Talk:Rob Schenck

Sentence needs editing

There seems to be a word/s missing from this sentence: "Since 2001, Schenck has maintained ministerial credentials as an ordained member of the Methodist Episcopal Church USA, a continuously be (?) of Maryland-based Methodists that traces its roots back to the famous 1784 Baltimore Christmas Conference." — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlantSwordfish (talk • contribs) 15:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I removed "as an ordained member of the Methodist Episcopal Church USA, a continuously be of Maryland-based Methodists that traces its roots back to the famous 1784 Baltimore Christmas Conference" and think the entire unsourced paragraph should be removed. The Methodist Episcopal Church traced its roots to the Christmas Conference, but that denomination was replaced, by merger, with the Methodist Church in 1939. The only indications I can find that a "Methodist Episcopal Church USA" exists are a Facebook page and references at the website of St. Paul Christian University, a non-accredited institution founded in 1997. The Facebook page makes it look like the church is more of a support organization for Methodists who think real Methodist churches are too liberal. The site appears to have no information about churches one may attend, clergy, or organizational structure.

If no one else responds, I will remove the entire paragraph. LRS1964 (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Done. LRS1964 (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Correct Methodist church name

He is not "an ordained minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church," which was replaced by the Methodist Church in 1939. His Facebook page says he is affiliated with the Methodist Evangelical Church USA, which I found no information about. I want to make the change, but unsure (new to editing articles) whether to do it before finding a source that--how to put this--demonstrates its existence. LRS1964 (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC) I removed three non-sourced references to the Methodist Episcopal Church or Methodist Episcopal Church USA (denominations in which he was said to be ordained) and changed the other (affiliation) to the Methodist Evangelical Church USA, which is on his Facebook page. LRS1964 (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit warring re: Norma McCorvey situation

User 3Kingdoms has been attempting to slow-edit-war away the notation that Schenk was involved in the fraud in which Norma McCorvey was paid to falsely portray herself as having changed her opinion regarding abortion. This is the talk section because they continued edit-warring even after multiple editors reverted their removal of material which has stood, well sourced, for months.

Pinging @NorthBySouthBaranof:, @Avatar317: as the editors who have previously had to deal with this behavior. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the material has WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS by dint of being in the article, unchallenged, for an extended period of time. 3Kingdoms is welcome to attempt to develop a new consensus to remove it, but is not entitled to edit-war it out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

As I have said before there is no evidence Schenck had anything but a passing influence on Norma. The claim of fraud is disputed by other sources, including someone who had known her for 20+ years. The other article I posted from TAC also disputes. Of course since Schenck claims it happened it should be included on his page. Just not in the heading. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

There is strong evidence, sourced on this page, that Schenk (and his arrangement of monetary payoffs) were an enormous influence on Norma McCorvey. [1] If you want to make a change, you need to provide real sourcing, not edit-war and constantly try to remove well sourced material against consensus. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

You clearly misread the article. It says that Operation Save America paid her. Schenck was never head of the organization and for that matter he is not mentioned on its wiki page nor is it mentioned on his. Schenck was not the person that converted her on either occasion. In fact Schenck whole statement is a minor paragraph right in the middle. As noted before Frank Pavone knew her for much longer and disputed this claim. There is no reason why this should be in the heading, Schenck is not known for this. He was bit player in Norma's life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3Kingdoms (talk • contribs) 18:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Rob Schenck is one of the evangelical pastors who paid her to make public appearances on behalf of the anti-abortion movement. " [2] IHateAccounts (talk) 05:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, one of the alleged, not the main mover, not one that started it, one of. Now since no one else has admitted to it and Schenck has left the Pro-life movement, their is a conflict of interest here. The Question is, was the alleged act something Schenck is most known for, the answer is no. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

You are really, really invested in his involvement being minimized. Why is that? '"“I had checks made out to her and I signed those checks and in many cases I handed them to her. I gave her envelopes full of cash in those days,” Schneck said." [3] IHateAccounts (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Cause facts matter. In the very article you linked he talked about how he thought the payments were fine at first. It is common to pay people for speaking fees. Ronald Reagan was paid for speaking fees by the Republican party, does that mean he wasn't being honest. Now given that Frank Pavone knew her for much longer and she just so happened to be part of his religion not Schenck and he says she was true. Once again none of this is what Schenck is none for. He is know as a pastor and for the doc, this is something at the bottom not the heading. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The facts are pretty clear. Norma McCorvey was paid for a false "conversion", by individuals such as Schenck. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Based upon the accounts of Schenck and a documentary, as I said before Pavone who knew her longer and was closer and he says she was real. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

