`  :::Even if Godman was a ``scholar`` (haha) of/on UG, I don't see why he should be mentioned in the article. It's an encyclopedic entry, not a ``scholarly``, ``repected`` (hilarious) analysis. It's not an exposition of UG's theories that would necessitate critical enquiry. Do you want to know - encyclopedically, IN BRIEF - who UG was and what he said? Read the article. Do you want to know whether he was - this, that or the other? This is not the place. Look elsewhere and exercise your judgement. :::The notion that JK and MLK ``are far better articles by any measure`` because of ``number of hits, being quoted etc`` is childish. Popularity is no measure of ``betterness``, especially on the internet.  `