Talk:Michael Jenkins (religious leader)

Reliable sources

In the recent AfD, Hobit stated:

• "Article could certainly stand expansion, but I'm finding 264 news articles that quote him."
• "Still think he's notable given the number of times he's showing up in RS."

I will assume good faith, and assume that some of these RSs will start turning up in the article -- which currently has only a single UC source for verification. If this doesn't happen it cannot help but eventually lead to another AfD, as what is in the article does not currently establish notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Several months later, and none of these asserted news-articles/RSs have turned up in the article. I will shortly be renominating this article for deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with deletion. This is one of those articles which just say a person has a job. Besides that the importance (or lack of it) of his job is not explained. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

A copy of Rev. Moon and the Black Clergy; Taking Down the Cross (and Taking Trips) Part of an Unlikely Alliance With Local Pastors can be found here. It makes no mention of Jenkins. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to reproduce a set of bios, which is what I cited. I'm guessing they were part of a sidebar in the original article. Included persons are Jenkins, Ki Hoon Kim, A. Harold White, and T.L. Barrett Jr. The intro and Jenkins' section read:

"Moon's Chicago connections

Chicago has become an increasingly important location for Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his movement. It is the home of a large Moon- affiliated seafood arm and has become the model for how the American Clergy Leadership Conference (ACLC)--an alliance with largely black clergy--will work nationally.

The Chicago Family Church of Peace in Rogers Park, where about 100 members hold Sunday services, is the only local Unification house of worship. Although small, the congregation has had a big impact: Two previous pastors, Revs. Michael Jenkins and Ki Hoon Kim, are now national leaders of Moon's Unification movement.

RELIGIOUS LEADERS

MICHAEL JENKINS

In June 2000, after 17 years in Chicago helping lead Moon's movement here, Jenkins became the U.S. head of the Unification Church. Jenkins has an extensive network of local contacts and is now the face of the church in the U.S., based in Washington, D.C. REV."

Yes, it's stored in ProQuest with the extra "REV." on the end. this search verifies that such an article exists, and lists the word count at 3010. The partial version you found clocks in (per MS Word, which may be undercounting) at a bit under 2400. Without photo captions, the ProQuest version is over 2600 (again per MS Word). Looks like they provide an option to purchase the article direct from the Tribune for $3.95 if desired. Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Might be an idea to add a note to that effect in the footnote, to prevent a repeat of this confusion. Incidentally, the ProQuest links are really unhelpful to non-subscribers, as they provide no details whatsoever on the article -- which is why I've been trying to give additional/alternative URLs where possible. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I wish I had access to Nexis, but all my crummy local community college subscribes to are ProQuest and EBSCOHost--and EBSCOHost is definitely inferior for general news sources. I agree with the alternate link idea. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(Oh, and neither one of them gives me access to several of the more interesting looking articles from Google News, either. Sigh.) Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No longer notable

The only defense of Jenkins' notability was that he was president of the American Unification Church, even if it was merely a title, and his role, as Hrafn fairly accurately described it, pretty much of a puppet position. If he is no longer president of the American church, is there any remaining claim of notability? I'm not aware of a single notable accomplishment. -Exucmember (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary. If the UC president is roughly equivalent to a Catholic Bishop or higher, he continues to be notable indefinitely as a significant leader of a notable religious organization. Jclemens (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. Some fourteenth century bishop who made a certain impact in his own time is less likely to have a Wikipedia article than a bishop who has had a comparable impact on current society. This is because fourteenth century bishop is (at present) less notable. Check any encyclopedia that has been published for many years and you will find some material that gets abbreviated and/or dropped as it fades in importance over time.

But even if that were not true, here's the reality of this article: In the AfD (I can only find one AfD; the two links above point to the same conversation as of this writing, and I was never aware that there was a second AfD), only 3 people defended Jenkins' notability, and all 3 defenses were on the basis of his being mentioned in passing in news articles and books as the current president of the American Unification Church (a figurehead position with little real power). And Ed seems to have divorced him from his only claim of notability by moving the article! -Exucmember (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Although Mike is a friend, I agree that the article is kind of, well, not one of WP's most exciting. For one thing the office of UC president is not explained here or anywhere else on WP> Steve Dufour (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NTEMP isn't just my interpretation--if something was notable at one time, it doesn't cease to be notable just because it's no longer being covered in media, nor because an officeholder has departed the office that provided him notability. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NTEMP says "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability." Yet in the AfD, a mention of his name in passing in news reports during the time he was the American Unification Church president was the only basis for claiming notability. No claim was made in the AfD - or at any time in the article's history - that his actual accomplishments as president were sufficient for notability. What has he done that's notable? Does every president of the American Unification Church automatically get an article based on filling the office? Where is the article on James Baughman? Farley Jones? Phillip Burley? Gordon Ross? Lowell Martin? -Exucmember (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So per my reading of NTEMP, either the current UC president isn't notable either, or Jenkins remains notable. If the office is sufficiently notable, then each officeholder would merit an article provided that V could be met... although given a pretty terse list of media references and a relatively short list, maybe a merge to List of U.S. Unification Church presidents would be a better solution? Jclemens (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Often editors (and readers) prefer to see short lists as part of an article - rather than as a separate page. Instead of deleting all the UC president articles, it's better to merge them into Unification Church.

