Talk:Josette Sheeran/Archive 1

message: *I will ignore your personal attacks and tirade above.  It is not constructive.  And clearly through your long vitriol we can see that it is you who has a "POV agenda".  However, we ALL have our own POV agendas when we do anything in life.  As to the reputability of Inner City Press, from their article page: In mid-2006, investigative journalism at the UN by Inner City Press uncovered and led to the United Nations Development Programme halting its disarmament programs in the Karamoja region of Uganda in response to human rights abuses exposed in the parallel forcible disarmament programs carried out by the Uganda People's Defense Force. See also the Ugandan newspaper The New Vision.  I would think that an investigative journalism piece that has this affect on an official program of the United Nations certainly is a reputable source!  Smeelgova 22:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry that you feel that way.  However, if something is reported in investigative journalism, sources are NOT always revealed, as mentioned below.  And "libelous, crackpot conspiracy theory" is CERTAINLY only your own POV, and your own opinions and judgements.  I have moved the material that offends you into the footnotes section.  Hopefully this is an acceptable compromise.  Smeelgova 05:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''[[Inner City Press]]''

message: *It is very common for journalists to use unnamed sources.  Both The Washington Post and Associated Press articles used unnamed sources.  This does not make the article any more or less reputable.  Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein used an unnamed source to take down Richard Nixon.  Smeelgova 00:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All journalists use "unnamed sources"

message: I moved this discussion here from Exucmember's Talk page, as the discussion about this page was split between here and there:
"Rudely Deleted"
I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith, and not make these sorts of nasty comments in the edit history.  I did not "rudely delete" anything, these edits were my first foray into this article.  If you feel a certain way, we can talk it out on the article's talk page.  But to make comments like that in your edit history for all to see - that's not nice, and doesn't foster a good working relationship.  Smeelgova 20:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps in the future you will consider reverting only the specific edits with which you disagree, rather than a sweeping reversion of ALL someone's edits followed by an attempt (which is not always easy to get exactly right) to put back in the edits you don't have a problem with. I believe the latter method is inherently problematic and impolite, except in the case of reverting an outrageous body of edits. -Exucmember 20:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You have misrepresented what I did. You mass deleted all my edits, then were unsuccessful in putting back the ones you considered acceptable. When I commented in the edit summary "restoring improved 'Note' and 'References' sections that were rudely deleted" - not naming you by name - I was simply stating a fact, not assuming bad faith. Usually when an editor mistakenly deletes someone's edit that both agree was constructive and helpful, the editor simply apologizes. Instead you gave me an irrelevant and patronizing lecture about assuming good faith. You claimed that identifying an action as rude is itself "very rude." (Apparently, you don't think your calling my action "very rude" is itself rude, however.) Instead of writing what I have just written, I let it go. Later, when you deleted a key piece of information that happens to refute one of the more ridiculous POV arguments you seem to be trying make, I generously commented "restoring crucial fact that was accidentally deleted from the article", assuming that it was an accident. -Exucmember
Notices of WP:AN/3RR
Josette Sheeran Shiner
I am filling a WP:AN/3RR about this page Josette Sheeran Shiner.  If you have any further questions or statements please DO NOT leave them on my talk page. Please place them here on the Talk:Josette Sheeran Shiner page. Smeelgova 06:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am just reiterating that in this situation, due to the uncivil manner in which you have acted towards me and the personal attacks, that this would not be appropriate, my apologies.  Smeelgova 07:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *You have been much more uncivil, and I responded to your incivility with tolerance for several exchanges. Even so, I have not engaged in a single personal attack, and, again, it seems (from my point of view) dishonest of you to repeatedly say I have done so. -Exucmember 07:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well then, we seem to be at a miscommunication impasse on who has been uncivil to whom.  Suffice it to say that we each feel we have been uncivil to each other.  For these reasons, I do not feel that it would be productive for you to comment on my talk page.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 07:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on two pages

message: "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." See header above. -Exucmember 06:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your personal interpretation of poorly sourced is wrong.  See discussion above.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 06:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The Inner City Press itself is the secondary source, as a reputable form of investigative journalism. Smeelgova 07:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what is the primary source? -Exucmember 07:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You would have to ask the people at Inner City Press.  However, I am repeating myself here, reputable media secondary sources such as those cited above often do not make a habit of citing their sources in articles.  This in no way affects their reputability, however, as the reader places trust in the prior reputation and history of the organization, i.e. the investigative journalism skills of Inner City Press, with the United Nations scandal.   Smeelgova 07:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for making an attempt at being more civil.  This is appreciated.  Smeelgova 07:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy on biographies of living persons

