Sadaputa dasa" (131).

"The most striking examples of the development and use of higher dimensional science is the work of Sadaputa dasa (Richard L. Thompson), the leading figure in ISKCON's work in this respect. 'Holding a Ph.D. in mathematics, Sadputa dasa has written extensively on scientific subjects from [that] perspective . . . . In Sadaputa dasa's book {Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy] the higher dimentional level of science is, among other things, exemplified through the quantum theory of physicist Niels Bohr" (122)

"In order to appraise Sadaputa dasa's scientific competence, I have shown a substantial part of his production to a leading physicist at the Niels Bohr Institute of the University of Copenhagen. The scholarly judgement was in favour of Sadaputa dasa. His work was considered competent, although the physicist emphasized that he himself did not share the conclusions. As a matter of fact scholars at the Niels Bohr Institute were willing to meet with Sadaputa dasa for scholarly purposes." (209, fn11) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.115.61 (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC) — 174.131.115.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This does not demonstrate notability. What is he notable for, and where are multiple reliable sources to verify such notability? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And where are the cites then? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep He is notable based on his prominence in ISKCON, Hinduism, new religious movements, and his presentations on vedic cosmology. There appears to be an anti-creationist wave trying delete this page based on a religious like fervor to diminish his importance based on his co-authorship of some controversial creationist literature.

Based on his "creationist" notoriety, he does not need a page and probably barely a mention on other pages. However, since that was a small part of what he did, it's not relevant to the discussion.

An attempt was made to update his page by a couple of novices who were (could use a thesaurus but I won't) bullied by obstructionist tactics. I'm assuming mob-rule will win. Jiva Goswami (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC) — JivaGoswami (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thank you for your kind addition Xxanthippe. I stopped editing Wikipedia out of disgust. The page "Groups referred to as cults in the media" (or some such) soured my perspective. Some thoughtful admin finally deleted it, but it was mob-rule for at least a year. Jiva Goswami (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide some independent reliable sources to demonstrate how this person is notable? Otherwise, there is no reason to keep the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask JivaGoswami to WP:AGF. Enforcement of core Wikipedia policies, such as WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability is not 'bullying'. Yes, these rules quite frequently prevent us from writing as much as we would wish -- but it does ensure that there is a common basis for assessing what is written -- which is essential for a collective project. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly per Sdmuni108. Quotes from Rothstein show R.Thompson to be notable enough in his own right, as a leading figure in comparative research of modern science vs. Hinduism – a unique subject that he contributed arguably more than anybody else towards, and demonstrably took well beyond the scope of FA and creationism. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACADEMIC requires "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed" (my emphasis), I'm not sure that 'ISKCON perspectives on the relationship between science and religion' counts as broadly construed, or that Thompson has had any significant impact on the relationship between science and religion generally. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what WP:ACADEMIC has to do with Thompson. I think it's perfectly clear by now that Thompson was a religious figure and a fringe scientist. Why suddenly he has to pass WP:ACADEMIC to be notable?Gaura79 (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because Sdmuni108 is attempting to present him as some sort of legitimate figure in the relationship between science and religion community. I would question whether he has any prominence as a "religious figure", and as a "fringe scientist" he'd be better presented in an article on the topic of those fringe views. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to independent RS presented here and in the article he was a leading representative of a Hindu religious denomination (ISKCON) in the field of the relationship between science and religion. Looks like notable to me. Gaura79 (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then WP:ACADEMIC does apply, Thompson has only had a "significant impact" if his "scholarly discipline" is very narrowly construed (to 'ISKCON perspectives on the relationship between science and religion') and so no he is not notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson is described in independent RS as the most prominent representative of a religious denomination (ISKCON) who presented ISKCON's perspectives on the relationship between science and religion. He's in no way described as a scientist, but as a religious figure who extensively wrote on this topic and who presented and formulated ISKCON views on this subject. WP:ACADEMIC doesn't apply to him.Gaura79 (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming that he was a scientist -- far from it. However both theology and the relationship between science and religion are academic disciplines, and whichever you frame his work as being a subfield of, his influence only is "significant" if the subfield is narrowly construed. If you want to claim him as a notable religious leader, you would have to demonstrate that he has had a notable impact on the International Society for Krishna Consciousness as a whole. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

