Contents

Talk:Harold Hoehner

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 January 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

I'd like to raise two issues on this:

• Is any search engine, even Worldcat, a WP:RS by wikipedia policy? They give changeable snapshots of information, and in Worldcat's case the information also changes by your default location (is there a 'worldwide' location that you can feed in? I've yet to find an option above country that it will accept).
• Why are we giving this information at all? Worldcat hits aren't a normal part of bibliographies in wikipedia bios -- and certainly aren't mentioned in WP:LAYOUT#WorksorWP:LOW as normal practice. Their inclusion would appear to be an attempt to demonstrate through highly unorthodox means a semblance of notability that cannot, as yet, be demonstrated in more orthodox (and policy-compliant) ways.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just run 'Harzing's Publish or Perish' on Hoehner. In a career that extends back to the early 1960s, he has only 124 citations to his work (less than 3 per year), with about 1/3 each being for Chronological Aspects & Ephesians. Taking DGG's Worldcat numbers, this is approximately one citation for every 10 copies of his books held in the covered libraries. This does not appear to be indicative of any particular influence Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the notability tag, since per WP:PROF, "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research." This is supported by the sources that I've added to the article. Ἀλήθεια 06:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(i) I would question whether DTS is "a major institution of higher education and research." It is a fairly small, sectarian seminary. (ii) You have no excuse for removing the primary-source-tag, as it seems all sources are closely associated with Hoehner. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking. Although clearly you are not. DTS is one of the largest institution accredited by the Association of Theological Schools, with close to 2000 total enrollment, more than 1000 full-time. The seminary publishes Bibliotheca Sacra, one of the most often cited scholarly journals in biblical studies. Its faculty and alumni comprise a veritable who's who of evangelical Christianity in the United States. There is no question as to whether DTS fits the criteria, and Hoehner is undeniable notable. Ἀλήθεια 07:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who is joking. The fact that DTS is a 'big fish in a small pond' does not make it "major". 2000 is very small for a tertiary institution. It may (or may not) be a major seminary -- but seminaries are generally very minor tertiary institutions. "Its faculty and alumni comprise a veritable who's who of evangelical Christianity..." -- given The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, that's not necessarily saying much. In any case the Dallas Theological Seminary article demonstrates no such prominence. Further, even under WP:PROF even if he does qualify under criteria 5, "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." And you have not provided even a single piece of independent coverage (and no, JETS is not independent, as Hoehner was a frequent writer for that journal). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm -- according to the blurb for An Uncommon Union: Dallas Theological Seminary and American Evangelicalism (published by Christian publisher Zondervan), the "stereotype" of DTS is "an anti-intellectual stronghold of fundamentalism and dispensational premillennialism." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For such a supposedly-influential institution, very little seems to have been written about it (it's mentioned, at all, in only 65 books -- my own alma mater gets 137,000 hits). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And no, the Society of Biblical Literature (he was a member) and Lockman Foundation (he translated their Bible) aren't independent either. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:PROF criterion #5 - "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research."
• WP:PROF example #3 - "...publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person" (such as Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Exegesis, cited in the article)
• WP:PROF footnote #4 - Generally, more experimental and applied subjects tend to have higher publication and citation rates than more theoretical ones. Publication and citation rates in humanities are generally slower than in sciences. Also, in sciences most of new original research is published in journals and conference proceedings whereas in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role. The meaning of "substantial number of publications" and "high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in the awarding of tenure. For biblical scholars, more than 300 hits on a simple Google scholar search, with more than 150 citations of his work certainly weighs in favor of his notability. Ἀλήθεια 23:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. The article Dallas Theological Seminary offers no evidence that it is "a major institution of higher education and research", and you have offered none.
2. You have offered no evidence that Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Exegesis is "an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person" -- as the subtitle of that work makes no mention of it, nor does the Google Books blurb mention it. If this is a Festschrift, then this should be mentioned (with citation) in the article.
