Jump to content

Talk:Universal Life Church/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Need for citations

I have this evening removed Adam Savage from this list as there is no verifiable or credible source to confirm this information. I would strongly suggest that the addition of any names to this list as well as any other content on this page needs to be done in a manner which complies with WP:V, particularly when placed in the context of WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP. Page will be monitored for 14 Days to ensure changes are not re-added and citation templates added to page. thewinchester 15:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that a link has been removed from the external links section of the article repeatedly for quite some time now, so could the user removing it please give some reasoning as to why he or she is doing this? Thank you. Cowman109Talk 20:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why has it been removed and put back in so many time? This article is about the Universal Life Church founded by Kirby J. Hensley which is located and Headquartered in Modesto, California. The link that has been removed/added repeatedly is of a individual church that is no longer affiliated with the ULC.

They are now a complete separate church similar to Universal Ministries. Up until August 1, 2006 the site in question ULC.org and/or TheMonastery.org submitted all ordination request to the Headquarters in Modesto who did the actual ordaining and record keeping. After the 1st of August, the Headquarters revoked ULC.org and/or TheMonastery.org affiliation and stopped accepting ordination requests from that group and stopped them from issuing ULC Headquarter products and Degrees. Since that time, ULC.org and/or TheMonastery.org has re organized under their own authority and started to ordain and keep their own records as a separate church.

As a church that is not associated with the Group being talked about, it makes little sense for them to be still connected in this article since they no longer are part of this group. As mentioned in the archive of the talk page, this is akin to listing any church founded after the Protestant Reformation in the article for the Roman Catholic Church since they were at one point part of it.

131.10.254.61 15:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The above is quite interesting, and it would be great to include it (a bit briefer, just the facts, though) in the article. Is there a reliable source, per WP:RS? John Broughton | Talk 17:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/158700%20 Article from the AZ Daily Star or contact the ULCHQ in Modesto. 131.10.254.61 13:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The above article is about the Universal Life Church Monastery and makes no references to there being a "Head quarters" for the Universal Life Church. Anybody is free to run a church, there are over 100 Universal Life Church's in the country and only but a few have anything to do with Modesto. Also, I might add that ULCHQ is a corporation and not a non for profit corporation as per the IRS.
Link removed. It is about the ULC Monastery. The article is about our church and not the ULCHQ, and does not make any references in the article about a head quarters. It is only you're opinion that ULCHQ is the "head quarters" an opinion is not fact.
A little fuel for thought, if ULCHQ is the "Head Quarters" for the Universal Life Church than why is it that they are a Corporation ? How can a Corporation be the Head Quarters for a Church ?
Brdennis 06:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Link re-added as it deals directly with the questioned asked by a Wikipedia Admin. As to your question of can a Corp be a Headquarters, yes it can. Infact it is a pretty common pratice. 131.10.254.61 13:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, so it is less likely to happen again - editors are to leave the postings of other editors, on talk pages, AS IS, per Wikipedia:Talk page and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I was going to put the link back myself, but 131 beat me to it. (And to clear up any misunderstanding, I'm not an Admin, just an interested user.)
Also, please use indentation (as I've done) to make it clearer who has posted what. (After five or six indentations, the norm is to post flush against the left margin, starting again.) John Broughton | Talk 13:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to the orginal question by Cowman109 who is a WikiAdmin. 131.10.254.61 14:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The link has NOTHING to do with the church in Modesto, only but once does it mention Modesto. And it does not mention it as a "head quarters". It is only you're opinion that ULCHQ is the "head quarters". An opinion is not fact. Brdennis 08:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is by far not an opinion, but a justified fact. The Church in Mosesto has been the International Headquaters for the ULC since Rev Hensley founded the church. Additionally your own site (ulc.org) up until 1 Aug 06 submitted thier ordinations to the ULCHQ in Modesto and on the site referred to it as the Headquarters. It has only been since the change in "leadership" of the ULC Monastery, which as the article above mentions is questionable in the eyes of the state of AZ, that the Monastery itself as said that the ULCHQ is not the actual HQ. 131.10.254.61 19:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The link for the ULC Seminary was removed because it was said that it was not an 'authorized' site, yet you keep the ulc.org site and not only is it not authorized, it's also not even affiliated. That's inconsistent. If and when Arizona regains control of the site and is then re-affiliated with Headquarters, then it would be appropriate to add them, but otherwise, it's not. 04:21, 7 December 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulcseminary (talk • contribs)
Note: I have placed a comment on the user's talk page about the need to comply with WP:COI
The fact is that the IRS denied the church's tax exempt status in 1969 and again in 1970 on the grounds that the Hensley family was engaging in activities outside the religious activities contemplated by IRS’s 501(c)(3) http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9615122o.htm .They were buying and investing in real state in violation of federal law. The IRS’s revocation action was based on the fact that the net earnings of the Modesto “Church” were privately benefiting the Hensley family who now run the private corporate enterprise (Universal Life Church Inc. & its website). The federal government held that the activities of the church and affiliated organizations were conducted to privately benefit Modesto church insiders. Further, that the Modesto church engaged in advising its members on how to tax evade taxes. At the time the Hensley’s were involved in the operation of a residential construction business also. As a result they owed $6 million in back taxes. It is not common for a church to be a business corporation as the ULCHQ is now. The IRS doesn't seem to think it is neither. This is why they IRS removed Modesto's status as a non-profit corporation. Modesto is a business, they are not a church. Brdennis 08:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The ULC Monastery is not a IRS recoginized Non-profit Corp either per the IRS's Non-profit website. Infact this wikipedia article includes a court case about the ULCHQ lossing it's 501c3 status under the legal section. And your still far off the mark in regards to being a corp. having anything to do with being a Headquarters, it standard for the Headquarters to be incorporated. An example is the Arizona Southern Baptist Convention Inc. (Baptist tend towards the use of convention instead of Headquarters but organizationally they are interchangable terms). The ASBC happens to be 501c3 and holds a group exemption for all of it's sub churches. 131.10.254.61 19:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/158614 More legal trouble for the ULC Monastery. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.10.254.61 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
We are a non for profit corporation under the state of Washington. Modesto is a reguler for profit corporation under California. Plain and simple. We are non for profit, Modesto is a money making corporation. And I did not say it is unusual for a church to be a corporation. I said it is not common for a church to be a BUSINESS corporation. ASBC you said yourself is non for profit. Modesto is not even non for profit under California state. Modesto is a money making business corporation. Period.