meh. Delete - i'd rather not, but there is just not enough third party information on him to confer encyclopedic notability. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"there is just not enough third party information on him to confer encyclopedic notability" - what makes you think that? Gaura79 (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- THIS is sdmuni108, and I wish to make something clear to Hrafn. I have not argued works like FA, et al are professional science. Rather they are commentaries, if not an apologetic from one theological perspective. Meanwhile, Thompson was in fact a competent scientist/mathematician, and he brought that experience to bear in his commentaries on science from Vaisvnava perspective.

- I suspect there is more in common with our point of view then Hrafn is able to intellectually accommodate. Thompson could do many things - I'm compartmentalizing his career. Physics is physics, math is math, and a theological apologetic is just that. But as a human being, Thompson brought all his experience to his multidisciplinary interests. He is a notable scholar in this field of Gaudiya Vaisnava commentary. He was also noted as a competent scientist. Sdmuni108 (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sdmuni108: if they were not meant to be interpreted as "professional science", then why did Cremo and Thompson mail unsolicited copies to dozens of paleoanthropologists? And it is difficult to interpret as legitimate "commentaries" a work that so obviously distorts the evidentiary record -- pervasively presenting bad data as good. "Theological apologetic" presented under the colour of science is pseudoscience. Likewise the level of coverage of him in terms of his scholarship "in this field of Gaudiya Vaisnava commentary" is threadbare, and coverage of him as a mathematician (let alone scientist) virtually nonexistent. And as usual, you have cited no sources for your grandeous claims (nor do any of your, very few, previously cited sources support this edifice). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn, here are some academic references to Thompson's last published work, Maya: The World as Virtual Reality, which he wrote principally as a mathematician and a quantum physicist. May not be a whole lot, but hardly "virtually nonexistent" – and certainly not tethered to, or exclusively produced by, his denominational leaning. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a self published book. It had no impact on the area of study. It is not important, and does not change the discussion - though I agree, it does exist. Thanks for bringing this up. Ism schism (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only three hits (the search lists four, but one is a duplicate): the first appears to be a complete mis-hit (no mention); the second a review that concludes "it’s important to not take it too seriously from an academic viewpoint"; and the third as citation for a single sentence in a 7-page "student" presentation. It seems that Thompson went out, not with a bang, but with barely a whimper. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You must've missed this book citing Thompson, but I agree, not much of a bang. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of the four in total, that second citation highlighted above came from a book by Varadaraja V. Raman a notable figure. V.V. Raman did a review of Thompson in Science & Theology News, no longer available online. A Google scholar search on Vedic Astronomy and Cosmography brought up 17 citations. That book (along with three other Thompson titles) is currently under print in Asia with Motilal Banarsidass. According to Wikipedia, Motilal Banarsidass "is a leading Indian publishing house on Sanskrit and Indology since 1903." Both Motilal and Bala Books published editions of Mechanistic and Nonmechnistic Science, which pulled up 8 references on Google scholar. Meanwhile Alien Identities came up with 22 citations. The second edition of Alien Identities features a forward by the notable "American ufologist" and author, Whitley Strieber. The missing from the selected bibliography Polish edition of Alien Identities lists Strieber as coauthor. Meanwhile, the Forbidden Archeology project received over 70 Google scholar references. Not all are accurate hits. Sdmuni108 (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I have to get a little apologetic on this one. Yeah, I'm sure it was marketed aggressively like that. Thompson was no marketing maven - I'm honestly under the impression he was hardly involved. Undoubtedly the idea was the better the reaction, all the better for marketing. They did get some favorable responses from folks in the SSS and SSK schoola. After all, it came out at the height of the "Science Wars" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars) like from Tim Murray in the BJHS review. There is a dynamic to the work concerning a study of the culture of scientific disciplines.