3. Footnote #4 is merely a caveat on criterion #1, and should not be read independently of that criterion.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that this is a WP:SPS, as Marlowe is not a published expert on the topic. Therefore, per WP:SELFPUB, he can only be used as a source of information about himself (typically in an article about himself or his activities). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you want to raise the bar so ridiculously high on this particular individual. It's not like this article has anything controversial. What is at stake for you? Hoehner was a biblical scholar selected to be on the translation team for several major English versions of the Bible. Ipso facto, he is notable. Hoehner was a biblical scholar who wrote several publications which are currently used in graduate level Bible courses. Ipso facto, he is notable. Hoehner was a biblical scholar who was both a department chair and a distinguished professor at DTS. Ipso facto, he is notable. DTS is one of the largest evangelical seminaries in the world. Ipso facto, it is notable. DTS is a seminary that has graduated dozens, if not hundreds, of men who have shaped today's evangelical landscape. Ipso facto, it is notable. DTS is a seminary peppered with faculty whose scholarly work is referenced by thousands of students globally. Ipso facto, it is notable. Bible-researcher.com has been used as a third party source on more than 100 wikipedia articles, as it has long been acknowledged as a reliable source of information on English translations of the Bible. Can this information be verified through web archive searches of individual publishers? Sure. I'll do it just to satisfy you. But I am inclined to believe that once I've jumped through that hoop, you will simply add some other layer of wikilawyering to this quest. Why? Ἀλήθεια 13:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. bible-researcher.com = setting the bar ridiculously low (aWP:SPS).
2. The DTS page lists only two Bibles that he worked as a translator on (funny that they failed to mention all the others claimed by the article), of which only one is "major" (and he is only one of three, and one of two for the NT, from DTS working on this Bible). He is also on the Lockman/NASB list of translators -- but only one of a large number on the list, and then only as an updater.
3. I would assume that there are hundreds of biblical scholars whose works are "currently used in graduate level Bible courses." Writing texts is one of the things that scholars do.
4. "DTS is a seminary that has graduated dozens, if not hundreds, of men who have shaped today's evangelical landscape." Unproven. The article Dallas Theological Seminary offers nothing to demonstrate this.
5. "Ipso facto, he is notable." No. Harold Hoehner≠DTS & "today's evangelical landscape"≠World.
6. "DTS is a seminary peppered with faculty whose scholarly work is referenced by thousands of students globally." Likewise unproven. And anyway proves little (the same thing could probably be said of thousands of tertiary institutions).
7. "Bible-researcher.com has been used as a third party source on more than 100 wikipedia articles" = WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (just because mistakes are made elsewhere, does not mean that they should be made here).
8. "...as it has long been acknowledged as a reliable source of information on English translations of the Bible" By whom?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your level of understanding of Bible translation is, but the NASB, ESV, and NLT are all very widely used and highly regarded translations. Being one of the translators tapped for those projects would indicate a level of expertise in the field that would set one apart as notable. Probably not as significant for his work on the NCV or the NET, but they are worth mentioning. Re: DTS notability, the wikipedia article lists more than 20 notable alumni or faculty who are extremely well known within evangelical circles. You are right to say that Hoehner is not equal to the seminary, but both are notable. And they don't have to be notable to you. In fact, you've already claimed ignorance in the past about the institution. That's OK. Hopefully there are a million other wikipedia articles about which you are also ignorant. That doesn't make them non-notable. The point about bible-researcher.com being used in so many other places is not a case of other crap existing. It's a case of you being selective for some reason about singling out this one professor. You failed to answer my questions. Why? Why is it so important to you to try to prove his non-notability? Ἀλήθεια 05:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. "...the NASB, ESV, and NLT are all very widely used and highly regarded translations." Internationally and interdenominationally? Or mainly among conservative American Evangelicals?
2. "Re: DTS notability, the wikipedia article lists more than 20 notable alumni or faculty who are extremely well known within evangelical circles." Two erroneous links (a footballer and a dab-page). The remaining links were mostly to thinly/un-sourced articles, often of doubtful notability.
3. I got involved with this article when I discovered it, and tagged it, as this bald, unsourced stub. Such unpromising beginnings has led me to be skeptical about his notability (a skepticism strengthened by the next point...)
4. No, its is not having even a SINGLE secondary/non-affiliated source that makes Hoehner's suitability for an article highly questionable, per WP:PROF.
5. I lack the stamina, or the access to a bot, to tackle the hundreds of instances of bible-researcher.com being used in violation of WP:SELFPUB.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oi. So many questions. OK, the Bible translations... all three being English translations of the Bible, their impact is definitely going to be felt more in English-speaking countries. NASB is probably the most critically acclaimed and widely acknowledged translation since the KJV, and considered by many to be superior. Despite being primarily an American project, its renown is definitely international. It would not be widely accepted by the Catholic church, and as for liberal Christianity, well, lets just say that there is much less concern within liberal Christianity for scholarly Bible translation to begin with. As for the ESV, that one definitely has a more international appeal, and is undoubtedly the fastest growing English translation, particularly within evangelical Christianity. It is being embraced by churches far and wide at a much more rapid rate than the NASB or the NIV. As for the NLT, this one probably has more mass appeal as a non-literal translation, and thus its adoption in academic circles has been slower, but still makes a strong showing. As for "interdenominationally", all three would encompass a pretty wide swath of denominations and movements, with the NASB being strongest in places like fundamentalist Christianity (those that are not KJV-only, obviously) and others with a high regard for inerrancy and literal translations. The ESV has seen its strongest support with the reformed churches, particularly within the neo-calvinist movements, spearheaded by organizations such as the Gospel Coalition and the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.

