Talk:Thomas Muthee/Archive 1

Archive 1

The focus of this article

In light of the revelatory principle professed by Hobartimus (talk · contribs) here, that "the topic of the article is Muthee not anything else" I move that Muthee's involvement with the witch doctor and with humanitarian work be removed from the article, and the page replaced with "Thomas Muthee is a notable man." Although I'm not sure about the "man" part, as that seems to dwell overmuch on Muthee's relationship with masculinity rather than Muthee himself. the skomorokh 20:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The context of Palin's 2008 VP campaign needs to be re-added

Please re-add the contextualization that this all became international news because of her 2008 VP campaign. -- Banjeboi 22:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That isn't relevant to this person's biography - nor indeed is anything in the Wasilla AoG section, which should probably be trimmed further under WP:UNDUE. Because you or others learned about him for that reason is not why he merits an article. That material is just an attempt to use this article as a coatrack to discuss something else, and was the reason for considering this article for deletion. Sound editorial practice will be to keep that data out of this article. GRBerry 17:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with GRBerry. Hobartimus (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree as I think there are numerous ways to simply state - Muthee's connection to Palin was highlighted as part of the lengthy 2008 presidential election - or similar. Otherwise is does seem purely coatrack-ish. The reason this information is notable was not so much of it occurring during the governor election but that it was brought to wide attention as a part of the VP vetting process. -- Banjeboi 01:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Banjeboi. People coming to this page will expect to see something about Muthee's relationship to Palin since that's why he's making the news right now. As was explained in the deletion discussion, COATRACK is not wikipedia policy and not a valid reason to delete an article. Although the Palin material should not be allowed to overwhelm the article, the removal of any mention of Palin smacks of POV-pushing.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If Muthee has substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, especially if it is independent of his association with Palin, then he satisfies WP:BIO and should have an article. But I agree with the WP:COATRACK essay as a restatement of WP:NPOV and WP:NOT . An ostensible article about Muthee may not be a thinly veiled attack on Palin. Edison (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To help assure that it's not such an article, I've rephrased a couple of things. "Witch hunt" has specific conotations of homicidal violence and is not a good description of praying that evil spirits and influences leave town. Leaving it creates BLP concerns, so it stays out. Jclemens (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a question of mentioning Palin as being an attack her, or at least I hope there isn't. I certainly don't see this as an attack. If you'll note the source - "Palin linked electoral success to prayer of Kenyan witchhunter is about the 2008 presidential election. The context of this information is what I'm referring. Unclear why the reticence to contextualize this. -- Banjeboi 21:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Hobartimus and GRBerry. COATRACKs seem to prevail far too often. Collect (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Muthee's education

The article should identify the institution which awarded him a master's degree. The sentence which states he has a "master's degree in practical ministry" is footnoted to a reference which says nothing about him having a master's degree. His own website says he has the degree, but does not say what school granted it. It fails verifiability at this point. Google only has four references which mention a "master's degree in practical ministry," for anyone at all (not just Muthee) beside this article. Is it a legitimate academic degree awarded by accredited colleges? Edison (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much I'd care about the accreditation issue - let us verify the degree first. Many ministry degrees are given by seminaries which may or may not be accredited - and in Africa there is no particular reason to expect them to be accredited; it just isn't the issue there that it is in the U.S and Europe. And even in the U.S. and Europe it doesn't really matter much for ministers. (And I can see at least one accredited seminary in the U.S. that offers such degrees, the Ashland Theological Seminary.[1] GRBerry 17:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone says he has a degree, without stating the school (which might be able and willing to verify the degree) and without any citation to a reliable source, does that satisfy verification so the claim can remain in the article? Edison (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I read it as the parenthetical clause within the first sentence being cited to that other source, and the rest of the sentence being cited to the church's website. Why we have written the lead with such a long parenthetical escapes me; that just cries out for copyediting. So does the whole article, but... I think the claim is accurately footnoted. The first sentence of the next section says he did his graduate studies in Scotland, and is cited to a pair of books. The Worldnetdaily article used in our article says the studies in Scotland were interrupted by the return to Kenya - but it could be interrupted after a masters and before a doctorate or it could be before either, impossible to tell. Frankly, I think if we just clean up the parenthetical comment, the sourcing will become clearer, and the material to my eyes generally satisfies WP:SELFPUB, but I'm not certain it passes the relevance part of the test. I've reviewed a bunch of our articles on prominent religious leaders, including both those widely respected (the current Pope, Billy Graham) and those best known for scandals (Bakker, Roberts) and none mentioned a degree in the introduction. Some don't mention degrees at all, some mention them in a subsection about early life or education. This fits with my general knowledge of the religious field; degrees are not of great importance to a minister. They may or may not equip him or her for the work, but they are mostly irrelevant to their current and potential congregants. GRBerry 20:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It probably belongs in the body of the article under education. It should come out of the lead. Edison (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone please do so. I couldn't think of a not-awkward way of moving it. The cite for the parenthetical is NOT related to the rest of the lead, but there's scant info on the church itself. I wanted to add a section on his beliefs and his church, but I'm tired of editing this one. Have fun! Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 20:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Other churches

At WAog an editor said that Muthee travelled widely to churches. Does anyone have a list?

I can't find anything that hasn't been scrubbed. There are cached references out there, but I'm having a hard time finding unbroken links. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 21:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Notes for the Next Editor

I'm pretty much tapped out on Thomas Muthee, but there are nagging questions left.

A Google search of "Margaret Muthee" turns up several hits on Kenyan documents, reports, editorials... such as this one... and this one but there's no easy way of telling if that's Thomas' wife. There is a cached list of topics at Wasilla Assembly of God's video/audio archive that shows a memorial video for her (first name spelled "Margret") dated mid-April 2005.

There is also one cached reference to a "Margaret Wamuyu Muthee," appointed Secretariat Project Officer for CRECO in Kenya, and probably the same woman who is a member of IDEA. She posted this in Feb. 2008, so I think she's not the one, though she's a likely author for some of the aforementioned documents. Another mention of her is here, and I'm starting to think she merits her own page...

Yet another Margaret Muthee placed in some kind of women's footrace in early April 2005... unlikely. "Finally, Margaret Muthee, on a recent student-visit celebrated the bongo antelope" in poetry, but since that information is refers to a Dec. 2006 student, I figure we can discount that one.

Add to this that Muthee appears to be a common last name in Kenya, and that Kiambu is also spelled Kiambaa, and that "Word of Faith" churches are not all necessarily related to Muthee.

Anyway, I'm done now. Really. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 21:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(I just can't stay away.) I found a couple of transcripts of the video, though I can't find a source that stacks up for reliability guidelines. Still, here are some links: [2][3][4]

He talks about seven areas of society that need "transformation":

• 1. Spiritual - "If all we do is come to the church and get people saved and then they go, I don’t think much will happen in our society."
• 2. Economic - "The Bible says the wealth of the wicked is stored up for the righteous. It is high time that we have top Christian businessmen, businesswomen, bankers, you know, who are men and women of integrity, running the economics of our nations. That’s what we are waiting for. That’s part and parcel of transformation. If you look at the Israelites, you know, that’s how they won. And that’s how they are, even today. When we will see that, you know, the talk transport us in the lands. We see, you know, the bankers. We see the people holding the paths. They are believers. We will not have the kind of corruption that we are hearing in our societies." (my emphasis added on one part that is now being heavily disputed in the Blogosphere)
• 3. Politics - "That’s why I was, you know, I was so glad to see Sarah here. We should pray for her, we should back her up. And, you know, come the day of voting, we should be there, not just praying, we should be there... If the believers had not done something in this country, your president would not be in office today." (my emphasis)
• 4. Education - "We need believers who are educationists. [sic] If we had them, today we would not be talking about the Ten Commandments being kicked out of the church, I mean out of our schools. They would still be there. One of the things that you, you know, I would love you to know, I’m a child of revival of the Seventies, and that revival swept through the schools... Christian Union is nothing more but a bunch of kids that are born again, spirit-filled, tongue-talking, devil-casting... We need God taking over our education system! Otherwise, we, if we have God in our schools, we will not have kids being taught, you know, how to worship Buddha, how to worship Mohammed, we will not have in the curriculum witchcraft and sorcery." (my emphasis)
• 5. Media - "If we have a living church right in Hollywood, we would not have all the kind of pornography that we are having."
• 6. Government - "I’ll ask Sarah, would you mind to come please? Would you mind?... Bring finances her way, even in the campaign in the name of Jesus, and above all give her the personnel, give her men and women that will back her up in the name of Jesus... Our Father, use her to turn this nation the other way around. Use her to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to the fathers so that the curse that has been there long can be broken... Every form of witchcraft, it will be rebuked in the name of Jesus."