- But what professional in the field (or even college student) is going to confuse it with a standard scientific work? its OBVIOUSLY NOT original scientific research, and as you keep pointing out (and I agree) it is focused on anomalous or non standard evidence (some more credible to consider then others) and it has a provocative thesis argument. Further, its from a religious publishing house - geesh - could that be a hint? Anyway, I'm arguing its historical research of a particular genre - what else could it be? There was no actual science done in the book. Its history of science focusing on a type of evidence. More generally, who really knows what is going on? But from a scientific perspective, this is a non standard research and analysis for many obvious reasons.

- Hrafn - I never put this article up in the first place, but its been there for over a year now. We were, in retrospect, naively and rather stupidly only trying to put something up there that would actually work in a more balanced way - the previous stub appeared to make Thompson out as a loony tune ready for the next bus to Bellevue. I do think the guy is interesting and has a following. There are tons of articles and information out there in Wiki of people who are not over the top prominent. I use wiki all the time - I find it fascinating. Considering where this is all at right now, I'd like to see a very short, very neutral article on Wiki, but informative and fair with consideration to all the concerns expressed - a few paragraphs max, with some links. The biblio is nice not because it "proves" he was right, but because it suggests a breadth of experience, inquisitiveness, and familiarity and comfort with what is actual science. One genre of work doesn't prove/disprove the other (as per my comments the BI stuff was of a different genre of work.) I guess perhaps I'm a little too inclined toward the intellectual curiosity of it all. But I would agree, there are people who take things ideologically, on all sides of this and many issues, and that is a concern.

