Talk:New World Encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

At least one better article[edit]

fringy as the project may sound, I found that their Aesir article was actually better than ours. Since the project is GFDL, content can just be copied back to WP (with attribution!) dab (ūíĀ≥) 13:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I worked on the project and often used my work there to also improve WP articles. (One of my favorites is Dog#Dogs in religion) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


I removed the following from the article:

Kaufmann, Frank (editor-in-chief) (2008) New World Encyclopedia: Selected Articles, St. Paul, MN: Paragon House ISBN 9781930549579

My searches on both the book title and the ISBN came up totally empty. That included a check of the Paragon House website, for 2008 books. If in fact this book really does exist, please provide a URL. -- John Broughton (‚ôę‚ôę) 21:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

  • We did produce a book of samples, but only a limited quantity for those who worked on, supported, and funded the first phase of the New World Encyclopedia. We did not list it for sale on the Paragon House website for this reason. All of the articles in the sample volume are available in the New World Encyclopedia itself.--Gordon Anderson 18:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC) (Executive Director, Paragon House)


  • I have no problem with merging it into Universal Peace Federation -- beyond the fact that it would be adding another unsourced section into an already badly sourced article, that itself fails to establish its notability (only citations are to its own website). HrafnTalkStalk 16:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    NuPedia has a substantial writeup but they only produced 24 articles, while NWE has over 8000 public articles and 5,000 in process. There is literally no comparison to the actual value of the two projects, but NWE was recommended for deletion but not Nupedia. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Nupedia has significant 3rd party coverage, and is arguably notable as the predecessor to wikipedia. NWE seems to have been entirely ignored. Number of articles in a wiki does not equal level of notability. HrafnTalkStalk 06:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The only non-NWE reference to date is to its Alexa stats. Can anybody demonstrate that NWE meets WP:WEB:

  • that it "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"
  • "won a well-known and independent award" or
  • that the "content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators"?

If not I'll be merging it into List of Unification Church affiliated organizations‚Äé (as Universal Peace Federation has been renamed) shortly. HrafnTalkStalk 13:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to a merge into the List, but it would be nice to retain a little mention in "forks and mirrors", too. I think I'm correct in maintaining that of all encyclopedias deriving from WP, the NWE is most closely compliant with the free license. I made sure of this at the beginning, consulting both Jimbo and User:Angela.

The article (or the f/m entry) should mention that each NWE article copied from WP gives a link to the exact version which was copied.

Also, a few notable articles were written fresh. Intelligent Design (at NWE) is not a rewrite of WP's article. (I personally think it's better, to boot!) --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge completed. HrafnTalkStalk 05:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

pro-intelligent design article praised by pro-intelligent design blogger, so?[edit]

There's no surprise there, and I'd like to see some justification for the link. What makes this blog an exception to the guidelines on using blogs? WP:SPS seems pretty clear on this, so I'm removing it. --Doug Weller (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)