If I can get access to the original video again, or a more reputable source will do a transcript, I'll put it in his article. Otherwise... sigh. It's kinda sad, because I honestly don't care so much about the Palin thing. I'm more interested in him. (Duplicating this on Wasilla Assembly of God talk page.) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

LEGIT SOURCE: [5] Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Muthee Quote when Praying over Palin: In or out?

I'd say out, but I'm not going to remove it again until others have had a chance to weigh in. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why anyone thinks we should not include the quote, but I agree with other editors that Palin's reaction, of standing quietly, should have been removed as it was.

• 1) It is from Muthee himself.
• 2) It is the quote that is generating the majority of the media stories.
• 3) It illustrates Muthee's belief in witchcraft has not changed.
• 4) It illustrates Muthee's belief that God will take sides in a political race, a very controversial position.
• 5) It fits well in context in the article.
• 6) It is completely neutral in that it does not interpret Muthee's quotes, and Muthee has not retracted so he still has the opinions expressed in the quote.
• 7) The description of "Palin standing quietly" during the Muthee prayer has been removed to accomodate coatrack objections. If Palin had not been nominated for vp, no one would think of removing the quote. Tautologist (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone else added it in. It is pure COATRACK. As no one posted a reason why they readded it, I would suggest this was a drive-by revert of some sort. The only proper subject of the article is Muthee. Aha -- Tautologist popped in. COATRACK is COATRACK is COATRACK, Taut! Had Palin not been nominated for VP, the entire article would not exist. Collect (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You have completely ignored the COATRACK facts. The parts PERTAINING to Muthee are ok, The COATRACK is not. Thank you for responding on Talk before reverting. Collect (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I added context as it pertains to Muthee. Muthee was the subject of international press coverage prior to the vp nomination, so I kept the Muthee info restricted to Muthee's activities that are pre vp nomination. I was also the editor who deleted the clause "Palin stood quietly" for reason that the clause was not about Muthee, so I considered it to be a coat (coatrack) per the reasoning of Collect. As the article now reads, it is about Muthee's activities and pre vp nomination descriptions of him. But the article should be monitored for addition of additional info that is not about Muthee, such as trying to sneak in the coatrack "Palin stood quietly" clause. Tautologist (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added the Boston Herald article which deals with the entire "controversy." I hope this compromise helps. Collect (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Boston Herald article is about Palin as a vp candidate, and the added edit info is about a POV opinion of the Herald regarding Palin, not Muthee, so has no place in this article about Muthee. Please do not include info about Palin here. As it reads now, an ecyclopedia reader whould have no idea that Palin is vp candidaate, only about info on Muthee, and all of the Muthee info is pre vp nomination. Please do not turn this article into a Palin POV edit war, when her vp campaign is irrelevant to Muthee, a controversial figure unrlated to Palin's vp campaign. Tautologist (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(Thread from other talk page on this - )

Muthee quotes, context, Boston Herald User:Collect, as you can see on my talk page, after my youth I became a worker for my Republican county Supervisor when I was treasurer for the area homeowners association. I am trying to keep the articles about people associated with Palin before the vp nomination, free of any vp campaign comentary, and include all notable info from a neutral, fact based, no poinions or commentary by media or editors, viewpoint. This is so that any addition of info can be deleted as coatrack, without the addition editors crying "censorship". Reading your talk page, I do not think our perspectives are very different. I am a collector, too,as I will describe in another section here. Tautologist (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you are a collector. My background in sciences, unfortunately, makes me exceedingly cautious about asserting things about others. I, by the way, consider the Boston Herald to be neutral and fact based. Collect (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

My background is in science, too, and I am a very hard nose skeptic, especially of my own writings. I helped run the Statistical Consulting Service at Stanford University for a number of years, which included consulting for every science department on campus. I brutally attacked the lax experimental designs ad publishing standards, where "publish or perish" was more important than objectivity. I am my own most harsh critic. If any factual info about Muthee is left out, others will start an edit war to put it back in, and put it in with a POV for or against Palin, when the article is about Muthee. There is a huge amount of info online over the years regarding Muthee and Wasilla Assembly of God, most of it likely accurate, but I find the sources unreliable. Unfortunately, the best way to find a reliable source info on Muthee and WAoG is to use the new reporting by NPR, Christian Science Monitor, Times of London, etc., which is filled with Palin stuff, then filter out any post nomination Palin info. Some of the Palin info pertains to Muthee, not just Palin. That is why I deleted the "Palin stood by quietly" coatrack, as her action is not relevant to Muthee, unless she specifically discusses or cmments on Muthee, e.g., her gubernatorial bid is relevant to Muthee as he took action on his own regarding it. If he does something in the vp race, then it will become relevant to Muthee, but so far, fortunately, there is not. Please take a look at the carefull wording in my last edit there, as I specifically worded it after reading your talk page. The central idea of the edit is not to leave out any Muthee info, so there will be no reason to add any coatrack Palin stuff. I have read the literature on Muthee, and no one will find any Palin stuff to add to the current edit, so it should be easy to argue to revert the article back to its present state if anyone tries to do so. Thnx. Tautologist (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

One problem is the cultural nature of prayer. For example, how would you describe the following prayer? "I adjure thee, unclean spirit, in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost to depart and remain far away from this servant of God Emily. He commands thee now who walked dry-shod upon the waters, and when Peter would have perished in the sea stretched out to him his saving hand. And so, accursed spirit, give heed to the sentence passed upon thee."? Would such a prayer be relevant to an article? Collect (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the prayer quote would go well in an article on the Inquisition, and on witch hunting, (and even in the Muthee article if it can be sourced that he uses this to justify hiw witch hunting, which he likely does.) I agree with your cultural attitudes comment, as US Salem history creates a culture that is very different, and recent Hutu-Tutsi savagery was in part "justified" with witchcraft allegations, not so often mentioned.

For your information -- the prayer I cited is in the trsditional English Roman Catholic Rite of Baptism. I think my point is made? Collect (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC).

Yes, it is one of the prayer cited by those persecuting the Salem/Inquisition activities. Before she recently died at age 96, Laura Huxley made me director of the Thomas Henry Huxley and Aldous Huxley Foundation. Aldous wrote a historic book called Devils of Loudun about this stuff, and Ken Russell made it into a superb and horrific film, The Devils.

One thing that did not burn down in my fire was my 1632 edition of "Anatomy of Melancholy", which I had given to someone in LA. It is an early attempt at a science of psychology, and partially attributes "bad moods" and "bad health" to "demons in the blood", which was the basis of bloodletting in historic western "medicine" (scare quotes emphasised here). Tautologist (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The prayer cited was current well into the 1960s in the Roman Catholic liturgy. Collect (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with youyour addition of the Boston Herald info at the end. I was going to include it myself, but I thought it inappropriate since my it might be my own bias, since I agree with the Boston Herald's POV! My concern is that someone who does not agree with the opinion will either delete it, or try to add in a different media opinion, then a back and forth will develop and junk up the article with additional info. If your contrib is deleted, I will restore your edit, but no guarantees if an edit war starts. I am moving this thread over to the Muthee talk page, in hopes that others will leave the Muthee article with your last edit and not try to modify it.

I am moving this thread to the Muthee talk page. Tautologist (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• CONSENSUS REACHED - keep all quotes, context of quotes, and Herald analysis

Huh? Keep your quotes in -- leave the Boston Herald in for G-d's sake! It is explicit, Covers the issue, and debunks it. You are the one COATRACKing Palin in here -- it is only proper that an exact REBUTTAL of your claims also be in here. Collect (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, and with your addition of the Boston Herald info. I was goipng to include it myself, but I thuoght it inappropriate since my it might be my own bias, since I agree with the Boston Herald's POV! My concern is that someone who does not agree with the opinion will either delete it, or try to add in a different media opinion, then a back and forth will develop and junk up the article with additional info. If your contrib is deleted, I will restore your edit, but no guarantees if an edit war starts. I am moving this thread over to the Muthee talk page, in hopes that others will leave the Muthee article with your last edit and not try to modify it. Tautologist (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Collect's finishing edit adds good balance and an accurate final context (even if it has a bit of reasonable POV). If anyone wants to add more info, please make sure it is specifically info about Muthee, as actor or subject of action, and not just about palin (like how she stood during Muthee's prayer) or about muthee's numerous other associates. Thnx. Tautologist (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I had to delete a "blog entry" asserting anti-Semitism. If anyone wants to justify using a blog, it won't work. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's tendentious and incomplete to characterize the original source as a "blog entry" full-stop; the source was was a blog entry by journalist Jake Tapper in the ABC News site, which clearly falls under the "Reliable Sources" portion of WP:BLP. Furthermore, the text on the Wiki did not allege anti-semitism but only pointed out that possible anti-semitic language had been reported, linking to the text. Care to explain further the reason for the edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.10.200 (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Possible anti-semitic" language is insufficient when reported by other than a fact-based article. If you find a straight news article making that claim, I would be delighted to have it referred to. In the meantime "possible" does not meet the requirements for BLP. Too many folks have made rather outrageous editorial claims, and keeping to the facts, as you will note Tautotologist and I agreed, is the proper course of action. ThanksCollect (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw this quote a while back and I did not include it because a) it is ambiguous as it may be anti-semitic or at best perpetuating a stereotype associating Jews with political power and banking, but more importantly, b) it is not characteristic of Muthee's remarks about Jews from anything I can find.