- Thompson has in fact gotten some coverage; he is prominent within the Iskcon religion & sci genre (small that it may be) and the FA project is still out there active in print. You know, folks may want to know about the authors of that book. If anything - the fact that Thompson's personal and published comments suggest a rather more sophisticated view on the nature of religion and science than is typical of people associated with this genre can readily get spun toward your own interests for protecting the integrity of the scientific disciplines - as per some of Henry's soundbites. Thompson wasn't a boor about science - he actually liked it immensely, critic though he otherwise may have been. Sdmuni108 (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and move looking at the sources. Since the author is really not just an academic, I suggest that he should be moved over redirect to Sadaputa Dasa. There are sufficient independent from the late R.L.Thompson/Sadaputa Dasa sources that establish the notability of this particular person, as a vedic creationist and hits for that name (that he is more famous under [2]) are sufficient (e.g. "It is especially a single, prominent leader of the movement, Sadaputa DASA (born Richard L. Thompson is the name he writes under) like this exist. ") Because nominator did not checked this particular spelling of this Hare Krishna sectarian leader, as per the source quoted, and did not list this spelling of the name I suggest the reasons of nomination are to be reconsidered. Since the general notability is present (and more sources is found on the talk page), there is no need of any other notability, such as academic notability, for inclusion of this article. I do think the article should be shortened, however, and even made into stub, but hardly deleted for such a controversial figure. Just because that may be a pseudo science, that does not make the person meeting the general notability non-notable and certainly is not a good reason to erase this religious leader. Leader in Iskcon does not have to be a Svami. If even third party source calls him a leader (even if in German), I accept it as a verifiable fact. --(User) Mb (Talk) 22:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are the reliable sources that state that he is notable - and for what? How is he a notable religious leader - where are the reliable sources to back this up? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided a link to the article by Mikael Rothstain above. It describes him as (and you can use translator if you like) "a single, prominent leader of the movement, Sadaputa DASA (born Richard L. Thompson". I guess you just did not bother to translate the passage from that issue no 19. 1992 of the journal. "Chaos : dansk tidsskrift for religionshistoriske studier". And including all other sources including the sources added to the article since nomination for deletion was put up by you, including those that were there and those that are quote above and on the talk page by Gaura, sdmuni these sources are much better than those you suggested are good in this case [3]. I am puzzled about the actual reasons of this nomination, besides the RFC. He passes the GN requirement thus WP:SCHOLAR or WP:AUTHOR are not the reason for deletion (unless it is a policy to delete controversial figures?) --(User) Mb (Talk) 06:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, he does not pass GN requirements. A few passing references does not make one notable - he is neither the subject of any work (Rothstain's work is not about him) nor has he contributed in any significant way. He does not meet these standards. That is why I nominated the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least a half-dozen reviews of his books in academic journals plus 20 pages in Rothstein's book is not "a few passing references". And this is without taking into account his Forbidden Archeology work. Gaura79 (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That still does not qualify him for passing the GN requirement - much less WP:SCHOLAR or WP:AUTHOR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that multiple published secondary, reliable, intellectually independent sources do "qualify him for passing the GN requirement". Can you explain exactly how and why Thompson fails WP:BIO?Gaura79 (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can. The individual is not "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the subject of those sources then? You?Gaura79 (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not the subject of those sources. Neither is the individual under discussion here. The key word here is subject. He is not the subject of any reliable sources that would confer notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep-- reasons for deletion are not valid. Person is passing the GN criteria, since there are many references that confirm that he was one of the leaders of the sect. Both sectarian [4] [5] [6] and academic sources [7][8] confirm this. There are academic sources that are dedicated to him and they have been published in reliable sources, e.g. academic journals. The fact that he is described as "Vedic Creationist" does not deny the fact that he is notable, he could be notorious anti-scientist and a complete fringe but that would not make him not notable, in fact the opposite. Besides the sources that confirm his notability, he is also a controversial figure in connection to a book, yet another reason to keep the article. Moving him to his Hindu name may not be necessary since his Hindu identity is clearly outlined in accordance with MoS. Citing of criteria for BLP is not necessarily a valid reason, mainly because we are talking about "late" Richard L Thompson. And finally, besides the obvious and repetitious lies that there are no independent sources to confirm notability, may I clarify that sectarian sources that are quoted are accepted generally and on the basis of previously formed consensus as independent sources that can be used in Wikipedia, just like Vatican's site is a source for RCC iskcon.com is a source for ISKCON, there is no need of OR to extract notability information, the fact that he was a leader in a particular religious field has received significant coverage in reliable sources. As per policy " Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." And that is the fact. Now the background reasons for many arguments is that he is a fringe scientist, therefore should be deleted. This argument is not valid in notability discussions.Wikid ^as© 15:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rothstain, and a few passing references does not make him notable. There's been everything but the kitchen sink posted in this discussion, but that does not make him a notable person. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find is amusing how when I nominate someone without any RS to support notability you say strong keep here. And when there are sources you keep refusing to admit it. I suggest being objective for once. Wikid ^as© 17:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very clear difference. One is notable and contributed to his field, and his works have been used by many notable scholars. The two do not even compare. If you want to show how this subject is notable, I suggest you find multiple reliable sources that say how/and for what. Also, please AGF. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At times we will agree, and at other times disagree. We are human. Although, I do not believe this individual to be notable because it is not - and the key words here are - the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article has been rewritten and expanded. There's a lot more material on this person and his work. It means that in the future the article can be expanded further. The subject of the article clearly passes WP:BIO, particularly WP:AUTHOR. According to intelectually independent RS he's