You haven't provided any sourcing to justify your claims. Again. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually I did if you had actually read the page history you would have seen them. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/whos-really-exploiting-norma-mccorvey/ https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/norma-mccorvey-roe-wade-prolife-christian-father-frank-pavone. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Neither "The American Conservative" nor a Fox News opinion column qualify as WP:RS. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

"Opinion Column" by someone who has been her personal advisor for 20 years, yeah no, not the same as other ones. Also the TAC has no agreement, the only discussion was about an article they published being used, it was agreed to be used. Wiki literally says just because it is not labeled reliable yet does not mean it can't be used. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Please do post a Noticeboard request about it then. TAC is "a usable source for attributed opinions" only, nothing more. I suspect you'll find neither compare to strong WP:RS sourcing regarding Schenk's role, especially given that there are both secondary sources and his own admissions to WP:RS in interviews confirming. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no secondary source in the articles you posted, just him saying that he and others did it. This is just goalpost moving, the point is not about if this happened or not, its that this is in the heading of his bio. In my view it should not be here, but below, not only is this claim disputed, but there is no evidence presented here that he was any different from the other alleged payers. This is not what Schenck is known for. He is known as a pastor and for the doc, not this. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Both the article and the lead are a mess, but due weight is demonstrated by reliable sources. Many reliable sources mention Schenk's admission that he "used" McCorvey:

• "'We used her': Minister regrets paying Roe vs. Wade plaintiff to speak out against abortion | CBC Radio". CBC. Retrieved 2 December 2020.
• "Anti-abortion rights movement paid 'Jane Roe' thousands to switch sides, documentary reveals". NBC News. Retrieved 2 December 2020. "What we did with Norma was highly unethical. The jig is up," says the Rev. Rob Schenck, who says he wants to set the record straight by publicly admitting for the first time that McCorvey was paid to pose as an anti-abortion rights activist.
• O'Brien, Breda. "Neither side of abortion debate emerges well from McCorvey story". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2 December 2020. At least one Evangelical minister believes that McCorvey was exploited. Rev Rob Schenck says on his blog that he regrets the way that his pro-life organisation used her. While she earned some money, it was never anything like the windfall of money that her appearances generated for his organisation and others like it. When she told him after her conversion that she still approved of abortion in the first trimester, Schenk says that he brushed it aside, put it down to the fact that she was a recent convert and hoped that she would change her mind.
• Allassan, Fadel. ""It was all an act": Roe v. Wade plaintiff said she was paid to support anti-abortion movement". Axios. Retrieved 2 December 2020. Rob Schenck, an evangelical minister and former leader of anti-abortion rights group Operation Rescue, confirmed McCorvey's account, saying the group paid her out of fears "that she would go back to the other side."
• "'I Can Always Go Back to the Other Side:' How Jane Roe Demanded a Raise From Anti-Abortion Activists". www.vice.com. Retrieved 2 December 2020. In an interview with VICE News, Rev. Rob Schenck, who appears in the documentary, detailed how, during his days as a leader in the anti-abortion movement, he remitted multiple checks to her.
• And many more besides.

Based on the quantity of reliable sources, this strongly appears to be encyclopedically significant. Again, the entire article will need to be reorganized, but burying this info is not a neutral starting place. Grayfell (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I stepped away from this discussion because despite what I tried to explain to 3Kingdoms, their argument seemed caught in a loop of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in regards to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy. They definitely didn't have consensus to retry the edit, they had been replied to by both @NorthBySouthBaranof: and myself. I thought this statement by NorthBySouthBaranof had been incredibly clear. I'll try to sum up salient points here again.