Brdennis 23:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That is amusing seeing that the ULC Monastery is operating two seperate Corps in Washington one Non-profit and one FOR-Profit, and oddly enough the copyright listed on the bottom of www.ulcmonastery.org and ulc.org is listed as the FOR-Profit Corp, not the Non-profit.
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/corps/search_results.aspx?search_type=simple&criteria=all&name_type=starts_with&name=Universal+Life&ubi=
California does not publically post the status of a corp on thier site, so you would have to back that statement up. Regardless of state non-profit status, neither the "Monastery' nor the Headquarters are registered as Non-Profits with the IRS.
Frankly it is more disturbing that the the current and most recent leaders of the Monastery, other then still fighting for control of the Corp. and Domain names, have both been in legal hot water. Daniel Zimmerman served 2 years in Federal prison for "conspiracy to hinder and hamper the IRS" and George Freeman was implacated in the Teen Dance Ordinance (also see http://archives.thedaily.washington.edu/1996/100396/club100396.html). 131.10.254.61 15:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
What is amusing is that you provided verifiably false information in you're previous post. If you notice that both the corporations that we have registered 'ULC Monastery' and 'Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse' are both listed as NONPROFIT. You even provided a link to this information, which you claim says are FOR profit ? If you had read the own link you provided, you would cleary see that it says NONPROFIT.

Please see the further links for proof.