message: Why are we even mentioning Shiner's religious affiliation? Is it merely to "out" her? Or have public questions been raised about loyalty or competence by advocates for or against her appointment? Or has the church used her appointment for a PR boost? 
We don't usually dig into the religion (or sexuality) of public figures, unless it has become a public issue (like a female singer whose virginity or lack of it is a major theme of her hit songs). --Uncle Ed 15:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I would say the fact that this issue has been reported on in The Washington Post, Inner City Press, Associated Press, The Guardian, and The Nation makes it notable.  Not to mention the fact that the George W. Bush Administration pressured The Washington Post not to mention this in their article (they did anyway), that part is notable and a kind of creepy attempted influence by government on the press as well.  Smeelgova 15:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my question was unclear. You answered the question, "How do we know this is a big issue?" What I really want to know is, "Why is it a big issue for people?" In other words, what does it matter to them what religion she is or was? --Uncle Ed 17:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not "people" so I don't know why it is a big issue for people.  But as evidence by the at least five media stories above, it is.  Smeelgova 19:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the information about Shiner's religious affiliation mentioned in the article was added by User:Smeelgova. I believe the main purpose is, as you said, to "out" her. Except in this case the "outing" is for an affiliation 10-30 years ago.  (And it's also to criticize the Bush Administration by repeating the Washington Post's version of being asked - did they say "pressured"? - not to include a long past religious affiliation). If you look at Smeelgova's contributions for just the last few days, you'll see how one-sided they are, how they are almost all on anti-cult topics, and that he spends a great deal of time (evidence of devotion to his - what should we call it? - "crusade"?). -Exucmember 07:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I request that you stop addressing my personal actions on this talk page.  I do not appreciate these personal attacks.  Whatever my edit history is, it is not relevant to this particular article.  The facts remain above, that major news sources have reported this within the past weeks.  I am not trying to "out" anyone, how could I, when this information has already been written about in major news sources?  I am simply trying to cite sources with references citations.  And, by the way, everyone comes here with a POV and an agenda, and one could draw similar conclusions by looking at User:Exucmember's contribution history.  Unlike him, however, I will not post a link to it here.  For I feel that is not kind and downright rude, as it has zero bearing on this particular discussion, except for completely changing the topic of it.  Smeelgova 19:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is Shiner's religious affiliation publicly noteworthy, not private?

message: I would like 90% of the comments on this page to be about Josette Shiner. Please take your personal problems elsewhere. If you need my assistance as a Mediator (or since I'm kind of "involved" with the article already, you'd prefer another member of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee to help you), you know what page to go to. ^_^ --Uncle Ed 18:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that comment.  As long as User:Exucmember can stay away from personal attacks, and actually addressing any types of personal issues regarding other users as opposed to content of the article, I think we'll be fine.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 22:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment was not intended as a personal attack; it was a statement about the parts of the article added by Smeelgova. Summary: Those parts reflect a highly biased one-sidedness, part of an apparently consistent anti-cult crusade. I disapprove of the highly biased nature of the edits. -Exucmember 07:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I disapprove of your assumption of any reasoning behind my edits.  I could look at your very narrow edit history and make similar assumptions, but I will not.  Let us both agree that your comments about assumptions as to the motivations behind anyone's edits are inappropriate, non-constructive, and do not abide by User:Ed Poor's request of I would like 90% of the comments on this page to be about Josette Shiner. Please take your personal problems elsewhere.  Thanks.  Smeelgova 07:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contributors and contributions

message: Hello. I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia. I made a small change in the section on the journalistic experience of Josette Sheeran Shiner because in talking about her first experience with the daily The News World in New York it said the [New York News] World, and the link in -New York News- referred to a page that has nothing to do with that paper. I changed it to New York [News World], for which no page exists as yet. I knew Mrs. Sheeran Shiner personally at that time and she was in fact my first direct superior in the National Department (editorial) of The News World during November-December 1976 as we were preparing for publication of the very first issue of the paper on the last day of that year. I later switched to the International Department. I still have a few copies of the paper from 1977 and also 1979. In June 1979 I worked again directly with Mrs. Sheeran Shiner (she was then still Miss Sheeran) in Washington D.C., where she was our bureau chief. The News World was published by Newsworld Communications, Inc., with editorial offices in the New Yorker Hotel - owned by the Unification Church - and from about mid-1977 out of the "Tiffany Building" at 401 Fifth Avenue, NY, NY 10016, which was also bought and restored by members of the church. I worked there off and on until mid-1982, when the paper was still called The News World. The first, simple mockups of the future Washington Times were put together under the leadership of Mrs. Josette Sheeran Shiner herself in The News World's editorial offices. In my opinion The Washington Times could really be considered her baby, because she laid much of the groundwork for the paper on the editorial side, even though her name was not listed as prominently as those of others (her name was also never on the masthead of The News World, even though she always played a crucial role). The parent company of The Washington Times is, of course, still Newsworld Communications, Inc., but The News World itself, whose name was chosen by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, is long forgotten. If I remember correctly the paper's name was changed to The New York Tribune in 1983 for a short time, and then it became The New York City Tribune until it folded around 1993. hillwalker 22:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the information.  Steve Dufour 14:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's merge this information into News World or New York Tribune. --Uncle Ed 14:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New York "News World"