Now, with regard to the notability of DTS alumni and faculty, I was speaking specifically of Gregory Beale, Tony Evans (radio), Howard Hendricks, Zane C. Hodges, David Jeremiah, Hal Lindsey, Duane Litfin, J. Vernon McGee, Jim Rayburn, Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Andy Stanley, Ray Stedman, Chuck Swindoll, Kenneth N. Taylor, Merrill Unger, John Walvoord, Bruce Wilkinson, Darrell Bock, J. Dwight Pentecost, and Daniel B. Wallace. (That's 20.) This list contains people whom most evangelicals would be familiar. People like the president of Wheaton College, and the editor of Unger's Bible Dictionary.

Again, I think this is not an issue of notability, but rather of your ignorance. I will grant you that many of these articles need much better sourcing. I will also grant you that Hoehner is not the household name that some of these are, like Ryrie, Swindoll, Walvoord, Jeremiah, and Hodges. However, I think he clearly meets the spirit of WP:PROF, despite your lack of understanding of the significance of DTS. I urge you to seek some other opinions before casting your aspersions on the institution. Ἀλήθεια 00:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Say rather that his qualification under WP:PROF is arguable -- as the standard is not merely that the institution is 'notable', but that it is "major" -- which to me would denote an institution with a wide, broad-based reputation. But regardless of that argument it is blatantly clear that Hoehner falls squarely into that guideline's caveat: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." Currently this article has not a single fragment of coverage from "reliable, independent sources". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the current list of references meet the standard for WP:ACADEMIC (seminary faculty page, JETS memorial, Festschrift, listed as member of translation teams, SBL memorial, and local newspaper feature obituary)?

• requester's comment: I came to this article initially to use it as a template for a similar article on DTS colleague Eugene Merrill, and only later noticed that there seems to be some significant disagreement over its suitability for inclusion. HokieRNB 04:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions: what sources in the article are not "primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject", per {{primarysources}}? What does the article state about his take on Biblical scholarship and translation? Currently it reads more like a CV+thumbnail-bio than an encyclopeadic article. It renders him largely interchangeable with any generic Biblical scholar/translator. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: this article fairly clearly meets the "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject" criteria for exclusion under WP:ACADEMIC. The only independent source is an extremely terse resume-style academic bio from Gale. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing you haven't asserted here before. However, no other editors seem to be willing to side with you, so the question still remains. If no other comments are added, feel free to take this to AfD after the thirty days of RfC. However, I doubt consensus will have changed in the two years since the last time you tried that. HokieRNB 03:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Say rather "no other editors seem to be willing to" make any comment whatsoever. I would also point out that "no other editors" including yourself "seem to be willing to" answer my questions above. See WP:SILENCE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The RfC isn't about whether the article needs improvement. The question at hand is whether the current sources satisfy the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC. The sources in question were very clearly stated: seminary faculty page, JETS memorial, Festschrift, listed as member of translation teams, SBL memorial, and local newspaper feature obituary. You say these are not sufficient; I say they are. Thus the impasse. HokieRNB 03:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:ACADEMIC: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." Lack of such material is clearly relevant to that guideline. Lack of this material is also the likely reason that this article is such a BLAND and BLOODLESS WP:RESUME -- stating little more than 'he was born, he went to university, he taught at university, he wrote Bible commentaries, some of which garnered some praise, he helped translate Bibles, he died' -- rendering him largely indistinguishable from any random Biblical scholar. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:RESUME does not address this article. It matters not your opinion about whether this article is bland or bloodless (WP:IDONTLIKEIT does address that concern.) I am a random biblical scholar. Most of what is written in this article distinguishes him from me (thus the title "distinguished"). The question stands. HokieRNB 04:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. As this article is essentially a reconstruction of his resume, WP:RESUME would appear relevant.
2. Per WP:NOR#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, articles are meant to "be based on reliable, published secondary sources" in order to provide "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims" about the topic. Lack of any such interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims, is why I described the article as a "bland and bloodless resume" -- not WP:IDONTLIKEIT (as you claimed in violation of WP:AGF).
3. If the only thing distinguishing him from my "any random Biblical scholar" is the adjective "distinguished", then we can simply make this article a soft-redirect, with the following text "Distinguished Biblical scholar", without losing any real descriptive power.
4. I answered your question -- citing relevant material from the guideline you based your question on. All that "stands" is your WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This question now seems moot, since there have been multiple secondary sources added to the article, including books, journal articles, and websites. If there are no further objections, I will remove that tag, but leave the one asking for additional material about his influences. Ἀλήθεια 21:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here here. Let's put this question to rest. I'm sorry I asked. HokieRNB 04:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harold Hoehner. 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/20110116000419/http://www.esv.org/esv/scholarship/translation-review-scholars/tohttp://www.esv.org/esv/scholarship/translation-review-scholars/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120105004704/http://bible.org/article/preface-net-bible-first-editiontohttp://bible.org/article/preface-net-bible-first-edition

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]