Talk:Michael Jenkins (religious leader)

message: http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Jenkins/0-Toc-2006.htm#TableOfContents
If anyone can confirm or deny this, I would appreciate it. 71.193.206.116 (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I trust Gary Fleisher to quote Jenkins and other church members correctly. I assume he simply copied emails that were circulated among church leaders. In any case, the writing style of the letters I glance at just now sounds like Rev. Jenkins. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Jenkins author these articles? 

message: I've known Mike for about 25 years. He is a graduate of the Unification Theological Seminary and is almost always called "Rev. Jenkins" by both UC members and non-members. What he mostly does is give sermons, teach the Divine Principle, give guidence and counseling to members, make friends with ministers of other churches and invite them to UC projects. He has done the same regardless of being the president of the American UC, the pastor of the Chicago church, the director of the Midwest AFC, or now the head of the ACLC.  That is why I think the opening sentence should say that he is a minister in the UC, not whatever job he has at the moment. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is that none of that sort of thing is likely to get itself recorded in RSs. What is recorded in RSs gives the appearance of a pawn moved around the chessboard by Moon into whatever position suits his purpose at the time, who occasionally 'side-swipes' fame either by meeting somebody notable or acting as the church's spokesman. This sort of distorted image is what you tend to get from basing an article on fragments of trivial coverage, rather than "significant coverage" -- and is one of the abuses that WP:NOTE is supposed to prevent. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I partly blame the negligence of the news media. I haven't found even a published article giving basic biographical information about Rev. Moon himself, much less other church members. Anyway, if WP is to have an article on Mike Jenkins I think it's fair to say he's a minister -- based on the various sources.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of biographical information on Moon himself may be due to the infrequency that he grants interviews. As to Jenkins, it is probable that he does not project the image of somebody sufficiently influential in the wider world that the media is interested in profiling him. There are hundreds of thousands of "minister[s]" in the US -- that is not an articulation of notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ''What'' is he?

message: *I see that a template has been added to this article proposing that this article be merged with (and I would assume merged to) Unification Church of the United States. Given the at-best-marginal notability of the topic and the lack of notability independent of UC/USA, combined with the paucity of reliable third-party coverage and the fact that now that he is no longer president he is unlikely to generate any further coverage, I support this proposal. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Addendum: I would further note that four of the nine sources cited for this article are UC-affiliated. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

text: **Granted, but the other five are all to independent and reasonably respected newspapers unaffiliated with the UC. GNG is met with independent RS, hence non-independent RS can be used to fill out non-controversial details. Jclemens (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *No. "GNG is met with" significant coverage on the topic in "independent RS", not with mere quotes from the topic about other subjects, and mere mentions in passing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I think merging the articles would result in dumping a lot of trivia into the other one. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Two points Steve: (i) if you think the contents of this article aren't worthy even of merging, you can always nominate it for deletion, (ii) there is nothing to stop the more 'trivial' parts of the article (what I describe above as "'side-swip[ing]' fame") being trimmed back out of the merged article thereafter. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

text: *Comment: (i) WP:NTEMP is inapplicable as it has not been demonstrated that the topic is notable in the first place. (ii) Notability does not disbar merger, especially in cases where lack of coverage prevents an article of any depth from being created -- and in fact this is explicitly condoned in some notability guidelines. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

text: **The article as kept as notable in a previous AfD, over your objections; I interpret that as consensus to his notability. Agreed that it's not a bar to merger, but not all mergers that are permissible make sense or help the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *No. The article was "kept" in spite of the fact that no argument cogent to any notability guideline was made. Given the lack of cogent argument, and the very small number offering opinions (three), the "consensus" in question has very little weight. On the question of whether this merger "make[s] sense or help[s] the encyclopedia", I would suggest that the fact that it meets WP:MERGE#Rationale #3 & #4 indicates that such a merger is both sensible & helpful. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: **Our interpretations of those past events differ.  You're certainly as entitled to your interpretation of events as I am to mine. Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