message: Perhaps you'd like to chop out large parts of the massive attention given in the article to a trivial subject: Shiner's former religious affiliation. Ed seems not to have responded so far to my request that he undertake the summarizing of that material (which he proposed). -Exucmember 05:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and did this.  I hope the result is ok. Steve Dufour 14:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Steve: thanks for doing my work! Ex: sorry, I become very busy in mid-December, as I was given a new position at work. --Uncle Ed 14:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you will do a great job there. Steve Dufour 14:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoring my deleted comment

message: *There is no "controversy" over this.  Please cite secondary sources that utilize the word "controversy", and we can discuss your perceived need to change the subsection headings.  Smee 16:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there was not controversy I will remove the whole section. Steve Dufour 14:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This information is clearly of interest, as it has been mentioned in many different publications.  The incident where the George W. Bush Administration pressured The Washington Post not to discuss her ties to the Unification Church is certainly most odd and notable.  Smee 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss here individually what specific material you have issues with.   Smee 19:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and made this change. If you want to say something about Bush pressuring the Post you could add that too. Steve Dufour 18:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have.  I believe I have edited the section in-line with your original intended compromise.  The information is now not provided about all of the publications in the section itself, but rather in the footnotes, if the reader really wants to dig into it.  Smee 18:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work.  It is much better now.  Steve Dufour 18:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  I am glad we have finally been able to come to a consensus on this.  Smee 18:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The links are a useful resource.  I have changed the subject headings in the EL section so as not to appear in the TOC.  Smee 19:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Smeelgova, why are you insisting on using the exaggerated and misleading word "pressured" when the word used in the report was "pressed"? -Exucmember 19:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken your recommendation and changed the word accordingly to "pressed".  Smee 19:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religions affiliations 

message: The article is still too heavy on Shiner's past religious affiliation. Thankfully most of it is where it belongs, in footnotes (if it is to be in the article at all - Along with the majority, I believe it is irrelevant and should not be in the article at all). 477 words out of 981 are about her past religious affiliation (49% of the article). I propose that the quoted text from the “Moonie” article (Guardian) be dropped. It doesn't say anything of significance that is not already quoted from the other articles, and I'm not sure Wikipedia should be siding with religious bigotry; it makes the article look biased. -Exucmember 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ex.  The only reason she is notable is her former UC membership.  We members were looking at this to see if this would be a problem in her appointment and to see how the media and public opinion would react.  Her appointment would have never made the news except for her UC connection.  The problem is that the article couldn't really go into how "controversial" or "persecuted" the UC has been -- which is the key point which makes the incident meaningful.  Steve Dufour 03:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting points Mr. Dufour.  I had not thought of it in that manner...  Smee 04:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article really should be turned upside down and her UC membership be put on top as the reason for her notablity.  No harm would be done, I'm sure that UC members and critics are the only ones who ever check out the article now. :-)  Steve Dufour 06:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be supportive of that idea.  Smee 07:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't being 100% serious. :-)  Steve Dufour 07:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there an article on the office of the Under Secretary for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs? Steve Dufour 04:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We have come to a stable consensus on this article.  Please STOP the relentless violations of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks.  Thanks.  Smee 07:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smeelgova, you have a habit of claiming that people are making personal attacks even when there is not the slightest hint of one. Why do you do that? -Exucmember 07:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoting from the article, Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, with emphasis in original:  Comment on content, not on the contributor.  Thanks.  Smee 07:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see anything that could even be mistaken as the mildest personal attack (and this has been true on other occasions involving other editors as well). That's why your response is bewildering to me. -Exucmember 08:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in order for you to be unambiguous about these issues in the future:  Comment on content, not on the contributor.  Thanks.   Smee 08:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you're comments are so very unresponsive to what was said, let me ask you directly: What statement did you consider a personal attack? -Exucmember 08:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look - let's not belabour the issue here.  Your actions of pressing this even further is in and of itself inappropriate behaviour.  Stick to:   Comment on content, not on the contributor.  - and you'll be fine.  Smee 08:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your initial outburst was to accuse me of making a personal attack. Since I can't see anything that can even be mistaken as a personal attack, I am asking you: What statement did you consider a personal attack? If you cannot answer, I have no choice but to remind you that such unfounded accusations may be interpreted as a violation of WP:CIV. Thanks. -Exucmember 08:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be wanting to pick a fight with me for some odd reason?  This is very weird and quite frankly just plain ol' bullying which I will not tolerate.  Again, Comment on content, not on the contributor.   I will not participate in this egging on any further.  Smee 08:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Half of words in article are on PAST religious affiliation