• 1) With the best interpretation as perpetuating a stereotype, it does indicate a position of promoted by Muthee with Ed Kalnins that is characteristic of their shared teachings, Dominionism, the desire to place Christians in positions of political power for religious, not ethical, reasons, which has nothing to do with attitudes toward Jews. This is why Muthee's prayer over Palin with Kalnins joining is of significance, as it is typical of Muthee's Domionionism. Three additional very characteristic pieces of information are
• 2) the belief in a pastor's faith healing abilities (Muthee believes, with Ed Kalnins, and both promote the belief that Muthee healed his own child with Muthee's special Christian powers, from which the child received leg joints.
• 3) Muthee and Kalnins jointly toured Africa and promoted and distributed books there and at Wasilla Assembly of God. The books are by Rick Joyner, Francis Frangipane and John Bevere.
• 4) Muthee and Ed Kalnins give joint sermons promoting spiritual warfare, which includes physical violence toward witches. In one videotape, you can see Muthee say, "The Bible says that since the days of John The Baptist the Kingdom suffers violence. The violent take it by force. People that have spiritual backbone are the ones that will move forward. I thank God for what I see happening in this place. I thank God for the vision, the passion that I can see here. And my word is this: The more violent you become, the more committed you become, the quicker you will see things happen in this region." In another recent one at Wasilla Assembly of God in 2008, Muthee says something similar, then says, "We come against the spirit of witchcraft! We come against the python spirits!", which is followed by Kalnins taking the microphone from Muthee and adding, "We stomp on the heads of the enemy!"'’.

These four items are characteristic of the joint Muthee/Kalnins sermons, but the comment on Jews is ambiguous and not characteristic of anything else I have found. Tautologist (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I correct, then, that there is no substantive evidence of pervasive antisemitism which we can reference? Collect (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no substantive evidence of pervasive antisemitism which I can reference, only the Dominionism. There is however a strong anti-Buddhism that can be referenced, with calls for violence. I am still gathering sources. This is not new stuff. Muthee has been well known in the pseudo science debunking and psychic debunking community since at least 1999 (when I first heard of him), and Wasilla Assembly of God since 1996 or so. There is another incident I recall, of a prayer in America for a building in America to burn down as being full of witches and Buddhists, and the building burned down! I specifically did not include the comment on Jews because I did not find it characteristic. But there may be information I do not have. Tautologist (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In any case, the blog entry specifically does not make any claim of antisemitism, which makes this moot. I am, however, interested in the anti-Buddhist positions -- which might belong in the primary section on Muthee. Does he distinguish between Buddhist sects at all? AFAICT, Lamaism is vastly different from other forms, but it seems to be the one which is most in the news. Collect (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Info and sources coming. Also anti-transcendental med and anti-islamic, in an extreme use of "anti". That was what Kalnins was talking about when he said Jesus had warlike thoughts, not lamblike. There is also more stuff on other induced mass hysteria witch hunts in Africa which resulted in beatings to death and burning of the withces. (Aldous Huxley's Devil's of Loudun is very informative on the sociological underpinnings of movements like this, as is his Brave New World Revisisted re "herd poisoning".) I am having to track down sources from verbal conversations with academics at the 4th Annual Aldous Huxley Symposium two months ago near Caltech. 04:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• If you repeat "COATRACK" enough times and loudly enough, you sound like a Guineafowl and the utterance loses meaningfulness. Muthee said some wierd utterances, about witchcraft, and about his prayer affecting the results of elections, of which the mainstream media have taken notice. Edison (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? We have gotten beyond that to a level of consensus about material in this article. Do you have constructive material to aid in improving the article? Collect (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus reached above -- do not unreasonably alter

The article references to Wasilla and the Boston Herald article were both used to reach consensus. Removal of the Boston Herald article is vandalism as a result. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No it is not; it would behoove you not to abuse terminology, it undermines your point and makes real vandals look good. the skomorokh 20:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

When a consensus is reached, an anonymous removal of the agreed language is what? I suppose Tendentiousness is one good name. Is this important? Or is maintaining equilibrium important? I trust "unreasonably alter" is fine? Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Tenditious is more appropriate, I agree. See also {{vww}} the skomorokh 20:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I was given a "final warning on vandalism" by a Tenditious editor on my Talk page -- I had not realized how far off he was in usage! Collect (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Kingsgate

I am uncertain as to what the Kingsgate reference offers. As it was concatenated with Wasilla with no apparent reason, I separated the two. That aside, I am unsure that the Kingsgate quote offers much in the way of biographical value. Collect (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree the section headers are not the best. I just didn't want to change them . These particular church sermons are referred to in the context of spiritual warfare discussions in the various sources, adding context to other activities and Moma Jane's version of what Muthee said, compared to Muthee's. Tautologist (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am uncertain as to how relevant parts of the quotes are to a biography. Did you find anyone notable at Kingsgate or the like to strengthen the reasoning for it? Collect (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

i added source links that provide context and relevance as footnotes. It is relevant to reported violence and calls for violence associated with followers of Muthee and associated "spiritual warfare" interpretations. I intentionally left most of this other stuff out, just including the raw quote. It is also related to the "stomp on the heads and necks of those possessed by python spirits" comments which are said to be common Muthee's sermon topics, but I only found this one recording posted so I could verify it myself before including it. (Muthee claims Pastor Njenga had a "pet python", called for Wasilla Assembly of God congregants to stomp on the necks of the possessed, etc. Sitting at her home, Njenga denies that she left her home compound, and denies having a 'pet python".) It is also related to Pastor Njenga's (Mama Jane's)assertions that Muthee incited violence against her. Finally, it is related to other activities of spiritual warfaere in the US, such as praying that a building "full of" trancendental meditation people burn down, after which the building burned down, which many sources claim is part of a pattern of Muthee associates. I left out most of these claims, and just included the raw quote. By having this information, it is unliekly that other editors will try to stick the additional commentary on Muthee in the literature in this article, as it does nothing more than interpret this raw quote. I am tryinhg to leave it to the readers or commentators using the information to pick sides between the two Kenyan pastors, Muthee and Njenga, in their dispute, and just to include the raw quotes or close paraphrases, in the varoius sections, by which the encyclopedia user can draw whatever conclusion they want. Also, to try to keep the information pared down so huge edits filled with speculations and interpretations don't dilute the raw info. Tautologist (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I deled the "media reports" sentence which had no cite to back it up, and probably is of little value anyway. Collect (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I didn't include it the firt time. The sources are in the footnotes of the sentence above (some are meticulously well researched), but all they do is tie a bunch of remarks and activites of Muthee and associates with the Muthee comments in this article, both in the above section and the section below. If an encyclopedia user wanted to do the tying together, the Muthee remarks in the previous section, and section below, are in the article. An example is Muthee speaks of defeating python spirits by stepping on people's necks, and he accused Moma Jane of having a "pet python". The reader has the raw material here, and can do with it what they want. An interesting aside is that the total no violence-total pacifism postition of some Christian priests is depicted in my favorite film (and the greatest film of all time), Andrei Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev, where a priest convinces his congregation to passively be slaughtered in the face of a Mongol invasion. A reader familiar with the circumstances of that film might be sympathetic with Muthee's take on violence and use his comments in a way that is opposite from what is asserted in the sources. Tautologist (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Another example of a situation having two views is in Hitchcock's "The Lady Vanishes" where a pacifist gets killed. Maybe not the best example, but I hope you see what I mean. Collect (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is embarassing, but I haven't seen it. I was, however, pretty upset when Clinton did nothing and allowed the Rwanda genocide, and sat back and did nothing in fear of being politically accused of a wag the dog situation, when the Taliban prohibited females from receiving medical attention, on the basis that the doctors were males. They were dying from infections from small cuts. Tautologist (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You missed one of the all-time classic films. I was also upset at the idiocies of the Taliban and the like -- Clinton was more worried about the Kosovars than the Africans it seemed, or the Afghans. Collect (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Commentary is that he was more worried about the Wag the Dog movie than anything, his advisros likely were worried about the Soviet's complete failure in Afganistan, and his newbie status might have had something to do with Rwanda, for which he at least has expressed regrets. It is looking like we are in for another "newbie" situation starting this January. Tautologist (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Condense citations

