Talk:Andreas J. Köstenberger

[Untitled]
I've just added a writings list largely taken from the CV under the external links. Are the ISBNs with the external link sufficient reference for the writings list, or do I need to add an inline citation to the CV? Thanks. --Itsmedebs (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Autobiography? Curriculum Vitae?
This article reads like an autobiography/curriculum vitae. I've fixed some of it, but the long lists of minutiae are unnecessary. The article is likely WP:SPIP. I suspect that User:Itsmedebs, who has editing nothing on Wikipedia other than this article and has access to some remarkably detailed trivia about the subject, may be the good Dr. Köstenberger himself.141.70.11.17 (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I, Itsmedebs, not Dr. Kostenberger, made the updates under my username. I collected the personal information from his CV online and the first chapter of the book Excellence. You can read the intro on Google Books to verify this information has been published if you don't have access to a hard copy. Some of the information you removed still seems relevant to me. Can we put it back? I'm thinking specifically of the book descriptions and the position Dr. Kostenberger holds at B&H. Itsmedebs (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Andreas J. Köstenberger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131105195217/https://plus.google.com/112257871039646161873/about to https://plus.google.com/112257871039646161873/about

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andreas J. Köstenberger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512214511/http://apps.sebts.edu/FacultyUploads/Andreas%20Kostenberger%20CV.pdf to http://apps.sebts.edu/FacultyUploads/Andreas%20Kostenberger%20CV.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Andreas Köstenberger.jpg

Question about Plagiarism
Why doesn't this page address the self-acknowledged plagiarims and subsequent withdrawal of the commentary on John in the Baker Exegetical Commentary series? Seems like a pretty important development in the life of Andreas J. Köstenberger. Sorry if this edit is not formatted properly. I've not really done this before. I think the way he handled it was commendable and it should be a part of his bio.

https://bestcommentaries.com/book/3171/080102644X-john-plagiarism-acknowledged-andreas-j-k%C3%B6stenberger