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/corps/search_detail.aspx?name=UNIVERSAL+LIFE+CHURCH+MONASTERY+STOREHOUSE&ubi=602649207
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/corps/search_detail.aspx?name=UNIVERSAL+LIFE+CHURCH%2fULC+MONASTERY%2c+INC.DBA+UNIVERSAL+LIFEC+HURCH%2fULC+MONASTERY&ubi=602500589

Also, you claimed that there was a copyright listed on the bottom of ulcmonastery.org ? That is interesting considering we do not even use that domain. Please stop citing verifiably false information. The other comments regarding Daniel Zimmerman and George Freeman are both completely irrelevant, Daniel Zimmerman is no longer apart of the ULC Monastery and the article you linked too was written in 1996 and refers to a completely irrelevant topic. Again, please stop trying to slander us and make personal attacks. Seeing as how you're account has now been suspended, and trying to get my account blocked from editing. It is quite clear to everybody that you're only purpose is to spread lies, and make personal attacks.

Please see the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:131.10.254.61

Brdennis 04:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Regardless of any registration with the state, The Monastery is still not recognized as a Non-Profit and Tax Exempt by the IRS (verify at http://apps.irs.gov/portal/site/pub78/). And I did make a typo, I meant themonastery.org not ulcmonastery.org.131.10.254.61 21:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay so what is you're point ? Our point is that ULCHQ is a reguler for PROFIT business corporation. Church's are not obligated to file for 501c3 status. It is a personal choice. The Monastery still remains a non for profit church, unlike ULCHQ.

Brdennis 04:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

you have yet to prove they are filed as a for profit corp. 74.193.235.188 12:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, the link situation in this article is beyond a joke, with an edit occurring to identify that some of the links are not related to the church in question. I have therefore stripped all but one of the external links from the article in line with WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Any re addition of any links should be discussed further here. thewinchester 01:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That has been tried before, and as you can see, It has not worked. Some Users are merely promoting thier own site while not adding any content. 74.193.235.188 02:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I did see that in the article discussions. I've got the article and it's talk page on permanent watch, and i'll be reverting any such changes accordingly. If it keeps up, i'll move a request to Admin for partial protection of the section. thewinchester 05:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hitler ordained?

Adolph Hitler was listed as among the ordained clergy of the church. Finding no citation of such, and considering that Hitler died 14 years before the church was founded and was therefore most likely unable to seek such ordination himself, and lacking evidence that the ULC is in the practice of ordaining dead despots, I've removed him from the list. If someone really wants to re-add him to the list, please provide reliable citation first. --Reverend Loki 20:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Catch. It is impossible for Adolf Hitler, Chancellor of Germany, to be ordained by a church that did not exist until 14 years after his death. This does not mean that a person who is also named Adolf Hitler is not ordained by the ULC, but they would not meet the notability requirement.131.10.254.61 22:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Very good catch indeed Reverend Loki. Given these constant additions to the section in question without citations, I think it needs to be reviewed within this article and possibly hidden until people can come up with appropriate citations. thewinchester 23:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am actually a Reverend of the ULC...and chances are you guys have went and ordained aswell haha but anyway...I could make Hitler a member of the Church.Gavin Scott 17:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well... here's the following snippet about ordination from the church website:
    * Please only ordain others with their permission. (This includes public figures as well as 
cartoon and other fictional characters.")
So, though there's nothing stopping you from punching in Hitler's name into the online ordination submission form, it'll just be invalidated later when a human checks it. So no, it's a little late for him. --Reverend Loki 18:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

How do we go about gaining a cartoon character's permission? However, I believe that it is within my power to make Adolf some form of saint...not that I really want to...Gavin Scott 21:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC) (I'm just having a bit of faith here!)

You dont get thier permission (that is kinda the point), as for the Sainthood, all nominations are reviewed by the HQ Staff and can be rejected. 74.193.235.188 02:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please place your opinion in the appropriate section

it seems the concensus is just the official ULCHQ site (2 for, but all other votes lean that way).74.193.235.188 15:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As many as needed