Please use <ref name=foo>{{citation here}}</ref>. After that, simply use <ref name=foo /> to include a second or subsequent reference to the same reference. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how to do this. Please give one example on one of the cites here, and I will clean up the rest in the article. Tautologist (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've made two edits to the page--the first one condenses the reference, the second alters things into the {{cite web}} format. Jclemens (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation reliability

I've begun fact checking various citations, and tagging the article appropriately. Please familiarize yourself with WP:V and WP:RS if this raises any concerns. Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for helping in the verifiability issue. Collect (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Womensenews - Womensenews is "an independent news agency, Women's eNews, Editor in Chief Rita Henley Jensen and its writers have won 30 awards in its seven plus years of operations."[6] I became aware of it when I was assisting with a statistical analayis of data in a study for the Center for Research on Women at Stanford Univeristy, where it was cited as a source by the academicians doing the study. Tautologist (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The site specifically is aimed at "commentary" and not at "news." "An independent news agency, Women's eNews and Editor in Chief Rita Henley Jensen have won 27 awards in its six years of operations. Some examples: Jensen is a recipient of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism alumni award; the site's resident cartoonist Ann Telnaes won the National Press Foundation's 2004 Clifford K. and James T. Berryman Award for Editorial Cartoons and the Pulitzer prize; the National Federation of Press Women awarded Henley Jensen and the site's writers multiple prizes, including Best Web site; the University of Michigan awarded Henley Jensen and the site its Michigan Media Award for Excellence in the Coverage of Women and Gender." does not show any actual "news" awards. "Best Web Site" is not actually a news award <g>. " Our commentaries--distributed each Wednesday--are written by prominent advocates." specifically indicates that their "news" is "commentary." "Women's eNews grew out of a 1996 roundtable discussion conceived and funded by the Barbara Lee Family Foundation and hosted by the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. " indicates that it is associated with a group with a specific political agenda. You know how I feel about sources -- go and find a solid one. Collect (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Talk2Action is an organization of scholars producing detailed and ongoing research on religious matters. The report is by Bruce Wilson, a journalist and cofounder of the public interest journalism groups ePluribus Media, and cofounder of Talk2Action, and the workk there is frequently cited by other media groups, such as the North Star Writers Group, the Center for Independent Media, and the Center for Research on Globalization.[7] The story quotes language that is specifically referred to by date and location, available in a recorded video that can be seen at the next citation, at Kingsgate. Tautologist (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Max Blumenthal is an investigative journalist who posts his work on his web page, the web page stories are frequently cited by other major media, such as NPR in this particular case, and also by MSNBC, The Nation, The Washington Monthly, The American Prospect.[8] His web news story postings were internationally recognized as reliable, resulting in his winning the prestigeous Online News Association Independent Feature Award.[9] So he is a reliable source per Wiki policy. Furthermore, the citation link to his page contains the Muthee videotapes that are being reported on for further verification, and so the citation is a good source as being a link to the actual video from which the quotes are taken, even if he were not reliable (which he clearly is), so the citation even more valid. The citation should be restored. Tautologist (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Huffington Post is both a news website and aggregated weblog[10], and only the news story content is cited. The author is also a widely recognized reliable source by other media. Also, the cited video is on the posting.Tautologist (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Re Womens Enews remark above, the cite is not specifically aimed at "commentary". This article is not commentary, as you can see by reading it, but it is news, and Womens Enews has both, plus more, and has won awards for both.

• Re Womens Enews- From[11], "We rely on the best practices of journalism and have gained enormous credibility by doing excellent journalism each day." The news comes out every day, but the "commentaries"--distributed each Wednesday--are written by prominent advocates.”

• 'Re Womens Enews- It is widely used as a news source by mainstream medisa, e.g., Cathy Shaw, news editor, national desk, National Public Radio - "Always trolling for news that I cannot find elsewhere"[12].

• Re Womens Enews- Also, “Women's eNews has been widely tapped by other media from coast to coast and around the globe, from such leading media outlets as The New York Times, PBS, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the New York Daily News, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Buffalo News, San Jose Mercury News, the Birmingham News, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Spokane Spokesman-Leader, NPR and MSNBC to newspapers in Kuala Lampur and the Philippines”.[13] What more needs be said? Tautologist (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether it is WP:RS— and, for example, "blogs" are specifically not WP:RS. " Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact." "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair." WP:BLP "Self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." WP:V "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." Womensenews fails as it is associated with a particular political organization. The church sermon archives would be good if they provided text for people to compare. Huffingtonpost fails as being entirely opinion pieces. See also WP:REDFLAG. WP has strong standards which are not always met. Find any reliable source and I will back you— but you need better ones than Womensenews and NOW. Collect (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the quote you cite applies. Womens Enews is a standard news source reference in most Womens studies departments in most major universities, and its information is used by the cited newspapers as facts. Huffington post is not entirely opinion pieces, as Huffington Post|here]], but I will add the "according to so and so" clause at the beginning of the sentences anyway, per the wiki policy on opinions, but the news part of Womens Enews is not opinion. Adding the "according to so-and-so" clauses makes the articles harder to read, but not if it only has to be done in a couple of places, so in the interest of consensus, I put the "according to clause" in. (By the way, I don't read womens enews, unless specifically referred to a news story or opinion piece on a specific topic.) Tautologist (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

WP does not care if a "Womens Studies Department" uses blogs or whatever— the standards here are apparently higher than those places are. WEN is associated with NOW— specifically a very political and controversial organization. Hence, very iffy as an RS. The church would be a great RS if you can get text from them. Note I did not delete your reintroduction of the WEN source, but I would not defend that source. Huffington has been the subject of many heated debates on WP. Consensus s that its opinions must be clearly labelled as such. Since BLP policy does not allow opinions like that, HP basically fails. Find an AP article or the like. And lastly, WP policy is that controversial claims should have two distinct sources, as otherwise yo can imagine what would get into controversial articles! I will back you on real sources, but WEN and HP are pretty weak :(. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I labelled the sentences with who said them. But just to point out how this is not reasonable with accepted journalistic publicaions accepted by the mainstream here is an anecdote. My PhD thesis advisor at Stanford was an undergrad there, and edited the campus humor magazine. In the 60's, he ran a satire piece that had the Virgin Mary in it, and was expelled from Stanford (kind of like what recently happened when a political cartoon with Muhammed came out in Europe). The reasoning was that hidden in the Stanford charter, Leyland Stanford's wife put in that it is a Christian University. (His story has a happy ending, since he changed schools to Caltech (your rival0, won a MacArthur genius award, as one of the smartest of the Macarthur Awardees, and came back to Stanford as a full prof and dean of h&sciences.) So, by the reasoning above, the Stanford faculty news would not be a reilable source, and each sentence cited would have to have an "according to Stanford" clause at the beginning! But like you said elsewhere, it can't really hurt to add stuff, even if it makes the flow of reading a little off.Tautologist (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If you're looking to debate the nuances of what is or is not a reliable source, you're going about it in the wrong venue. Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I will be going through and removing sources to non-reliable sources. Per WP:SELFPUB, such sourcces may only be used for things that are not contentious (criteria 2) and if I'm removing them, then they're de facto contested. I will then be going through and removing BLP-relevant statements that are left unsourced or undersourced, and will be tagging non-BLP statements with {{Fact}}. Jclemens (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that we have no RS for "Mama Jane"'s real name, so it's gone back to "Mama Jane". Also note that the timesonline.typepad.com references are gone--Typepad.com is a blog site. If it had a timesonline.co.uk addess, or if you can find it there, it should be readded. Also note that I'm going to try and trim the overcitation--it's not helpful to have 4-6 unreliable sources citing the same thing, especially when we have 1-2 RS. I'm inclined to take out the WND references, because they appear to be entirely redundant as well. Jclemens (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have "When running for governor, Palin was anointed at the church by visiting African pastor Thomass Muthee, whose ministry was founded on a witchhunt in a Kenyan town. She has appeared to credit that prayer as a contributing factor in her electoral success. " from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article2778923.ece . Note the wondrous weasel word "appeared." Collect (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That's why I always put the exact wording in, until it gets deleted. If you watch the video, she says what she says.

Jclemens just went through and deleted all of the Womens Enews material. Womens Enews is a reliable source, and has been recognized as such by the same major media sources that are used as examples of cases of when a source is reliable in the Wikipedia policy he cited above, after I made the modifications you suggested, Collect. Tautologist (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Much better

OK, all the non-RS claims have been excised. Funny, the article now looks a lot like it did a while ago. I also cleaned up a number of the references that were in a messy format. If you're using <ref name=> formatting, all but one reference (for convention, the first one on the page is spelled out completely) can be simply <ref name=foo /> (note the trailing />) as anything else will be ignored.

