User talk:Mitchell Powell

Welcome

 * Thank you. I'll try to be a productive contributor. Mitchell Powell (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, sir, Mr. Bot. I will try to be more conscientious about that.Mitchell Powell (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Mark for Cain - your deletion
Dear Mr Powell

I notice that you have deleted my contribution made on 30th October to the Wikipedia article on Cain and Abel. You appear to justify this principally on the ground that you consider the work of author JH Hatfield to lack notability. At the same time, you have also removed all reference to work published by another scholar, RWL Moberly.

Moberly is Professor in the Department of Religion and Theology at University of Durham, UK. He is widely published, including by Cambridge University Press. How do you justify the removal of his reference?

Hatfield is a colleague known to me personally for over 30 years. He holds multiple degrees from the Cambridge University (I can ask for documentary evidence of his qualifications if you would like me to do so). He is a devoted scholar and altruist who on many occasions has proved able to advance fresh ideas and see them established. He is not a person who seeks notoriety or reward, only to encourage attention to the evidence, careful debate, and critical thinking by others.

The publisher of his recent book is a UK registered company, Capabel Press Ltd. It is not ‘a publishing house in name only’.

Your charge of self-promotion is difficult to understand. Aside from the needed citations, this contribution to Cain and Abel did not mention any source by name.

If Wikipedia is to retain its reputation as an up-to-date and authoritative source then I think it must be permitted to reflect fresh ideas from the world around us in a properly balanced manner.

My reason for writing on the Mark of Cain was to enhance the existing article by reflecting recent advances in scholarship on the topic. In the tradition of scholarship, I deleted nothing: but you have deleted my entire contribution.

The added passage was developed to be a careful, accurate and properly referenced explanation of recent thinking. I believe it conformed appropriately with stated Wikipedia policy and guidelines**. I therefore request you to restore it.

“Inclusion into other articles is based on a similar standard. An idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.”
 * For fringe theories to be mentioned in existing articles:

(see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories )Orcades (talk) 11:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr. Orcades,


 * It appears that here we have a difference of opinion as to what Wikipedia's policies are. I'll try to address your concerns one by one.


 * I stand by my assertion that J.H. Hatfield's work is not notable until I see evidence to the contrary. As far as I can see, no other scholar has taken the ideas of J.H. Hatfield seriously.  His book has been published with no mention of his credentials other than a claim that he is a scholar.  I've read the first chapter of his work, and have seen firsthand the way he misunderstands Greek grammar (not that this invalidates his theory;  only that it provides further reason to believe that his scholarship is not so impressive as he or his anonymous fan/fans would have us believe).


 * I have no bone to pick with Dr. RWL Moberley. But the reference to him, which asserted that he "recognised" that the mark of Cain was not a mark but a sign (whatever that distinction means), assumes a particular point of view.  In addition, the quote from him proves nothing except that he, like almost all other scholars, recognises that the text does not spell out in detail what the sign was, which is something no one would argue.  Therefore, the quote from him is not opposed to the majority of scholars, as your contribution would suggest.  Besides, the reference to Moberly is used simply as an introduction to the work of Mr. Hatfield.


 * I have no objection to your statement that Mr. Hatfield is a careful thinker, and altruist, and even an advancer of fresh ideas. But that alone does not earn one a place in Wikipedia--what is needed is notability, which the work of Mr. Hatfield has so far shown no traces of.


 * As to your assertion that Capabel Press is a registered company, that does not prove anything. It does not take much to register a company.  A review of the Capabel Press website shows that the only book it has ever published is Hatfield's, and that it does not name any of its own company staff.  There is nothing that would contradict the belief that Capabel Press is nothing but a shadow company designed to publish a book that no mainstream press outlet would publish.


 * I cannot prove that your wikipedia articles are self-promotion. However, the publication of a book by a man who does not offer his credentials, supported only by anonymous reviews, published by a company which has only produced one book and has no public face other than a website and a P.O. Box.  This, although not proof of self-promotion, is however entirely consistent with it.


 * "If Wikipedia is to retain its reputation as an up-to-date and authoritative source" it cannot devote paragraphs to unique views published without any scholarly support.


 * For these reasons I will refuse your request. I will close with the policy that you quoted to me:


 * “Inclusion into other articles is based on a similar standard. An idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, [which Why Call me God? is not] or by a notable group or individual that is independent [and no one independent of the theory has published anything about it] of the theory.”


 * I hope this clarifies my reasons for deletion.Mitchell Powell (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)