  • Support, in this category simply because the options provided seem arbitrary to me. I feel that no hard and fast limit in the form of a specific number (such as "just one") on the number of links allowed. I do believe in limiting the number of links to a minimum, but whether or not a link is allowed should be judged on criteria other than how many other links there are. A link should be allowed if it:
    1. Provides content that is easily accessible, that the average browser would find useful, and is either not already provided by an existing link or is a better source for that info (in which case it should replace that link), or
    2. Is an official site for the subject. If there are multiple official sites, then only the most prominent/important should be linked.
This criteria applied to most subjects should naturally limit most articles, including this one, to somewhere between 1 and 3 links. Especially controversial or important ones might have more. Anyways, I feel that limiting to 1 as a rule is a bad idea. --Reverend Loki 22:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, because the ULCHQ no longer recognized the "spinoffs" (ULCMonastery.com, PULC, ULCSeminary.org, etc.), but they are "Universal Life Churches". Perhaps if they were listed as spinoffs, or some other way of noting this distinction? To not link them would be to deny that they exist as separate but similar entities. They are no longer affliates, and so would not be linked from the ULCHQ site. --cdwiegand 12:52, 3 March 2007 (MST)

Just one

  • Support If the religious organisation in question wishes to provide further information about itself, branches, units, etc, then that is its own prerogative and can be handled on it's own official website. WP is not a links directory, and to get into issues about the churches own internal politics could raise NPOV difficulties. thewinchester 01:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support The only organization in this article that shoulld be linked to is the ULC. Any other links to affiliated groups should be available on the ULC main site, and it's up to the reader to find them. Otherwise, affiliations are subject to verification, which then leads to notability issues, and of course borders on "WP:NOT an advertising service." MSJapan 20:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Abstain/Neutral/Indifferent

Other

I would vote to allow those that have official affiliation with the actual ULC and its Headquarters in Modesto. This would not include individual churches that have broken off like Universal Ministries, Progressive Universal Life Church, and the ULC Monastery.

If this is not possible or reasonable, then only a link to the ULC HQ would be appropriate. 74.193.235.188 01:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

But how are you going to manage that particularly in the context of WP:NOT#REPOSITORY? thewinchester 01:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked in line with this "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." 74.193.235.188 05:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Do the readers here believe it would be possible to divide the external links under two subheads: "Official affiliates" and "Related churches not affiliated with the ULC"? - Scooter 07:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
"I'll ask you this, do you think it would be appropriate to have a link to the Lutheran Chruch from the Catholic Church Page? after all Martin Luther was a Catholic Preist until he founded the Protestant Reformation.74.193.235.188 00:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Although I see this argument as sort of apples-and-oranges, I'll bite. Thing is, the Catholic Church has a lot more info about it on the web than the little ol' ULC. Therefore, the article for the Catholic Church will, by necessity, be held to a higher standard of relevance in order to prevent an overflow of information - these are encyclopedia articles, not rough drafts for 500 page books. However, even in this case, I could easily see justification for links in the "See Also" category for the Wikipedia article on the Lutheran Church or, as perhaps is slightly more relevant to the case in hand, the article for the Church of England. --Reverend Loki 23:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you hit the nail on the head for the arguement NOT to having others include without realizing it. Regardless of the size of the article "these are encyclopedia articles". Point blank and as such Wikipedia holds all articles to the same standard. To me, the bottom line is this. Different Church, Different Article. 131.10.254.61 17:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, yes, it *would* be appropriate to link to the lutheran and church of england pages from the Catholic church page, as those are notable break aways and to not mention them would be to ignore the impact that those churches had, both when they broke away, and on an ongoing basis. One would link to the Christian page (at least somewhere) from the Jewish topics simply because one begat the other, and it was a notable split at that. cdwiegand 17:10, 4 March 2007 (MST)
Wikipedia is by definition a free encyclopedia, and by definition an encyclopedia is a "a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject." An encyclopedia is not an religious text, it is not bound by any religious doctrine. It is about providing historical and relevent content and information, therefore to remove themonastery.org from this article would be censorship and against the very principles that Wikipedia stands for. All the relevant Universal Life Churches should be allowed to be linked to this article.Brdennis 09:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not censorship, in that you are free to create an article specifically about The ULC Monastery provided it meets the critria for an article and is not speedy deleted. 74.193.235.188 11:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Important Info