Please discuss new sources on this page. I have a feeling all the major reliable sources which are inclined to cover this topic have already, but I could be wrong. Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Preposterous

• The above discussion is preposterous. Women's ENews is the leading news journal in the world for women's issues. (And there is plenty to establish this in the above comments by User:Tautologist, which were apparently ignored by JClemens).
• I note similar behavior at Wasilla Assembly of God, with preposterous arguments in the talk page and its archives.
• I am restoring the content, and will be watching for signs of furher attempts at deletions that might be getting close to vandalism and pushing a POV. WitchieAnna (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You appear to suddenly appear this very day. Please read the Talk page and archives before jumping in with both feet. All of this has been discussed, and it is proper for you to DISCUSS first. Thanks! Collect (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Were you invited to this discussion by any of the other participants? As is, you've said nothing that alleviates my BLP concerns, and your reversion undid far more than just the womensenews source. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching this debate, and the one on the associated Wasilla church article, for several weeks. Take a look at JClemens "degrees of separation arguement", in the WAOG talk archives, if you can even call it an argument.

Sorry Collect, it appeared to me that you were getting along fine over the weeks with Taulotogist, and reached consensus with her/him, in prefacing the sentences with the source in the text, then User JClemens wiped out this consensus, as well as consensus reached over the weeks on other information. Was that not what you reached with Tautologist, who appears to be newbie, and excessively (and very poorly) Wikilawyered by Jclemens in order to try to drive him off Wiki , with 3RR notices (that should be given to JClemens). Was that not what you and Talotogist reached, sentences prefaced with "according to" clauses, to avoid excesively wasting time "arguing" on talk (as appears to have happened) over reliability? WitchieAnna (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My modus vivendi was that I would defend any solid cites. Taut added some less-solid cites, which Jc picked apart. If you can provide cites which meet the BLP criteria, present them. A NOW organization, however, does not meet those criteria in this article. Also check the WP style articles which indicate that ascribing opinions to those who hold the opinions is proper. That still does not work if the underlying source is not RS by BLP standards. Sorry! Thanks! Collect (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Gotta say, User:WitchieAnna, that I find that reasoning pretty tenuous. You seem to agree with Tautologist, down to the arguments made and personal beefs with me as an editor, but have never felt the need to weigh in here or at Wasilla Assembly of God before today, even though your account was created yesterday. You've added no new arguments to the debate--almost as if you were a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. That's a serious allegation that I would never make likely, but given the age of your account and your admission that you've been around Wikipedia for a while, I'm sure you can see where the thought might come to mind. Can you tell us a little more about yourself and your interest in this article, and why you don't think the deleted edits pose a BLP problem? Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Article protected

I have protected this article to stop the edit warring. I have not set an expiry time. When consensus is reached on the disputed material request unprotection either by a message at my talk page or by request at WP:RFUP. If no consensus is likely to be achieved, pursue dispute resolution. CIreland (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for dropping in. I had apprised an admin of the problem as well. All we really need is to settle on how reliable a "reliable source" must be, which I think is quite possible. Collect (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a dedicated reliable sources noticeboard which may or may not be useful to use. CIreland (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And I'd already started a thread there before the BLP/N issue came to a head. Unfortunately, quick input, even from the editors on this talk page, was not forthcoming. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Mea maxima culpa. I had thought it was intended to only get third party views -- I have since appended a note concerning the definitively partisan nature of Womens ENews. Collect (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Women's eNews never won a Pulitzer

"the site's resident cartoonist Ann Telnaes won the National Press Foundation's 2004 Clifford K. and James T. Berryman Award for Editorial Cartoons and the Pulitzer prize" from their own site. But per The Library of Congress nothing is mentioned about Telnaes' participation at womensenews. In fact the site itself does not claim that it ever won a pulitzer: "We also offer a monthly column in the media, Uncovering Gender, and update our page each week with an editorial cartoon by Pulitzer prize winner Ann Telnaes."

That's got to be the saddest RS-debunking I've ever done. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Without seeking to defame anyone, the comment "Womens Enews has Pulitzer Prize winning journalists" would seem then to be inaccurate in some degree? Collect (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, in that I would call an editorial cartoonist a commentator, rather than a journalist. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ann Telnaes, 2001 Pulitzer for Editorial Cartooning, Los Angeles Times Syndicate. Just to be complete. Collect (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So they have a Pulitzer prize winner on the staff. I don't see the issue here. Pulitzer prize winners even cartoonists generally have very little to do with organizations with minimal respetably. Anyways, see previous remarks about what W Enews is being used to source. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It was used as an argument by Tautologist on his talk page here, hence my deconstructing it. Jclemens (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

WEN is disingenuous -- they state "site's resident cartoonist Ann Telnaes won the National Press Foundation's 2004 Clifford K. and James T. Berryman Award for Editorial Cartoons and the Pulitzer prize" which would seem to imply she won the 2004 prize. They also elide their partisan origins with NOW. Collect (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The NOW connections aren't given much emphasis because the organization has little connection to NOW. Moreover, I didn't read the above as implying that she won the 2004 Pulitzer although I can see how you might think that. And again, none of this should be at all relevant for sourcing either Jane's actual name or Jane's response. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you talked to the alleged "Mama Jane" and confirme that she is who WEN says she is? That she wants relinquish her privacy and have her name on a high traffic website? That she understands the implications of the story are? I certainly haven't, and I'm not inclined to make assumptions with BLP material. Jclemens (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggest discussing this below. Frankly, this seems a bit incredible that you are worried that someone might be pretending to be Mama Jane. Moreover, if she was willing to give interviews on the matter the worry about "high traffic websites" is frankly ridiculous. Under that logic whenever any minor news figure got mentioned we'd have to become immediately paranoid about whether maybe they only wanted their opionion there and didn't want it on other sites. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Very minor point

I think the opening sentence should call him a "clergyman", not a "preacher" (more normal wording), and it should be wikilinked. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Preacher, pastor, clergyman all sound reasonable to me. Clergyman is the most formal definition, and probably the most encyclopedic, but not one that would be used by Muthee or his congregants on a day-to-day basis. I have no particular preference among the three. Jclemens (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok let's go through these one by one.

• Comparing the two versions: [14]. World Net Daily is being used to source that Mama Jane called her organization "Emmanuel Clinic". Is there an objection to that?

• Women's Enews is being used to source Mama Jane's actual name and her response. Is there an issue with it being used to source either her name or her response to the accusations against here? If there is any material that is problematic here it is the section with Jane Karande. The most problematic which is "Karande is critical of Muthee and other local pastors who she claims are enriching themselves and not assisting in AIDS work and work with orphans, , "We don't have any support from churches,except maybe the Catholics."" There thus seem to be three parts that need to be considered separately: 1) Is W Enews reliable enough to have Mama Jane's reponse? 2) Is W Enews reliable enough to have Karande's remark about the paving of the roads 3) Is W Enews reliable enough to have Karande's remarks critizing the pastors? As far as I can tell, 1 should be uncontroversial and for 3 the answer is probably not. So the question really boils down to 2. Are there serious disagreements about including 1 or not including 3?

• http://timesonline.typepad.com/ . This appears to be run by the Times. It has their regular journalists and opinion writers writing there. Does anyone object to using this source?

• Talk2action. Partisan source. Used for critical information. I think we can agree that this should be removed. Any disagreement?

• Huffingtonpost. Same remarks as Talk2Action. Any disagreement?

JoshuaZ (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily is widely disparaged as having POV, albeit usually a pro-Palin one. WEN is so closely connected to NOW that its use is problematic. Saying you can use a UnRS for one bit opens floodgates you really do not wish opened. Times is ok for material subject to editorial control of the Times, not for anything else, and not for commentary. Talk2Action is no way RS. Ditto Huffington, for which I can give a host of WP consensi that it fails RS standards, not least of which is no one has fact checking authority over articles. And I really do not see any need for Jane's "real name" in a BLP of another person. In fact, I would call it quite irrelevant. Collect (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Worldnetdaily (and frankly, WND is probably less reliable than W Enews on average and is run by Joseph Farah giving it as least as serious problems as any connection to NOW). But that doesn't mean we shouldn't rely on it for uncontroversial details such as the name of her clinic.

As to W Enews I'm not arguing that it is an unreliable source. Like many sorts of sources (or WND) it is reliable for some purposes but not necessarily for others. In particular, quoting Mama Jane and providing her real name should be fine. There's no reason to think that their possible biases would cause problems in that material.