"regarded as an important figure"
"has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"
his work "has won significant critical attention"}Gaura79 (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Reply The individual does not pass WP:BIO as he is not the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Also, the individual clearly does not pass WP:AUTHOR - please provide evidence of this. This has been shown in the discussion above to be untrue. Where are the reliable sources that back up your claims? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks Ism schism for at least quoting the policy WP:GNG. Let us count the sources that are sufficient to apply this guideline. You claim it to be the policy, but it is just a guideline yet a valuable guideline that we follow as a generally accepted standard. TheWP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR do not even need to be looked at since this particular subject is fully compliant with the standard of GNG: The sources quoted give him coverage that is more than a trivial mention, and he is the main topic of the secondary source material in at least one case and good number of pages in another. Let us list below the sources that give coverage (positive or negative) to the subject and his work. 1)Creationism: The Hindu View. A Review of Forbidden Archeology, by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson. By Colin Groves 2) Constance Holden. "Anti-evolution TV show prompts furor". Science. March 8, 1996. p. Vol. 271, Iss. 5254. p.1357 3) John Carman. "NBC's Own Mystery Science". San Francisco Chronicle. June 7, 1996. D1. 4)Thomas, Dave (March 1996).NBC's Origins Show, 5) Nada, Merra. "Vedic creationism in America". Frontline. January 14–27, 2006. 6) Wodak, J.; Oldroyd, D. (1996). "Vedic Creationism': A Further Twist to the Evolution Debate". Social Studies of Science 26 (1): 192–213. 7) Brown, C. Mackenzie (2002). "Hindu and Christian Creationism: "Transposed Passages" in the Geological Book of Life". Zygon? 37 (1): 95–114. 8) Rothstein, Mikael (1996). Belief Transformations: Some Aspects of the Relation Between Science and Religion in Transcendental Meditation (TM) and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. p. 122. 9) Henry, Granville C. (June 1984). "Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science: An Investigation Into the Nature of Consciousness and Form by Richard L. Thompson" (in en). Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 19 (2): 377-380. And obviously even if this list appears as Headbanging I would further agree with what Gaura says "At least a half-dozen reviews of his books in academic journals plus 20 pages in Rothstein's book is not "a few passing references", so stop giving a repeated answer to all and everything that makes too little sense. I would stress also the specific dedicated source that only reviews the subject, which is on top and over the requirements of the GNG policy -- and that is А. С. Тимощук (2008). "Р. Томпсон – нестатистический махатма (1947 – 2008)". In А. С. Тимощук (in ru). Махабхарата, Бхагават-гита и неклассическая рациональность: материалы III Международной научно-теоретической конференции. Владимир: Издательство Владимирского государственного университета. p. 141-144. ISBN 9785893689181. Not that it is a case of Tu quoque, but clearly this person not just passes the GNG (without even looking at sectarian sources) threshold but is specifically a subject of a dedicate paper and number of pages in another and called a leader and lead figure in a number of other places. So certainly notability that was applied to article creation is sufficient and there is nothing that warrants the deletion.Wikid ^as© 19:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that he is not the subject of these sources. Being mentioned is not being the subject. The Rothstein book only mentions him, he is not the subject of that work. Again the point remains - he is not the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If he is the subject of such reliable works - where are they? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline is not what you quote but "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list". And you are wrong in this point if you don't mind me saying so since as per guideline "it need not be the main topic of the source material." Stop quoting some other guidelines, this IS the guideline, WP:GNG nothing else is required. Wikid ^as© 20:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, what is he notable for? And where are the multiple times he has received significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading the article about this controversial figure and his controversial book and other stuff. It is always helpful to read the article, especially if you have not read it before nomination and if you have not read it since the nomination, as the RS were added to the article and are quoted above. I am sure you have read it, but just in case you did not please do. Wikid ^as© 20:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About his books, no thanks. Though the article - yes, I've been keeping up with its evolution and still believe it should be deleted. He is not a notable person/scholar/author etc... Though, I do appreciate your suggestion. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please AGF, I have shown my position on why this individual is not notable in the long discussion above. If you have anything else that you would like to discuss - this is the place. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all - I recently posted this on the general discussion, but probably should have put it here. Also just found an additional 12-15 pages of commentary specifically dedicated to Thompson's work, in Zygon: The Journal of Science and Religion, as well as other materials. Best - sdmuni108

Here is another authoritative perspective that hopefully helps get a mature focus on Thompson's work. It is from a notable figure in religion (specifically Hinduism) and science, concerning Thompson's God & Science. The author is Varadaraja Raman and his critique of Thompson's work appeared in the Templeton Foundation journal, Science & Theology News (April 2005, p. 42). While the Foundation currently does not maintain an archive online, the notable Hindu Vivek Kendra does, as an essay on their website.

Of note is Raman's description of Thompson as a "mathematician ... with a solid physics and mathematics background." There is no talk of attempting to prove creationist theory. Rather, Raman describes the work as a discussion of "the richness and multiplicity in human culture."

According to Wikipedia, Raman's own scientific background includes a doctorate in theoretical physics under the direction of the Nobel Prize winner, Louis de Broglie. Raman's website further describe his scientific work, as well as his work on the relationship between Hinduism and worldview and science. Raman appears to be a notable authority able to intelligently critique Thompson's work, and in an appropriate forum.