text: For the record, this is the last AFD. Many of the !votes thought that notability was pretty well sourced, a subject currently under dispute, so it would be fair to consider this at best an uncertain "proof" of notability.—Ash (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no good-faith policy dispute over the sourcing of the article.  Attempting to manufacture one could be construed a WP:POINT violation. Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no particular problem with the current sourcing. What I have a problem with is that with the exception of the fact that Jenkins is a past president of the American church, all the sources refer to relatively trivial points which don't really contribute to notability. The trivia should be stripped out, and what little is left can be merged. There is just not enough notability here for an independent article. The change of name to "religious leader" merely highlights this lack of notability. The argument in the Tyler Hendricks AfD that the American church presidency (including all past presidents) is an "inherently notable position, much like a Roman Catholic Bishop" just doesn't line up with the fact that there are no Wikipedia articles about thousands of bishops from previous centuries. -Exucmember (talk) 07:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

text: To clairify my views, I think Mike is important enough for an article. However I agree with Hrafn that according to strict WP:N policy he shouldn't have one since he has not been covered in depth by reliable secondary sources. Right now the article is just a scrapbook of media mentions in passing. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify my views, the fact that the Tyler Hendricks article was merged sets what I think is a pretty undeniable precedent for Michael Jenkins. Both are former presidents of the American Unification Church. Hendricks is something more: current president of a fully accredited graduate school, the main seminary in the world for the Unification Church. Jenkins has almost nothing more to support notability. It's pretty hard to imagine that the Jenkins article should be kept when a clearly more notable figure was merged. -Exucmember (talk) 03:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Steve, let me clarify the options. Given the RS information we have to date, our possible choices are (i) leaving an article here that is bulked up by "scrapbook" trivia to give some superficial semblance of "significant coverage", (ii) merging to a brief mention in Unification Church of the United States or (iii) outright deletion. You appear to be equivocating between (i) & (ii). Could I interest you in giving unequivocal support for either possible option, or an unequivocal abstention? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As a loyal WP editor I have to vote Delete per WP:N, due to lack of substantial coverage in secondary sources.  My next choice would be an informal article along the lines of "Michael Jenkins is a prominent member of the Unification Church of the United States who has held several leadership positions in that organizations, including president." My last choice would be to merge the trivia from this article into Unification Church of the United States.  If every news mention of every member were added there it would overwhelm the article. I hope that makes my position clear. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, we have nobody advocating "merge the trivia" (two explicit 'eliminate the trivia' merge opinions, one not explicitly advocating elimination, but still calling it "trivia"). Personally, I was thinking of using the first paragraph from the article -- which is fairly similar to your "held several leadership positions…". Would you object to, or support, a merger on that basis? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better to nominate for deletion another time. If so I would vote to delete. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I would like to point out that the Casey article story is about gossip. Leaving the reference without a source to view the original story is not appropriate for BLP unless quotes are added to give this source context. I have added a quote to the reference from the original document. Perhaps after reading the contested gossip this contains, someone would like to remove the reference as required by BLP.
Presumably there is no objection to removing the dead or registration only links from the references. —Ash (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I object, and you have stated no policy basis for removal.  If you remove the citation or its undelying material, especially in light of your expansion of the simple fact into a detailed quote, you have unclean hands. Jclemens (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unclear what you are objecting to. My statement above was presuming that removing a dead url (not the citation) was okay. The statement before that was that if this citation is considered gossip in breach of BLP then the BLP guidance actually tells us to remove such material immediately (I don't understand why you would not consider that a policy basis for removal). Now are you objecting to anyone removing redundant dead urls, or are you going to positively explain why the Casey article is not actually gossip and is in compliance with BLP rather than just objecting without explaining why? BTW I also don't understand what you mean by "unclean hands" was that just a jibe or did you not understand that I might have tried to be helpful by including an expanded quote to demonstrate the nature of what I think is gossip not fact?—Ash (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to read and understand how to deal with dead links.  Removal is not a preferred way of dealing with them.  Please read WP:DEADLINK and WP:DEADREF (part of WP:CITE).  The unclean hands assertion revolves around the obvious questions regarding your both attempting to remove sourced content and merge the article.  Are you asserting that those two actions, though virtually simultaneous and without prior precedent of your interactions in this article, are unrelated? Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Did Bush sip Moon's Holy wine article is gossip