As to Talk2, Timesonline Huffington glad we agree. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The only odd issue left is whether any church has transcripts of its own sermons for Muthee -- absent those, the juiciest quotes are clearly not usable. Can you find a RS other than WEN -- I fear that WEN would be a sticking point, and I would like to get this settled. And if you do not need Jane's last name, why not just drop WEN? Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I'd rather have the last name if we can source it. I don't see any compelling reason to take the name out. Also WEN is being used for Jane's defense of herself where she says she doesn't have a python etc. So we can't remove it in its entirety. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Alas, no. Stuff which we can not absolutely agree is RS stays out. Just try to find a RS we can agree on so we can get back to the article. And I am rather unsure that this is a page for big debates on Muthee, as it is supposed to be his biography and not hers. Collect (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC).

Not what RS says "How reliable a source is depends on context.". Thus, in this context WEN and WND are reliable for the information we want to quote. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Your main problem is that the third parties on the RS noticeboard do not seem to agree with you. This is pretty hard to surmount. Collect (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, you mean this discussion? To which comments in particular do you refer?

Naming Names

Here are just a few scenarios, in an attempt to illustrate why not having an RS for a name and set of circumstances is problematic.

1. Everything's on the up-and-up. No inaccuracies, everything is fine. Ideal outcome.
2. The alleged "Mama Jane" is an entire fabrication, and doesn't really exist at all. The story is a POV attempt to undermine Muthee as a fraud, liar, whatever.
3. The alleged "Mama Jane" is herself a partisan, with a grudge against Muthee, was never involved in the original events at all, and is simply seeking attention for herself at Muthee's expense.
4. The alleged "Mama Jane" is someone else entirely, who is using the name of a real woman in an attempt to discredit or harm that other woman by associating her with Muthee's witchcraft allegations.

... And that's just off the top of my head. It's not just that Women's ENews may be a partisan outlet, but that without a proven track record of solid, reliable, international reporting, they can be an unwitting dupe for any number of reasons. There is no compelling reason to include any of the information--that she runs a clinic, is herself a Christian pastor, etc. because it's all subject to the same cloud of suspicion. If it really is true, we can wait until it is picked up by a reliable source, and then we can cite that source. Even though Huffington Post broke the whole story that spawned all this, we don't cite it, because the important details have been substantiated by unquestionably RS, making the inclusion of an inferior source, even if that was the source that first broke the story, unnecessary. Jclemens (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

All three possibilities are remotely conceivable and all highly unlikely. The issue about Women's Enews has nothing to do with their reliability in the general case. Women's Enews is in general a reliable source. Under almost any circumstance they'd be reliable. In this specific circumstance the only issue that makes them not reliable is possible biases about Muthee. None of the possibilities listed above make any sense as a result of that sort of problem except possibly #1 which is frankly ridiculous. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My level of skepticism is apparently higher than yours. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Tautologist and WitchieAnne won't be rejoining us....

WitchieAnne has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Tautologist, who has himself been blocked for 48 hours. Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Disappointing. It looked plausible but I had hoped better of him. Thanks for the heads up. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Even though we disagree, I appreciate that our differences are philosophical and we both agree to abide by Wikipedia's rules for collaborative discourse. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Factual Problems

I'm not arguing about the recently added content, but in reverting, what's left is a bit messy.

For example, "The event was depicted in a two part video by George Otis, Jr." is inaccurate and suggests one told half the story and the other told the second half. It would be more accurate to say that the second one was a sequel, and included the entire story a second time from a slightly different angle.

At any rate, I'm on wikibreak right now, but I'll be doing some digging and come back to this later. Good luck working things out! Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 03:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed "a two part video" to "two videos"--is that a sufficient improvement? Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That's factual, and works great for me! Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Lede

The lede really ought to give the reader some indication as to why one might give a hoot about the fellow. —SlamDiego_←T 21:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

WP standards do not require "giving a hoot" in the lede. "When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves." Collect (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would think that a single sentence about the claimed connection to Palin would cover that. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with JoshuaZ and SlamDiego. I'll see if I can add a reasonable sentence in. Jclemens (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

How's the one I added? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's about exactly how I would have phrased it. Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not "presidential debates" but "presidential campaign." I do not recall Muthee arising in the debates ... Collect (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Noted, and fixed. Jclemens (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Doing only what the standards require is logically identical to offering a bare minimum. Editors ought to strive for excellence, even if the standards do not require it. (My only dog in this fight is the desire that I and others should quickly know whether we want to keep reading.) —SlamDiego_←T 23:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem goes to the heart of why this article exists at all. I fear you will have to delve into the motives of those who initially plagued this article with material which did not have reasonable sources, and the struggle to get it to some sense of being primarily factual. In point of fact, Muthee is no more notable than a few thousand pastors of his ilk, but because his life intersected that of Sarah Palin, he suddenly became notable enough. Without that link, which is a questionable basis for creation of an article, he is a virtual nonentity. Ought we sensationalize him so people will feel they need to read the full article? I suppose we could push the Palin angle for all it is worth -- but is that a fair use of WP? I, personally, think WP has several too many articles at this point, and this one is not precisely high on my list of needed articles. Still, my only consistent view here has been that all statements which are remotely controversial need really solid references. Thanks. Collect (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I simply don't know whether this article should exist, but a battle over whether he is sufficiently notable for an article should not be fought in the editing of the lede. The lede should be written so that the reader has some sense of why a subject is as notable as it is, and an AfD should be launched if the subject is not sufficiently notable.

I have been on the losing side in AfD discussions about which I cared; I appreciate how frustrating it can be for Wikipedia to have what one regards as PoV-pushing or otherwise cr_p, and yet have it defended by the “consensus”, but one needs nonetheless to pursue disgreements only in appropriate venues. —SlamDiego_←T 02:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The only actual notability for Muthee is the nexus with Palin. There are literally thousands of people who are substantially more notable who would never get a BLP here. On the other hand, if we stress this nexus in the lede, we are also violating a number of precepts as well. Solomon? Collect (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

SlamDiego's point is well taken, however. This article will probably be deleted within a year, regardless of who wins the election. Until and unless WP:NOT#NEWS begins to be enforced to a greater degree, we will have articles of ephemeral notability like this arising and distracting from the work of the encyclopedia. Regardless, AfD is the place to discuss that, not the article talk page. Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully with SlamDiego's point. Muthee is notable primarily for his relationship with Palin which should be mentioned in the lede, but I think he deserves his own article. I disagree with Jclemens that this article will probably be deleted in a year, especially if McCain and Palin win the election! What if Palin became president? This article has passed the notability threshhold and I see no reason why it would not in the future.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What links to Womens ENews?

links

Of these 94 (at the time of perusal):

• 9 are directly involved in the Muthee/WAoG/Kalnins issues.
• 23 more are Talk, User talk, or other non-article space.
• 32 (or so) are in articles that do not appear to be BLPs. That number could be substantially higher, since I do not have an encyclopedic knowledge of feminists.

So, that leaves about 30 articles to check to see if there's existing precedent for using Womens ENews in contentious BLPs. Note that the only RS/N mention of Womens ENews seem to be in context of this issue. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Womens ENews seems to be an acceptable source for women's biographies, but honestly the article on Jane is contentious, referring to "Sarah Palin's Kenyan pastor" in the lede, just for starters. It should probably stay out, though it's kind of a shame since it has unique info. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 18:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed sources

I'm removing these sources because 1) they don't uniquely support one or more specific assertions, 2) other, equally or more reliable sources are already in the article, and 3) The other sources are online and can be referenced immediately by editors seeking more information on the claims. Overall, I think they're just clutter, not unreliable, but they were inserted at least once by an editor whose fact checking has proven problematic. Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Guthrie, Stan (2002). Missions in the Third Millennium: 21 Key Trends for the 21st Century. Paternoster. pp. p. 92. ISBN 1842270427. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

I have also been able to browse the text of Wagner on Amazon's "search inside" feature. On p. 19 it states "The following story is paraphrased from George Otis Jr.'s book, The Twilight Labyrinth (Chosen Books)."--thus, Wagner is a tertiary source on the Mama Jane incident. I will be removing the ref to Wagner from anything sourced to both Wagner and Otis, again to clean up the references. Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now I think I'm done. Otis' book isn't viewable on Amazon, so I've left the references to it in the article, unverified. I combined 3 different refs from the WAoG website into one footnote, so now the assertions that are in the article are sourced by at most three footnotes--generally 1-2--and those are of the highest quality and greatest accessibility we have. Jclemens (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP issues

There are essentially three primary BLP issues involved in the article:

1. Foremost, the portrayal of Muthee's actions against "Mama Jane" Since these could be construed to be accusations of a crime (e.g., inciting to riot, harassment, etc.), they must be impeccably sourced.
2. The issue of the alleged real name of "Mama Jane". Without a reliable source, it's quite possible that this could be a smear against Muthee, the named woman, or both of them.
3. Sarah Palin, by virtue of her mention in context of Muthee's blessing and whatnot.