• Summing up why the "slow edit war" attempt is bad: "Yes, the material has WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS by dint of being in the article, unchallenged, for an extended period of time. 3Kingdoms is welcome to attempt to develop a new consensus to remove it, but is not entitled to edit-war it out." - NorthBySouthBaranof
• From the last discussion on The American Conservative, [4] to quote JzG, "it's not a publication engaging in journalism, its purpose is advocacy. Everything it publishes is passed through a filter of die-hard conservative ideology, so it's no use as a source of fact for the same reason as Occupy Democrats or Alternet." That's why it is listed as generally unreliable, only usable as a source for attributed opinions in limited circumstances, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. In this case, it is definitely not usable.
• Likewise, from Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The Fox News opinion piece by Frank Pavone appears to be that sort of thing, having no factual verification, an author who is heavily invested in the narrative of Jane Roe's supposed conversion, and definitely falls into Wikipedia:Mandy_Rice-Davies_Applies territory regarding his own role. In fact, the editorial itself has eerie similarities to other "fantasies of conversion" [[5]], given that McCorvey literally made her statement in a video-recorded interview while the editorial asks us to just take Pavone's word to the contrary.
• There's a contrary opinion [6] at National Catholic Reporter by Jamie Manson, which includes some actual fact-checked / fact-checkable information such as quotes from the documentary. But I wouldn't dream of using it un-attributed for quotes like "But if you make someone a pawn in a politically-charged crusade, do you really ever see her for who she is, or only for who you need her to be? Still in the thick of his anti-abortion crusade, Pavone does not possess the level of honesty and self-reflection that Schenck displays", because that would be against Wikipedia policy, and like the Pavone piece, anything it says about Schenck directly is already covered by proper Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

I am open to reviewing further but the evidence that would be needed, again given the WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources already that confirm both McCorvey's and Schenck's positions and involvement, would have to be very robust. In the meantime @3Kingdoms: please do not resume edit-warring by trying to re-insert material changes that you do not have consensus for. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

First Greyfall, the reliable sources you put forth are meaningless. They all literally just repeat what Schenck said, with no actual fact-checking on if it is true. Second, that you concede that it is a mess, is correct, so why are you determined to have this at the top. Everyone arguing with me has yet to explain what is at the heart of the issue:

Is this what Schenck is known for? The answer is no, typing in his name this does show this anywhere near the top.

Does that mean it should not be Added? NO, but it should have its own section below.

Regarding IHateAccounts, once again you refused to actually read what TAC is labeled, which is no agreement. Of course you decided to pick the most negative quote to attack it, a horrible quote by someone who could not even be bothered to even do the most basic of research. Finally saying Pavone has an interest in being right it true, yet you seem unable to see that so does Schenck. Since 2018 he has become in favor of abortion rights and bashed his former allies, so perhaps he is not being completely honest either.

Finally saying that I am the one engaged in an edit war, is rather rich. Even after I made the change of simply creating a new section in his bio for this it was removed. I created a talk page ad which stopped being talked about after a couple of days, that's fine, but since no compelling argument came out for it I made the change again.

So Please lets stop with the debate about if this is true, but does this belong at the top. it does not. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

You comment shows a serious misunderstanding of multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Content is mostly decided by consensus. Due weight is decided through reliable sources, not through editor's personal opinions. Likewise, you, as an editor, are not qualified to decide that outlets have not done enough "fact checking", as this would be WP:OR. In this context, saying "stop with the debate" does not mean "let me win the debate". You have failed to change consensus, and if you insist on pursuing this, you will need to start follow Wikipedia's polices and guidelines much, much more closely. Grayfell (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Once again you don't bother addressing the main question. "Stop with the debate" means just that, you both have been goalpost moving by making this about if this occurred or not, which is not the point of the change. Finally I am just stating fact, you threw out a bunch or sources, but all they do is repeat exactly what schenck said, only one is needed since they all say the same thing. So once again why is this in the heading? 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

So once again why is this in the heading? You'd know that already if you LISTENED TO (or READ) what other people say. I'll repeat now for the THIRD time (first two in my edit summaries). Wikipedia POLICY says: Per WP:MOSLEAD the lead is supposed to ..."summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Seeing how much news coverage this got, it definitely is a "prominent controversy" ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Except its not. If you read what I posted Schenck from all evidence had only a passing influence on Norma, also specifically says he was just one of many who supposedly paid her. He was not the prime mover in this situation, it show be below not in the heading. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This is both WP:OR and also irrelevant. It doesn't matter how much influence Schenck had on McCorvey, because this article isn't about McCorvey, it's about Schenck. At the end of the day, what matters is sources. Many, many reliable sources discuss this as it relates to Schenck, so it belongs in an encyclopedia article about Schenck in proportion to that coverage. The goal of articles is to summarize according to reliable sources, in proportion to that coverage. Your personal interpretation of the situation is not helpful, as has already been explained to you multiple times, multiple places, by multiple editors. Grayfell (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