By the way, the influence (or impact) of the Unification Church or other Unification Movement organizations is still controversial. Many people, even Moon opponents, used to think the church was inordinately influential - even dangerous. This was at a time when the mind control theory had not yet been scientifically evaluated, and people thought you could be zapped with a single glance and made to join a "cult" against your will. Oddly enough, pimps and drug pushers never seem to have mastered the technique! There are also people who think the movement has too much political (or social) influence and wish it would just go away. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

How about listing the presidents in Unification Church of the United States, and also explaining what the UC president's office is? Steve Dufour (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be subtantial sources for this subject. While a list of presidents might be appropriate (how many have there been?) I don't see a good reason to remove this content.   Will Beback  talk  00:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I think your suggestion is a good one, regardless of what is decided about this article. -Exucmember (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Did Jenkins author these articles?

http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Jenkins/0-Toc-2006.htm#TableOfContents If anyone can confirm or deny this, I would appreciate it. 71.193.206.116 (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I trust Gary Fleisher to quote Jenkins and other church members correctly. I assume he simply copied emails that were circulated among church leaders. In any case, the writing style of the letters I glance at just now sounds like Rev. Jenkins. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What is he?

I've known Mike for about 25 years. He is a graduate of the Unification Theological Seminary and is almost always called "Rev. Jenkins" by both UC members and non-members. What he mostly does is give sermons, teach the Divine Principle, give guidence and counseling to members, make friends with ministers of other churches and invite them to UC projects. He has done the same regardless of being the president of the American UC, the pastor of the Chicago church, the director of the Midwest AFC, or now the head of the ACLC. That is why I think the opening sentence should say that he is a minister in the UC, not whatever job he has at the moment. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that none of that sort of thing is likely to get itself recorded in RSs. What is recorded in RSs gives the appearance of a pawn moved around the chessboard by Moon into whatever position suits his purpose at the time, who occasionally 'side-swipes' fame either by meeting somebody notable or acting as the church's spokesman. This sort of distorted image is what you tend to get from basing an article on fragments of trivial coverage, rather than "significant coverage" -- and is one of the abuses that WP:NOTE is supposed to prevent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I partly blame the negligence of the news media. I haven't found even a published article giving basic biographical information about Rev. Moon himself, much less other church members. Anyway, if WP is to have an article on Mike Jenkins I think it's fair to say he's a minister -- based on the various sources.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The lack of biographical information on Moon himself may be due to the infrequency that he grants interviews. As to Jenkins, it is probable that he does not project the image of somebody sufficiently influential in the wider world that the media is interested in profiling him. There are hundreds of thousands of "minister[s]" in the US -- that is not an articulation of notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Unification Church of the United States. There was also a consensus that a lot of the current article is trivia, which is supportive of a heavy degree of pruning in the merge. -- Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