Any assertion which reflects negatively on any one of these folks, or another individual, must be sourced per WP:BLP. Note especially that [{WP:3RR]] does not apply in cases of controversial BLP material, such that any editor may revert any such additions without limit and without fear of being blocked. The same cannot be said of those who choose to insert such material, especially if such conduct is judged to be repeated and willful. Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

These are all reliable sourced. Don't just massively remove well-sourced material. Do you have any evidence that these are not reliable sources? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but per WP:BURDEN those who want to include sources are responsible for proving their inclusion-worthiness. Please do not revert to insert BLP-violating material again. Jclemens (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

BURDEN doesn't apply for simply you claiming that these aren't reliable. If for example, the sources were the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal... Now they aren't but the point is clear: BURDEN is about primarily WP:V and we are well passed that point. Now, instead of leaving agressive notes on talk pages explain why you think these aren't reliable sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires a higher standard than the NOW organization has. The church site which Taut has found would be fine, but it does not appear to have text for verification. It would be better to find stronger cites than to waste time arguing, IMHO. Collect (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

BURDEN does apply in that I assert these are not reliable sources. If they're not RS, they stay out. I have opened WP:RS/N#Various_questionable_sources_in_Thomas_Muthee and now Wikipedia:BLP/N#Thomas_Muthee to draw more attention to the issues here. Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, my apologies if a brief, personalized message on your talk page wasn't what you were looking for. Unlike Tautologist, you've been around long enough that I thought you would be sufficiently familiar with policy, and slapping a template on your page would be uncivil per WP:DTTR, but if you'd rather a standardized message, I can provide such in the future, although I hope the need would never arise. Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If for some strange reason you might have noticed that I had commented on the talk page before your message anyways. But from your remarks below it seems like you aren't very fond of checking history or such. Now, are you going to respond to my remark about how BURDEN functions are just repeat yourself again?. Incidentally, Womens Enews is founded by NOW but I see absolutely no reason to see why any partisan interest that the parent organization has would be relevant since the source is being used merely to source Mama Jane's name and her own opinion. Considering that this woman has been accused of witchcraft and we have a reliable source containing her rebuttal it is if anything a BLP violation to not include he response. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

For some strange reason, I think the templates should be revised a great deal <g>. Collect (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'm new to this discussion but what 'church site'? If you are thinking of linking to a site linked to Thomas Muthee to source controversial details I would take great care. The church site would almost definitely be a primary source and for a BLP should not generally be used without the backing of a reliable secondary source to show this is a noteworthy detail worthy of mention in the article. Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Tautologist furnished the Kingsgate church site which has (apparently) videos of the Muthee sermons. The videos are not a good reference for two reasons -- they are absolutely primary and they also do not have text for comparison. If that site has text transcripts, it becomes proper usage -- a site can be used for reference about the site owner itself. As an example, a church which posts its sermons in text is a RS for the text of its sermons absent any other source being available. WP does not appear to accept videos. Thus material about "XYZ Corp." coming from xyzcorp.com perforce is from an acceptable source. That is, such sites are the exception to the "primary source" guideline (which is not an absolute rule, in any case). Also see WP:SELFPUB. So far the issue is moot as Taut did not find transcripts posted. Collect (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken. Primary sources, whether transcripts or whatever are generally NOT an acceptable particularly in a BLP. This is because primary sources ONLY establish that someone said something, not that it is significant. Your comments demonstrate this rather well. If we did have these transcripts of sermons, they would I presume be rather long, with perhaps several sermons over 20 minutes each. There would clearly be a LOT of material we could include in the article from the sermons. There is no way for us to decide what we should mention. If you are selecting material which you feel is controversial, thats clear not acceptable, particularly in a BLP. Primary sources can be used to back up secondary sources. Also, I don't think a sermon put there by the his church counts as a self published source for Thomas Muthee (for the church perhaps but not for him). In any case, as the page you linked to says, self published sources should only be used when you are trying to support something non controversial. For example, if Thomas Muthee said he was born in Timbuktoo and went to the school in Nairobihe established a church in Kenya in 2005, that may be okay for us to say he said that since it's material relevant to the subject's notability that isn't likely to be contentious. But if he said all white people are evil (this is an example only, I don't think he ever said that) you should NOT include this in the article UNLESS other sources have mentioned it. It's not up to us to pick and choose the 'juicy' bits of what some said Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that this discussion was pretty stale when you replied. I think things have been settled, based on the stability of the project. Jclemens (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

My concern is collect's (and other people's) understanding about the use of primary sources in BLPs, not this issue in particular. Since no one seems to have challenged the (IMHO) incorrect presumption it would be okay to use sermons to establish some controversial issue concerning Thomas Mutheee, I feel it's an issue worth persuing here since there's a good chance editors here will encounter it in the future. From what I've encounter at WP:BLP/N it's something a lot of people struggle with Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think my position is actually in accord with your's about the videos being a "primary source" and thus not normally used in WP. I suspect, further, that such issues will continue to arise in WP and that WP must make stronger rules concerning BLP. Unfortunately, the Wikimedia Foundation seems averse to making the changes I feel are warranted in general concerning people who, in the past, would not have been considered "notable." See also my comments in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_limited_public_figures Collect (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible Canvassing?

JoshuaZ, it's curious that you've decided to hop into this BLP/RS issue after User:Tautologist was issued a WP:3RR warning, and per this, you made your first revert before engaging in this talk page. It might just be me, but I find that an unusual pattern of editing. Were you contacted to engage in this discussion? I see you haven't edited either the article or talk page since 22 September, almost an entire month ago. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You are paranoid. And the clear reliability of Womens Enews I cited above has not been addressed. And he did not make a revert before engaging in the talk page. You are ignoring my comments above. Jclemens, you have been trying to keep information off of this article and the Wasilla Assembly of God article for weeks now with your spurious arguments, like your argument that "Thomas Muthee's speech at Wasilla Assembly of God is five degrees of separation from the church". Tautologist (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2) The assertions you made about reliability are unconvincing--the fact it, it is a partisan source that was started by NOW. Calling me "paranoid" is a personal attack. Really, you should know better by now. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Instead of paranoid would you prefer well-poisoning, unproductive, aggressive editor who would rather assume bad faith about people he disagrees rather than even bother to check the history of the article to see if an editor has already made edits to an article and thus already has it on his watchlist? JoshuaZ (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'll just note that 1) you're repeating things I've already taken note of (that you'd last edited the article nearly a month ago), 2) You've responded to the question with a personal attack against me which echoes Tautologist, and 3) You've declined to deny that you were canvassed to participate. Those conclusions serve well to illustrate the point I was trying to make, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh grow up. I've never talked to Tautologist before. I saw the dispute on my watchlist and I wasn't canvassed. Now, when your done and want to actually discuss things that are relevant you can do so. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional civility would be nice. Understand that you're dealing with a couple editors who take RS seriously, especially with respect to BLP. Make an argument besides "I'm not convinced it's not a reliable source" and we can deal with it logically. "Oh grow up" is not helpful or particularly civil. Jclemens (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes additional civility would be nice like not randomly accusing people of canvassing. Frankly, when dealing with repeated ridiculous accusations by you rather than you making any apparent serious effort to discuss the content in question "oh grow up" seems like a perfectly reasonable response. Civility isn't nearly as important as actually dealing with the sources in question. I've listed them below so we can go through them one by one. Now, why don't you go be a dear and comment down there since this section seems to be rapidly deteriorating? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No accusation was ever directed against you, and if you inferred that one was, you have my apologies for that. It's not a violation to respond to a canvass request, just to engage in certain forms of canvassing. The suggestion of possible wrongdoing was made against Tautologist, who I have since reported as the likely puppet master for WitchieAnna. Tautologist has consistently failed to adhere to AGF, NPA, and BLP, so I did not think it too far out of line to suspect him of canvassing. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. That's really consistent with what your original wording implied. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a question. What does NOW have to do with the verifiability of this story? The writer of the article appears to have a credible history to me. (See [15][16] [17] What am I missing here? Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 03:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Trying to verify who a writer is is a substantially different problem than trying to validate that a website has appropriate editorial oversight. At any rate, it appears that the question is moot, now that you've found an appropriately reliable source for the material. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest adding links to the videos on the Kingsgate site and the Wasilla site under an "External Links" header, if that's acceptable to everyone. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Per discussion above, where videos are being used as a "primary source" they are invalid <sigh>. Try to find actual transcripts from an RS. Thanks!