I'll post some relevant thoughts from Raman, here:

"God & Science is mathematician Richard Thompson’s well-written collection of essays, showing the connection between science-and-religion and Hinduism. Through the book, Thompson proves himself to be a thoughtful writer with a solid mathematics and physics background. Furthermore, he shows a clear understanding of Hindu and other religious texts and a devotional sympathy for Vaishnavism, a metaphysically sophisticated form of Hinduism dedicated to the worship of Vishnu, a major Hindu god. Thompson clearly argues that the myths surrounding Vaishnava literature can be meaningfully interpreted in terms of current science — in conjunction with the many-worlds theory, geological time scales or evolution.

"The book’s chapter themes range from cosmology to consciousness..... In the process, God & Science explains, in laymen’s terms, some of the complex ideas of current physics.... Most technical physicists wouldn’t concur with efforts to harness physics into a God-centered worldview, but this book will open readers’ eyes to the richness and multiplicity in human culture. For those who take God as the substratum of the universe, this Vaishnavite version of that conviction will prove both interesting and insightful."

btw - I'm upgrading my vote to strong keep Sdmuni108 (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC) — Sdmuni108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Science & Theology News was not a "journal", it was a (now defunct) "monthly newspaper". Whilst reasonably reliable, it was not especially so (certainly not peer-reviewed or anything), nor particularly prominent. I would note that Sdmuni108 has provided no link to the source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source is perfectly reliable, especially if you consider who is the author of the review in question. Here is the link to the article.Gaura79 (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The piece is very short, and rather superficial. "The author of the review in question" appears to have a CV that is fairly light on scientific work (and an article fairly light on cited sources) -- he appears to be yet another member of the (small) 'Science & Religion' crowd that Thompson has garnered attention from. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in spite of recent attempts to pad the article with numerous trivial mentions, the subject still fails, WP:GNG, WP:SCHOLAR, and WP:AUTHOR. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion above has been shown how the subject of the article passes WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Can you please explain how in the world the in-depth coverage the guy and his work received can be considered a mere "trivial mentions"? Thank you in advance.Gaura79 (talk) 06:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a Comment that S&T News is not a journal is curious. Here is the Oxford English dictionary for the word journal: 6. A daily newspaper or other publication; hence, by extension, Any periodical publication containing news or dealing with matters of current interest in any particular sphere. - Perhaps then the issue involving S&T is that it came out as a monthly?

True, though currently no longer in press, it remains respected, produced by a highly influential and respected foundation - links to both providing full information were provided.

While Raman's review is concise, he left little to doubt about his views. Raman is highly respected in the religion and science genre. Obviously, the subset of this genre that is intimately familiar with Hinduism is smaller then that which focuses on Christianity & science. Raman could comment on religion and science with a profound familiarity with the sciences - for our purposes that is the point of both his an Thompson's scientific background. Frankly, it sounds like there might be some confusion about this. The blatant reality is that science cannot confirm or deny ANY metaphysical philosophy, no matter how accomplished a scientific practitioner may be. Whatever the case, Raman is very respected, widely published, and affiliated with and on the board of a number of prestigious institutions as per his wiki article. Sdmuni108 (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me, there was a missed info link from Wikipedia - I had provided the S&T website. Here is some additionally relevant Wiki info: "Science & Theology News was a monthly international newspaper of the Templeton Foundation that focused on science and religion and dialogue between them, specifically the point of view that both are worthwhile and compatible endeavors.... Harold G. Koenig was the publisher and Karl Giberson the editor-in-chief chief."

Perhaps an interesting reference work for broadening our analysis could be the former S&T News founding editor Karl Giberson & Mariano Artigas's book, Oracles of Science: Celebrity Scientists versus God and Religion, published by the Oxford University Press. Sdmuni108 (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that Oracles of Science contains any information relevant to Thompson. Though interestingly enough, Stephen Jay Gould, one of the authors examined in this book, was quote mined by Thompson in one of his earlier books (yes, it was a varient of that infamous quote-mine, documented in the latter article). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference only - a book written by some of our scholars in question about worldview and science. Gould is widely quoted, an interesting guy. Sdmuni108 (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.