message: This article by Lloyd Grove in the Washington Post is an opinion piece, not only unsuitable for a BLP but so tangential than it does not actually support the sentence it is quoted against. It does not call Jenkins "president" but instead when using the single line quote from him (in a 900+ word article) refers to him vaguely as "top church official". Again leaving these links as "registration required" is misleading for a BLP as the majority of readers will not be able to verify any claims made. This reference does not meet the BLP requirements and should be removed.—Ash (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Same objection.  Not a BLP statement in that it's uncontroversial. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "The Reliable Source" is an irrelevant opinion piece

message: This document is subtitled "A Tribute to the Reverend and Mrs. Sun Myung Moon". It is an self-serving opinion piece with no direct contribution by Jenkins. The only mention of Jenkins is in an essay "Never Judge a Book by Its Cover" by Stallings. Consequently this document does not actually act as a source for the text it is quoted against, fails to meet BLP and SELFPUB (point 1), and as Jenkins is not actually a contributor it is not valid with the BLP rationale that he can be an expert on himself (and consequently it fails SPS).
This source fails to meet BLP and should be removed. Thanks to Jclemens for tracking it down but this demonstrates the point that without the ability for verification, sources are being used here in a misleading manner.—Ash (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's published by Paragon, which is a de facto vanity publishing house for the Unification church, which serves as an expert for purposes of Jenkins' role within the church.  How, pray tell, is calling Jenkins a church leader self-serving?  Really. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Walsh: The Hope of All Ages, A Unified World of Peace fails [[WP:SELFPUB]]

message: This source states Jenkins was in Chicago for 17 years "helping lead Moon's movement" but does not specify his position at that time. It states he  became the "U.S. head" of the Church and is "now the face of the church in the U.S." The text is using this source to verify his specific role as "president" and that he "pastored the Chicago Family Church of Peace for seventeen years". As the source is vague about the positions that Jenkins held at these times, not surprising as references to Jenkins are again tangential, it does not meet the requirements of BLP for this biographical data and should be removed.
Again as the source is restricted, this reference has remained unchallenged and unverified.—Ash (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the above discussion where Hrafn challenged the same thing.  The text in question is in a sidebar not replicated in every online database.  And again, same objection. Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe I have access to the text you are referring to. Could you please add a copy of the relevant part here?—Ash (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your unwillingness or inability to search is not my problem.  It's the first section on this page at the moment. Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Chicago Tribute: Rev. Moon and the Black Clergy does not properly verify the text

message: # Re: the Houston Chronicle link, per WP:DEADLINK "Dead links of online newspaper articles can be converted to references to off-line sources. Do not simply remove dead links; they often contain valuable information." c.f. Wikipedia:REF#Repairing_dead_links.
# The ProQuest citations are as verifiable as any offline citations, and do not, in fact, need to be tagged as registration required.  Each citation would stand alone fine as an offline citation, in that it consists of enough material to go find that document in any library with that publication in its holdings.  Nothing in WP:Citing sources deprecates such usage.
I've reverted the offending edits. Jclemens (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies for being offending.—Ash (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits were offending, in that they made re-sourcing that statement harder without good cause. The point of cleanup is not to throw away good info, even if the web has changed.  Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that archive.org has the Chronicle page, so it, too, may need to be converted to Proquest or some other paid database. Jclemens (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate edits removed. 

message: I seem to remember commenting on an AfD nomination for this article. Has it been nominated twice? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Were there 2 AfD's?