New Source

The UK Telegraph has picked up the story about Jane Njenga. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 03:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that settles it for me. I'll seek unprotection and add it back in. We've reached consensus on every source now, I believe? Jclemens (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless there are any concerns about relevancy since this is material about Mama Jane and not about Muthee (which was brought up as an issue earlier arguing against its inclusion). Otherwise yes we're done. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My concern has alwaus focussed on RS, and this seems to work. Just don't quote the entire article. Amazing what patience can do. Collect (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Mama Jane doesn't have her own article, and really shouldn't per WP:BLP1E. Discussing this here, now that it's sourced appropriately, is reasonable and expected--Like Collect said, it was always about sourcing for me. Jclemens (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I filed for unprotection last night, but it still hasn't been done. I'm going to link to this discussion for a reference of consensus to unprotect. Jclemens (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Njenga back in

I've added Njenga's information back in. Unfortunately, the Telegraph article merely confirms the name and the fact that she's a pastor. It doesn't reinforce several things that the Womens ENews source said, such as the name of her clinic or that she never left town. It still feels pretty skimpy, so if anyone else looks at the source and sees more RS'ed documentation that should go back into the article, feel free. I've also reorganized the article a bit to improve logical flow. Jclemens (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And I still agree. Though the Kingsgate church might get a subsection title? Collect (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, although I have to go do other things for a while--I'm done editing the article for the morning, now that we've cleared things up. Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, not to create a big mess but the name of her clinic was also given in the WND source. Do we wish to revisit whether we should mention it (frankly, I'd rather have it in but I don't think it is that big an issue). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My point is consistent -- WND has problems as far as being a RS. Find stuff in an accepted source, great. But I still stand with my finger in the dike trying to keep out any possible chaff (mixing metaphors, of course). Collect (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd tend to think that WEN and WND are roughly the same level of credibility. I'd rather cite neither, but I'm not sure how much a big defecit the clinic name is, nor how much its inclusion is BLP-relevant. We've gotten all the BLP-relevant points from an RS now, I think, so in my mind it would be acceptable to add non-BLP-relevant material from "reasonably" reliable sources like WEN and/or WND. Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, I disagree. This is, after all, a BLP. Material not properly placed in a BLP ought not be used here. Muthee may be horrid, but he is entitled to the same consideration as a saint would have. Collect (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Um excuse me? The material under discussion has nothing to do with Muthee other than at a tangential level. We would not be failing to give him consideration by using a source (WND) which if anything will be biased towards him to provide non-controversial background material. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I ain't gonna fight. I just want my consistent position noted. Collect (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nor am I. But for the record, I think I'm being consistent, too, just different than you, Collect. :-) Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out this: "In fact, Mama Jane never left. She is a pastor just down the road from Muthee's Word of Faith Church." from the source currently in the article. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 17:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw that, and I'm not really sure how to include it. The source doesn't specify *what kind* of pastor she is--Wiccan? Presbyterian? Rastafarian? I'd considered calling her a "competing local religious leader", but that would be OR unless we're agreed that she's clearly not allied with him and his flock, and that "competing" directly follows from the reliable sources we've got to work with. Thoughts? Jclemens (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The source just says "pastor," and anecdotally I don't think my Wiccan friends use the term, preferring "priest/ess." As for denomination, I believe the current source was inspired by or took info from the Womens ENews article which indicates that she is of a "rival" Christian denomination, but as there is consensus to leave that source out (I agree!) I figure we'd better leave it fairly bare unless another news source turns up. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Perusing it again, this is suggestive, but we can't do much with it:

"Rival pastors in Kiambu now denounce Muthee for his treatment of Mama Jane.

'You cannot make personal gain on crucifying a woman," said an ally of Mama Jane, Pastor Gideon Maina. "As a man of God, you don't make your name by stepping on other people's names.'" Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. The rivalry between differing Christian denominational leaders would add another twist to the story. I share your hope that it eventually becomes more reliably sourced. Personally, I'd like to find out what really happened, too! :-) Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Me, too. I love a mystery, which is one reason I can't stay away from this article. So many basic questions... I'd like his birth date for the sake of completion, for example. I kinda hope someone else makes the effort to dig into the story, too. :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The WomensENews article has been reprinted here. Thoughts? Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's definitely a plus, but it's not clear to me that that site does any editorial oversight. If you look here, it simply says "In this section you'll find articles by our members."--I don't see any list of editorial staff anywhere on the site. Interestingly, Zoe Alsop doesn't appear on their member list, leaving one to wonder whether their list is out of date (most likely) or whether they publish more than member articles. Ultimately, I don't think it substantially enhances the standing of what is admittedly the same article sufficiently to use it for BLP-sensitive material, especially since an undisputed RS only cited a small portion of the allegations in this article. One wonders if there's any good reason for us to go beyond what The Daily Telegraph reported. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest the FCA in this instance counts as "self-published" by the individual writers. We need sites which actually have someone in control editorially. Collect (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledged, red leader and gold leader. ;) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 05:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Pare cites

Frinstance, does the Romanian ref add anything to the statement it is attached to? We should try to have a maximum of 3 cites for any claim, the GA reviewers seem to look at that (I looked at reviews). Collect (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Not being fluent in Romanian, and not being able to find a good translation, I figured better safe than sorry until someone corrects it. Shrug. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 17:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick note, also, about lots of cites, that I've seen elsewhere that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing, and that argument seems to dim in the face of multiple cites. Muthee is arguably extraordinary in many ways. ;) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 17:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine -- but checking prior GA reviews, it will guarantee not making GA status. Collect (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That's okay by me, so long as it's a "good article" in terms of information. Besides, it's not my article. :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 18:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Most reviewers will put an article on hold, then tell us what they want to see added, removed, or changed to meet GA criteria--unless you're not even in the ballpark, in which case they'll fail you outright. I wouldn't have nominated this article unless I thought we were in the ballpark. Once you get used to the GA criteria and how reviews go, it's no big deal--I spent a ton of time on my first GA--more than I expended on my subsequent 3 combined. :-) Jclemens (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's quite allowable to have multiple news articles cited in one reference. Nothing wrong with that, and it cuts down the number of footnotes. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooooo, didn't know that. DONE! :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 22:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Much less likely to get some of the "usual reasons" cited in reviews! Collect (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Changes needed for GA

FangedFaerie, you've been kicking butt in your addition of new material--Good job! However, many Good Article reviewers will require that bulleted lists be reworked as prose. Another area that will need work, which I am planning to get to in the next day or two, is to rework the lead per WP:LEAD such that it's a summary of the whole article. Other than those two items, we should be in pretty good stead for GA. Jclemens (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The usual complaint about lacking images still haunts us. (bad imagery?) Collect (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! But I have no idea how to rework that list, unless I just take out all the bullets and make it one rambling paragraph. As for an image, shrug, none available unfortunately. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 17:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The one image that's been posted on commons was posted by EricDiesel (Tautologist's older name), and has an improbable copyright--i.e., he claims he took the picture himself. It's undergoing review for deletion on Commons right now. Unless Tautologist shows back up and convincingly defends his authorship, it's toast. It's OK to say that we've looked for one but no fair use image exists. Jclemens (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, even the NON fair use images are fairly crappy. The one on his church site is repeated here and here, but isn't exactly flattering. Others tend to be screenshots of that poor-quality video from Wasilla. My favorite one of the three choices so far is the one with him perched on a stool on the Wasilla website, but I doubt we could get permission to use it, and even if we did there's that "parents-trying-to-be-hip" frame. Then there's a clip on YouTube from the Transformations video that's MUCH better, but I'd be stepping on copyright AND using YouTube if I took a screenshot from that. Ideas? Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, might his picture have looked like one of these?? Sigh. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the one. It's gone from Commons now. I should have thought to look on that site, since the Mama Jane one was ripped off of WomensENews. Sheesh--I agree with your redacted comment. :-) Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, figured it was kinda rude of me, still, so I pulled it. There's a pic out there SOMEWHERE that's a decent shot of Muthee's face, but for the life of me I can't find it to see about getting permission to use it. And I need to go to bed. :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 07:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

International Appearances

One sentence under Muthee's international appearances originally appeared like this:

Another church in Finland donated funds to Muthee's congregation in the autumn of 2005 to build a vocational center; it was completed in 2007 and began accepting students in 2008.

The sources were pulled because they're in Swedish. Without them, it's now totally unsourced. But there are other sources in there in other languages, and I didn't realize that was a valid objection. Should I go back and remove everything that doesn't have sources in English? Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 19:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:REF "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal caliber. However, do use sources in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks! Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 05:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In combing the internet, I skipped over the obvious: the primary source! We can put in something like, "the church site lists (current projects)," one of which is probably but not explicitly the vocational center. The mention of metal workers is a giveaway though, since they're in one or both (don't remember atm) of the Swedish-language cites. Will come back when I have more time and work on it! :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 05:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Collect (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Put the Swedish sources back, with new English ones to back them up, along with new material. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 04:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Latest Version, GA Nom status

Why was the info about his wife and kids removed? Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 22:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, my mistake. :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 22:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)