Talk:List of ministers of the Universal Life Church/Archive 1

message: The people on the list are all cited as Ministers of the ULC in their individual articles. GreenJoe 02:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't a sufficient way of sourcing this... it needs to be sourced with citations in this article and should be considered unverified until those cites are added here.--Isotope23 talk 02:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beyond that... it isn't even necessarily reliably sourced in those articles; Susan Block is sourced to her blog for example.  I understand it is easy to get a ULC Ordination (I and my cat are both ordained) but there needs to be some level of reliable sourcing in this list.--Isotope23 talk 02:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is reliable in the article about the individual. We have lots of lists on Wikipedia, and I can't say I've seen any that require that they provide the citation on the list itself. GreenJoe 04:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:LISTS#Criteria for inclusion in lists. According to these, all lists must contain a inclusion criteria, in this case quite clear. Also, the content must be verifiable as with all other content. Bjelleklang  -  talk Bug Me 09:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Those other lists are a good case of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.  All lists of "people by X" should clearly be cited to show how these people meet the inclusion criteria of the article, even if this is already cited in their individual article.--Isotope23 talk 13:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the convention has been that people cite in the article about the subject, not the list. Yes, we have that OtherCrapExists thing, but you can't ignore precdent either. Especially a large precedent like this one. GreenJoe 15:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that actually documented as an accepted guideline or policy anywhere?  It's a terrible practice if it is being done as a general way to set up lists and rather suggests that there probably needs to be some sort of MoS or guideline statement about sourcing lists without trying to rely on linked sourcing or using 'pedia as a source for itself if this sort of tertiary sourcing is being accepted as a legitimate convention.  I'm going to go through this list over the next few days and either cite or remove names.--Isotope23 talk 15:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: All the more reason why THIS page needs to have the citation.  You can't expect somebody to comb through hundred of edits looking for something that may or may not have been there at some unknown point in time.Balloonman 17:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If you have to ask it probably isn't... and looking at it, I would say no.Balloonman 17:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: I came accross this website in my travels. I wanted to ask if we are willing to accept it as a reliable source for this list? GreenJoe 16:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have to ask it probably isn't... and looking at it, I would say no.Balloonman 17:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source question

message: The issue: Weather or not individuals on the list need to be cited on the list itself, or in their article. GreenJoe 15:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, this is one of the most black and white RFC's I've seen. I've had lists I've contributed to nominated for deletion if they aren't cited on the list themselves.  To me this is pretty much a slam dunk.  As you are dealing with real people, per WP:BIO the list MUST have citations.  Wikipedia cannot self-reference itself and you can't ask people to look at other articles for support.  Add the references here or get rid of the names!!!!Balloonman 15:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think my views on this are pretty clear above... I'm not even sure why an RFC is necessary here as I've volunteered to do the leg work and add the cites.  WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:BIO all apply here as well as just general good practice of citing all articles without relying on citation through links to other articles.  I'm even rather flexable on the reliable sources statement I made above about Susan Block sourcing because on further reflection, ULC ministership is so easy to come by that I'd be fine with a Primary source; it's not like it is questionable if Ms. Block meets the criteria for ULC ministership (which is apparently breathing given my own status as a ULC Rev.)  This really seems a bit of a non-issue to me.--Isotope23 talk 16:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think on the ULC website there's a list of who is and who isn't.
*Ughhhh anything not sourced can be removed.... BLP. This is pretty clear. Yes, they need to be cited in the list. Sethie 22:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment

message: Is this list unmaintainable or is it only to list those ministers already with an article?  I am a ULC minister- I presume I'm not allowed to be listed? lol:)  How can this be noteable, as anyone can sign up to be ordained as a minister instantaneously and for free?Merkinsmum 22:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, if they have an article and it can be verified, they can be included. It's just as notable as the numerous lists of people affiliated with various Colleges or Universities. GreenJoe 00:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I too would be hard pressed not to vote "Delete" if it was nominated.Balloonman 07:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: who's included?

message: The entries for Johnny Carson, Sharon Stone, and Wolfman Jack each cite this article: http://chicagoscope.com/index.php?post_id=151494 .  The thing is, if you read that article, the article cites Wikipedia.  Now, how did this happen?  Brash 17:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Circular Sources

message: I cleaned up the list today, put it in a neat-style table, and added some free pictures to the article. I didn't want to put them all otherwise the pictures would be longer than the list. GreenJoe 16:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaned up

message: The lead of the list needs to be about 4 sentences long, it would make the list sparkle. If anyone has a few moments to work on that, it would be swell. GreenJoe 17:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The lead

message: The citation only mentions Michael Newdow (also on this list with a different citation), it talks about O'Hair but only Newdow is said to be ordained. 69.221.160.190 (talk) 06:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference has been replaced with a new one that does mention O'Hair. GJ (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madalyn Murray O'Hair 

message: I removed this as lists are automatically excluded from the Good Article criteria, please see Wikipedia:WIAGA#What_is_not_a_good_article.3F. This could potentially be nominated for Featured List status at WP:FLC. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 17:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from Good Article Nominations

message: This article was viewed 1095 times in Freburary 2008. GreenJoe 16:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article visitor stats

message: Is he notable enough to remain on the list? Does this link work as a reference for everyone? GreenJoe 01:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mike Cooley