The President of the ULC, Lida Hensley has passed away, A successor has not been named by the Board of Directors yet. 74.193.235.188 00:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

new President will be named by the Board on 01/15/07 74.193.235.188 16:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Andre Hensley has been named by the Board of Director's as the new President of the ULC. He is the Son of both past president's and has worked as the office manager at the HQ for several years. 131.10.254.61 19:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Orville Redenbacher

any source for Orville Redenbacher being an ordained minister with the ULC? 131.10.254.61 14:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Tax info

thewinchester has removed the following 2 paragraph with the following notation

"Removal of two para's of tax information, WP is not here to interperate US tax policy and the content was not of relevance to the subject."

Given that the vast majority of all legal cases involving the ULC are cases involving Taxes and the Authority to Solemnize Marriages. Given this, and the common conception that all church's are 501(c)3 make this inclusion absolutely relevant to this particular Religious Denomination. This is even more true given that niether paragraph "interperate US tax policy" in any way.

Below are the two paragraphs.

  • Currently the ULC in Modesto does not participate in the IRS 501(c)3 designation program, relying instead on existing statutes to determine tax exempt status. Individual congregations of the ULC are independent legal entities. Exempt status must be independently established for each, without regard to the main church. Currently the two major sites outside of the ULCHQ (ULC Online and ULC Seminary) do not have 501(c)3 tax exemption with the IRS (The ULC Seminary has filed and is under review). Current exemption status for any one claiming to be a 501c3 group can be checked here.
  • It is important to note that since exemption does not apply to individual ministers, these IRS tax determinations regarding the ULC as an organization are largely moot for individuals. They are relevant only to those who wish to claim a deduction for sizeable donations.

I propose re-adding it back in since it is relevant.

131.10.254.61 14:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see how it might be pertinent to the article, given that "legitimacy" and tax classification are both issue that have become about as important subjects regarding the ULC as far as the general public is concerned as the tenets of the church itself. Still, WP isn't necessarily a good place to list out the various tax woes, loopholes and what not that the church has experienced. I say make sure that this info is as condensed and summarized as possibly, and include that. Does the subject need two paragraphs? --Reverend Loki 16:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

They could easily be combined in to one paragraph.

Tax exemption can only apply to organizations and not individual ministers. Each congregations within the ULC is legally independent and would require to establish it's own exemption via 501(c)3 or based on existing statutes to determine tax exempt status without regard to the Headquarters or any other ULC entity. Currently the ULC Headquarters and the two major sites outside of the ULCHQ, (ULC Online and ULC Seminary), do not have 501(c)3 tax exemption with the IRS (The ULC Seminary has filed and is under review). Current exemption status for any one claiming to be a 501(c)3 group can be checked here.

131.10.254.61 21:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better. A few points:
  • Wikify the first instance of 501(c)3 in this section, leave each subsequent example plain text.
  • The documentation of the newsworthy events around their tax exempt status (or lack thereof) should be the first priority. History of exemption status, major court cases, etc. I know there is a lot of info on this out there - if there is enough of THIS kind of info out there to expand beyond a paragraph, that's ok, but this really is a side note to what the ULC is, and we should still have an eye on keeping it brief. The info above really should be condensed to a footnote of this paragraph/section. We don't need to list what is not exempt; it is enough to say that none of the major or core ULC entities claim such status. Well, maybe this last bit is dependent on how the rest of the section is written... see below.
  • I'm having trouble justifying a link to the IRS site about tax exemption. Just doesn't fit within the scope of this article. Such a link would be right at home in the 501(c) article, though. Any parties interested enough can follow the trail through there.
So, imagine a few sentences, or whatever is appropriate, giving a brief history of this aspect. Assuming this mentions the 3 distinct entities listed above, this might be summed as:
Currently none of the major bodies of the ULC are classified as tax exempt.  Individual
congregations are considered independent entities for 501(c)3 tax exemption.
Maybe not those exact words (written quickly, trying to wrap this up), but something like that. Again, there's historical info out there that is more important for this article as far as exempt status goes, and not just "the score so far". Hope this is helpful...--Reverend Loki 21:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There already is a ULC IRS case in the legal section, After looking at the 501(c)3 page and it having the check status link in it's external links section I can agree with not having that.

