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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Citations

The people on the list are all cited as Ministers of the ULC in their individual articles. GreenJoe 02:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

A tip: If you're looking for citations in the article and don't see it, it may have been removed. Check the history, I remember at one point listing references in the edit summaries for most of the people on the list. GreenJoe 16:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Source question

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)

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

Request for Comment

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)

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)

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)

• To add names to this list is to claim that they are a "Minister of the Universal Life Church". This is a clear cut WP:BLP violation since without a reliable source we can't honestly say if the claim is true of false. If the source is another Wikipedia page and that page contains the reliable reference then that reference should also be used on this page. Regards Bksimonb 16:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

who's included?

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)

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)

"Is this list unmaintainable?" Responding to the RFC, I believe the answer is: Yes. Why would it be notable enough for an encylopedia article to list everyone who's accepted a free and nearly instant offer from another web site? I believe this article should be deleted. VisitorTalk 07:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I too would be hard pressed not to vote "Delete" if it was nominated.Balloonman 07:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Circular Sources

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)

I dont think that that blog is a correct cite. JDBlues 02:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up

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)

The lead

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)

Madalyn Murray O'Hair

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)

The reference has been replaced with a new one that does mention O'Hair. GJ (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed from Good Article Nominations

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)

(I originally "quick failed" this as a GA nominee, but since it cannot become a GA, it is not fair to tag it as a failed GA either - sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

Article visitor stats

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

Mike Cooley

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)

Citations Are Still Not Acceptable

It's been three years since it was pointed out that half of the citations here are not reliable. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources for what a reliable source is. I tried to delete the bad ones but some one just added them back in and suggested I post here before I delete them again.

Look at these citations:

"^ Mentioned on his radio show"

http://flagpole.com/Music/LiveReviews/2004-09-08

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1485305/britney-auctioning-off-tix.jhtml?headlines=true

http://online.wsj.com/public/page/news-opinion-commentary.html?id=110005171

"^ Mentioned several times on his radio show "Preston and Steve"

http://www.usaweekend.com/04_issues/040718/040718whosnews.html

http://www.citizenlink.com/citizen-magazine/

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/audioPop.jsp?episodeId=23966

http://www.gonzo.org/hst/hst.asp?ID=0

Either they do not exist or they should not have been added in the first place. How is "mentioned on a radio show" a reasonable citation?

As far as the Ashmore book is not a reliable source and should not be listed here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources

It is self published and Ashmore has never been published anywhere else and is not an established expert.

FYI: to those I see gossiping about me, I am proudly ordained as a minister of the ULC but that doesn't mean I would stand for misinformation and a sub-par entry about the church here at Wikipedia.

Does any one oppose the deletion of these citations? Wwjd2012 (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for starting a dialogue here. We appreciate it. What is it you have against the ULC? While I agree something like "mentioned on his radio show" isn't acceptable, that doesn't mean the links aren't, especially if they directly link to the audio recording of the episode. As for Ashmore's book, it mentions a lot of people. I consider it acceptable because it's been around since 1977, and from what I can tell no one has challenged it in the courts. Thus, it must be factually accurate. Self-published sources are sometimes acceptable depending on the circumstances. I'd say this is one of those circumstances. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

As I stated above I don't have anything against the ULC. Frankly I am offended that you keep accusing me of not editing in good faith.

Apparently you did not read what I posted above, where I stated that I am proud of my ULC ordination, and you did not bother to click the links that I have provided from citations in the article. Please do so now and explain how any one of them could possibly be used as a reference citation.

I repeat Ashmore is not a established expert on any topic let alone the ULC. Your logic that it must be factually accurate is flawed, but that does not matter since it is self published book providing biographical information on living people. It is not an acceptable reference for Wikipedia.

I am glad we agree that the "he said it on a radio show" type citations are no good. If no one else has any objects I suggest that these be removed. Is there some standard amount of time to wait for comments on deletions of bad citations? Wwjd2012 (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no standard amount of time. And while the onus is on the person adding it to cite, I generally try to find a citation first if I can. Just a Google search. Unless there are too many that need citing, and then I'll either tag it, or remove it or make a note on the talk page. Depends on the circumstances.

I apologize for not assuming good faith.

I've read Ashmore's book a while ago. It is a pretty comprehensive history of the church. Here's the thing to think about: Where else are you going to find some of the stuff that is in that book? I doubt Penguin or Church Historian's Press is going to have anything on the ULC. So perhaps to start would be to try and find additional citations for the ones that you think need bolstering, and go from there. Would this work? Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I already explained to you and linked the relevant how-to guide, Wikipedia:Link rot#Keeping dead links. If you remove the reference, and that is the only one for a living person, then that person must be removed from the list as well. What should be done is to tag them with {{dead link}} or find a new reference, which I did with Kathy Griffin. If, on the other hand, the reference still leads to a live page but does not support the claim then the reference and the person must both be removed or a new reference found, such as Courtney Love. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2