No you haven't. Your right the article is not about Norma, if it was then this information should be included in the heading. As I have pointed on numerous occasions the evidence indicates that Schenck had a marginal influence here, he was one of many alleged people. This really isn't that hard it should be below not at the top. So please actually answer my question. Why is this in the heading? 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

What, exactly, have I not done? I already answered your question multiple times, but to restate it: The goal of articles is to summarize according to reliable sources, in proportion to that coverage. It belongs in the lead because it is a prominent part of how reliable sources cover Schenck as a topic. This is partly shown by the above sources, but as I said, there are many more where that came from. Grayfell (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

You have not explained why this is important enough for this to be a topic. Schenck is not known for this, when people look him up they hear about his activism, his doc on gun control, and finally his shift away from his established views. Surely him attempting to confront the President is more important than him confirming an alleged story. Again Schenck only confirmed this information once the doc came out, he is not known for this. If should be below, I really don't see what is so hard to understand. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It is very easy to understand, but it's still incorrect. As I've said, the lead will need to be rewritten and reorganized. This will almost certainly involve adding more information, per sources and due weight. This is not a valid justification for removing this info. Other issues will have other sources, but that doesn't mean that this issue should by buried. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I was not "burying" it. I put it below with its own section. 3Kingdoms (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@3Kingdoms: since you have returned and tried to edit war your desired changes that you do not have consensus for yet again, I am making the note here. You still have not provided a good enough rationale for your trying to excise or bury the extremely WP:DUE information that you keep trying to remove. IHateAccounts (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I have. I pointed out that Schenck is not known for this. He is a pastor, pro-life turn pro-choice, and supports gun control. The proper place is for the section in question is below. Finally please stop stalking me across my edits it very creepy and annoying. I will report if you keep this up.3Kingdoms (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Your arguments have not changed the consensus. Please cease trying to edit-war your non-consensus version. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Then argue your point, if you have none then stop edit stalking me. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you, as it is your version that is not the consensus version. And it's uncivil for you to accuse me of stalking. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I did now you give an answer. I said it because you have, just like how you have insulted people you disagree with or so stop.3Kingdoms (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@3Kingdoms:, per @Grayfell: above; "Based on the quantity of reliable sources, this strongly appears to be encyclopedically significant. Again, the entire article will need to be reorganized, but burying this info is not a neutral starting place." Thus far, you have not provided any argument that has a policy-based or WP:RS-based basis for trying to remove or bury the content you keep trying to remove or bury.

To lay things out point by point:

1. The version you keep trying to insert does not have consensus.
2. Per @NorthBySouthBaranof:, you are welcome to try to develop a new consensus, but you are NOT entitled to keep trying to edit-war in your version that does not currently have consensus.
3. Making a perfunctory comment (such as falsely claiming you were not burying the information by removing it from the lead) does not entitle you to try to edit-war your version back in a few days, or even a couple weeks, afterwards by claiming you "didn't get a response." This thread is FULL of very detailed responses to you rooted in WP:RS and wikipedia policy, which you have been dismissive towards but nevertheless demonstrate that your preferred version does not currently enjoy consensus.
4. If you are trying to claim that the numerous WP:RS that have covered the situation are factually wrong, you need very solid reliable sources to back up your assertions.

Gaining consensus means that the onus is on you to provide rational, logical, policy-based arguments backed up by WP:RS for your preferred version/text. Until you have done so, and the editors in this talk page have acknowledged a new consensus wording, you need to stop edit-warring in your non-consensus version. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Yawn. We have gone through this before. It is not burying to move something to its correct place especially when I give it it's own section with a heading. Please provide an actual answer for why you object to it being not in the heading.3Kingdoms (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @NorthBySouthBaranof:, @Avatar317:, @Grayfell: as editors who have previously been involved in this consensus as well. IHateAccounts (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

3Kingdoms - please WP:DROPTHESTICK. It seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to how Wikipedia works, in that we simply summarise what is stated in reliable sources. The onus is on yourself to bring forth RS that are independent that are to the contrary to what has already been said. Please do not remove the sourced information before a consensus happens. If you continue to do so, the article can be semi-protected. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't removed. It was given a proper section below. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Repeating yourself doesn't help, and in this case comes off as bad-faith filibustering. Since, per your own comments, you clearly do not think this is significant enough for the lead, "giving it a proper section" is functionally the same as burying it, regardless of your stated intentions. As already mentioned, the article really should be rewritten, but the lead should include important information, and sources establish that this is important. Do not cram stuff you don't like in a WP:CSECTION. Grayfell (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)