Maybe something along the lines of:

Tax exemption can only apply to organizations and not individual ministers. Each congregations within the ULC is legally independent and would require to establish it's own exemption via 501(c)3 or based on existing statutes to determine tax exempt status without regard to the Headquarters or any other ULC entity. The three main ULC sites all currently are not 501(c)3.

It's short, and covers both normal methods of tax exemption, standard church exemption and 501(c)3. This could be added in to the paragraph currently still in the article.

74.193.235.188 02:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

New userbox

If Wikipedian's who are ordained via the ULC want to show it off, they can add {{User:Green Joe/ULC}} to their user page.

GreenJoe 19:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I re-added the Seminary and ULC online links per this policy. GreenJoe 14:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not understanding why this article should have only one external link. If you look at Assemblies of God, they have a long, large list of external links. Probably too many, but we certainly need more than one. This article is not just about the one little building in Modesto. It's about the Universal Life Church. The organ that is a church. That means more than one link. I'm not saying to post links without some thought or merit, but only one hampers the article. GreenJoe 15:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
please see above in External link removal and reasons 2,3, and 4 in the Links normally to be avoided section of this policy. 131.10.254.61 18:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see your point. Please register so we know who we are talking to. The links should remain per Assemblies of God. GreenJoe 20:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Items 2 & 3 are reasons to incorporate the links into this article. --GreenJoe 20:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We need more ULC related articles, but only if they can be properly cited and attributed. GreenJoe 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments

Should there only be one external link to the HQ, or multiple links such as in the article Assemblies of God? GreenJoe 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I reverted back to just one link IAW with the previous discussion in the talk page. If you add them back I will file a complaint for violating the 3RR. Secondly, user accounts are optional, it is not your place to mandate anyone register an account. Now on to multiple links.
You are using the Assembies of God as an example. I will use some examples as well.
Roman Catholic Church No links to individual congregations, just the Governing bodies.
Baptist Church No links to individual congregations, just the Governing bodies.
United Methodist ChurchNo links to individual congregations, just the Governing bodies.
Episcopal Church in the United States of America No links to individual congregations, just the Governing bodies.
Anglican Communion No links to individual congregations, just the Governing bodies.
Even your own link does not have individual congregations.
I could go further, but I believe you might get the idea. Since the ULC has no de-centralized Governing bodies it would be improper to include thousands of congregations within the ULC.
As to reason 2 and 3 being reason to allow, that is also false.
Reason 2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.
Since the ULCHQ has no oversite of any ULC congregation's website's content, this leads to many inaccurate and false claims.
Reason 3. Links mainly intended to promote a website.
and
Reason 4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
Many ULC sites that are not the ULCHQ are created solely for the selling of ordination and minister materials.
131.10.254.61 21:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It should be inlcuded per this point:
#Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
Sure they are individual congregations, but the information on the websites are invaluble, and can't easily be brought here due to copyright. They have far more information than the HQ link. Also from what I can tell, they're the two predominately visited "congregation" websites. GreenJoe 21:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[[1]] a simple google search will bring up hundreds.
ULC Intertribal
Progressive ULC (splinter group)
The ULC Monastery (splinter group)
The ULC Seminary
The ULC Christian Fellowship
Universal Life Church of Great Barrington
The Universal Life Church of Daler Mehndi
Universal Life Church of the New Age
Universal Life Church Minister's Association
The ULC Online
The list goes on and on. 131.10.254.61 21:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there a directory we an link to instead? Let me check the Open Directory Project. GreenJoe 21:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
There is an entire category on ODP, and I've added a link to the article. I hope this may be an acceptable compromise? GreenJoe 21:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Just because a group splinters doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. WP:NPOV. GreenJoe 23:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV dpes not mean that groups that are no longer part of the ULC as a whole should remain in the article. Even within articles like Roman Catholic Church do not include splinter groups. 74.193.235.188 11:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Universal_Life_Church/Archive_2&oldid=1045370799"