Statement from Zondervan: https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/statement-from-zondervan-academic-on-dr-andreas-kostenbergers-john-commentary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:1300:DC0:112D:B8BD:CD00:2AA3 (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Question about WP:DUE in the wording of the plagiarism section
My concern is not that the discussion about plagiarism is irrelevant, but it is that the wording of the section does not accurately and completely reflect the references cited, so that the statements in the section as currently written have undue weight and are not neutral. In particular, the section now (and previously) did not state that the issue with "John" was raised by the author himself and includes his statement that the book contained "a series of inadvertently unattributed references" to a work cited in the book. Further, at this moment, the reference to D. A. Carson's work is incomplete in the article and should be updated, so the citation is complete. Right now, a reader cannot easily consult the referenced cited as a source. Geoff &#124; Who, me? 17:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You could add that part about Köstenberger turning himself in, but you would have to cite a source. And if you have a more complete reference to D. A. Carson's work, go ahead and add it. But why delete all of this section? It looks like whitewashing, and Köstenberger has himself admitted that he plagiarized. Do you have some connection to Köstenberger? --Melchior2006 (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, no connection. If you read the sources cited, you'd have the references. I'll take a stab at rewording. Geoff &#124; Who, me? 18:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Plagiarism is plagiarism, even if it is "unintentional", as one cannot prove intention, only assume it. "Intention" is important for perhaps deciding on the seriousness of a sanction, but that does not change the fact that using the words of others without proper attribution is plagiarism. --WiseWoman (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Heads up: Potential whitewashing on the plagiarism front
@Johndyer pls don't revert reversions (a no-no in the Wiki-world). That is what is called edit-warring and can get you blocked. Take it to talk, which is what I am hereby doing. You will have to argue here for your point. So: the discussion is now opened, pls proceed. My first question is whether you have any relation to Köstenberger, personal or professional. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 06:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Nice to meet you @Melchior2006. I don't have any formal connection, but I am an editor on bestcommentaries.com and we've recently shifted to follow Peter O'Brien's Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_O%27Brien_(theologian) which doesn't use the word "Plagiarism" in the heading, but "Withdrawn", and then allow the text description to offer details and citations. My initial edit that you reverted was to bring Köstenberger's page in line with O'Brien's and to accurately reflect his and the publisher's words.
 * For example, while O'Brien's works were pulled at his publisher's request, as @Geoff points out in the previous thread, Köstenberger appears to have surfaced the issue himself (e.g., https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/statement-from-zondervan-academic-on-dr-andreas-kostenbergers-john-commentary). And while O'Brien used the word "plagiarism" in his statements, Köstenberger did not. Here is Köstenberger's own statement: https://biblicalfoundations.org/andreas-kostenbergers-publications/ (unfortunately, you have to scroll down to 2004 / John to see it).
 * My main point is to keep the heading more neutral without undue weight and then allow the text and links to give more context. Johndyer (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Lesson 2 in Wiki-Procedure: Don't alter the section in question until we have reached consensus here. First off, you deleted the reference to "John (plagiarism acknowledged)" from Rotten Tomatoes for Biblical Studies, where the p-word is clear enough. Now let's look at the Zondervan statement: "After careful consideration of the evidence, we concluded that the problem was so extensive that there was no acceptable way to fix the problem. Since the commentary on John ... does not consistently follow commonly accepted standards for the use and documentation of secondary resources, our commitment to high publishing standards leaves us no choice but to put volume 2 of the ZIBBC: NT out of print in its print form and to destroy the remaining inventory." This is very strong wording. The publisher was clearly alarmed by serious violations of academic ethics. That's why lots of people in the community called it plagiarism. Now I could list these all in note after note, but I think the Zondervan statement makes the situation clear. No publisher will voluntarily use the word plagiarism in a retraction, b/c it makes everything more embarassing than it already is. But the community called a card a card. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned before, I am an editor at the site bestcommentaries.com (which has a secondary tagline of "Rotten Tomatoes for Biblical Studies"). That site no longer uses the word "plagiarism" in the heading itself, but it does include those words when they appear in statements. I'm not clear on why you feel this page should be inconsistent with bestcommentaries.com and other Wikipedia entries, be non-neutral in the heading, and use words that the publisher and author don't use. Johndyer (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because publishers and authors never admit to plagiarism. It isn't good advertising to do so. But Wikipedia is not about advertising, and it doesn't have to change content because perpetrators rephrase descriptors for their indiscretions (recall Zondervan's wording: "problem was so extensive..."). There is more than enough use of the p-word in relation to Köstenberger in the biblical community, lots of scholarly blogs use "plagiarism" when describing the case. If no other editors chime in on this in your favor, I am afraid you will have to tread more softly on this article. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You said that other editors should chime in, but notice that the previous talk section is a concern about this section. I agree with you that removing the section altogether is whitewashing. I am merely suggesting a more neutral heading and offering more context and primary sources for the reader.
 * regarding the previous talk section: Geoff "took a stab at rewording" and left the discussion. The point was resolved. --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You also said that the section shouldn't be altered until consensus here on talk was reached, yet you edited it during this discussion. I think blog link you've added offers helpful context, but you're going against wikipedia standards by removing my link to a primary source.
 * I restored the heading which you had altered during the discussion. --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and you added a citation when you said it was wrong for me to do so. Johndyer (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You also assert that authors never admit to plagiarism, but I have provided you a clear counter example, one which is in conflict with this page.
 * what's the clear counter example? --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Here it is a third time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_O%27Brien_(theologian). This author did use the word 'plagiarism' to describe his actions. However the section title doesn't use that word. Johndyer (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The heading I'm suggesting is 100% accurate and the source I've provided offers very strong words. Those words should be allowed to speak for themselves.
 * you've said as much. That is what we are discussing. I would welcome further editors' opinions. --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You'll need to provide more justification for inserting your own judgments into this page. Johndyer (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * now we're talking in circles. Plagiarism is not a question of judgments or intentions, it is a matter of fact: unattributed words, phrases, ideas were appropriated from Carson and presented in large amounts as K.'s (recall Zondervan's wording: "problem was so extensive...") that the publisher felt compelled to have the book destroyed. That's plagiarism, and that is how the scholarly community described it. --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As I noted above: plagiarism is the situation when someone uses words, ideas, or work products of someone else without proper attribution. Trying to "soften" the word is indeed whitewashing. And it is not a "judgement" - any 6th grader can see that plagiarism is given when the wording in a text is exactly or very close to a previously published source. A judgement occurs when a sanction is meted out (or not), that is the decision of a journal editor, a university, a publisher, etc. --WiseWoman (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: Ping, : Melchior, I find your position to be cherrypicking. You're considering Best Commentaries to be reliable for it's claim that the book was plagiarism, but when they decide that such a claim was too harsh and soften it a bit, suddenly they're engaging in whitewashing.That being said, a wikivoice claim that an entire book is plagarised – softened wording or not – is quite extraordinary, and I would remove it entirely if there aren't more, more trustworthy sources for it. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 17:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is a list of the scholars who called a card a card and used the term plagiarism in their responses to the John Commentary: One – two – three – four – five ... I'll stop there (for now). I think that should be enough to refute the "cherrypicking" charge. --Melchior2006 (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't blame you for not doing so, but read the essay I linked – cherrypicking in this case refers to taking only information that supports your claim from source, not to only citing sources that support your claim. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2, 4, and 5 are self-published blogs. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Blogs devoted to biblical scholarship and equipped with solid competence are completely valid sources for this discussion. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is BLP information, and thus these sources violate WP:BLPSPS. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 14:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fourth Opinion: I wrote a bit on this in general agreement with Snowmanonahoe.
 * I'd like to note that the website Best Commentaries is an Amazon Associate and receives a fee from purchases of linked products. This may constitute a WP:Conflict of interest in promoting the author and their works.  Editors are strongly discouraged from editing any articles with which they have a conflict of interest.
 * The citation to Seumas Macdonald/Patrologist seems reliable enough to me. This piece on plagiarism puts Köstenberger in the same category as Peter O'Brien, the latter having been found "guilty of plagiarism", but Macdonald says I only heard about this from Jim West.  In other words, he's reporting what he heard elsewhere and didn't compare the publications himself. His sources are based on a review/discussion on Amazon.com and the circumstances of the book's withdrawal.  I don't feel like that's enough to support Several biblical scholars called it plagiarism.  It might be more in line to say:  Patrologist Seumas Macdonald connected the withdrawal to plagiarism or Patrologist Seumas Macdonald associated the withdrawal with plagiarism.  I think the sentence which follows, attributed to zondervanacademic, could include the book inventory being destroyed. Wikipedia readers can read between the lines on the significance of that. I feel we should also lighten the section heading to Allegations of plagiarism.
 * Third (and fourth) opinions are non-binding, but I hope this is of help! – Reidgreg (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)