---

• I see that a template has been added to this article proposing that this article be merged with (and I would assume merged to) Unification Church of the United States. Given the at-best-marginal notability of the topic and the lack of notability independent of UC/USA, combined with the paucity of reliable third-party coverage and the fact that now that he is no longer president he is unlikely to generate any further coverage, I support this proposal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Addendum: I would further note that four of the nine sources cited for this article are UC-affiliated. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Granted, but the other five are all to independent and reasonably respected newspapers unaffiliated with the UC. GNG is met with independent RS, hence non-independent RS can be used to fill out non-controversial details. Jclemens (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• No. "GNG is met with" significant coverage on the topic in "independent RS", not with mere quotes from the topic about other subjects, and mere mentions in passing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support, browsing through the sources included (mostly church published or wedding trivia) there is unlikely to be any prospect of notability being significantly addressed in order to warrant value in keeping this as a separate article.—Ash (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think merging the articles would result in dumping a lot of trivia into the other one. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Two points Steve: (i) if you think the contents of this article aren't worthy even of merging, you can always nominate it for deletion, (ii) there is nothing to stop the more 'trivial' parts of the article (what I describe above as "'side-swip[ing]' fame") being trimmed back out of the merged article thereafter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NTEMP. It's perfectly fine to leave an article about a person even when they're no longer generating new notability, else all non-living people would have been removed from Wikipedia by now. Jclemens (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: (i) WP:NTEMP is inapplicable as it has not been demonstrated that the topic is notable in the first place. (ii) Notability does not disbar merger, especially in cases where lack of coverage prevents an article of any depth from being created -- and in fact this is explicitly condoned in some notability guidelines. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The article as kept as notable in a previous AfD, over your objections; I interpret that as consensus to his notability. Agreed that it's not a bar to merger, but not all mergers that are permissible make sense or help the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• No. The article was "kept" in spite of the fact that no argument cogent to any notability guideline was made. Given the lack of cogent argument, and the very small number offering opinions (three), the "consensus" in question has very little weight. On the question of whether this merger "make[s] sense or help[s] the encyclopedia", I would suggest that the fact that it meets WP:MERGE#Rationale #3 & #4 indicates that such a merger is both sensible & helpful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Our interpretations of those past events differ. You're certainly as entitled to your interpretation of events as I am to mine. Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, this is the last AFD. Many of the !votes thought that notability was pretty well sourced, a subject currently under dispute, so it would be fair to consider this at best an uncertain "proof" of notability.—Ash (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no good-faith policy dispute over the sourcing of the article. Attempting to manufacture one could be construed a WP:POINT violation. Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no particular problem with the current sourcing. What I have a problem with is that with the exception of the fact that Jenkins is a past president of the American church, all the sources refer to relatively trivial points which don't really contribute to notability. The trivia should be stripped out, and what little is left can be merged. There is just not enough notability here for an independent article. The change of name to "religious leader" merely highlights this lack of notability. The argument in the Tyler Hendricks AfD that the American church presidency (including all past presidents) is an "inherently notable position, much like a Roman Catholic Bishop" just doesn't line up with the fact that there are no Wikipedia articles about thousands of bishops from previous centuries. -Exucmember (talk) 07:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: to date we have two unqualified 'merges' (myself, Ash), one unqualified 'keep', one 'trim heavily merge' (Exucmember, a qualification I personally have no problem with) and one [outright delete] concern over the amount of trivia that might be merged (Steve Dufour, a position that might be considered compatible with Exucmember's, or might go as far as a merge-as-bare-redirect, or even an outright delete). Given this (and noting the recent, relevant AfD closure-as-merge of Tyler Hendricks), this seems to amount to a consensus around a 'merge if trimmed heavily'. Unless any new opinions come along in the next day or two, or anybody wishes to dispute my interpretation of what's been said to date, I intend to proceed on that basis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

To clairify my views, I think Mike is important enough for an article. However I agree with Hrafn that according to strict WP:N policy he shouldn't have one since he has not been covered in depth by reliable secondary sources. Right now the article is just a scrapbook of media mentions in passing. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify my views, the fact that the Tyler Hendricks article was merged sets what I think is a pretty undeniable precedent for Michael Jenkins. Both are former presidents of the American Unification Church. Hendricks is something more: current president of a fully accredited graduate school, the main seminary in the world for the Unification Church. Jenkins has almost nothing more to support notability. It's pretty hard to imagine that the Jenkins article should be kept when a clearly more notable figure was merged. -Exucmember (talk) 03:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Steve, let me clarify the options. Given the RS information we have to date, our possible choices are (i) leaving an article here that is bulked up by "scrapbook" trivia to give some superficial semblance of "significant coverage", (ii) merging to a brief mention in Unification Church of the United States or (iii) outright deletion. You appear to be equivocating between (i) & (ii). Could I interest you in giving unequivocal support for either possible option, or an unequivocal abstention? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As a loyal WP editor I have to vote Delete per WP:N, due to lack of substantial coverage in secondary sources. My next choice would be an informal article along the lines of "Michael Jenkins is a prominent member of the Unification Church of the United States who has held several leadership positions in that organizations, including president." My last choice would be to merge the trivia from this article into Unification Church of the United States. If every news mention of every member were added there it would overwhelm the article. I hope that makes my position clear. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, we have nobody advocating "merge the trivia" (two explicit 'eliminate the trivia' merge opinions, one not explicitly advocating elimination, but still calling it "trivia"). Personally, I was thinking of using the first paragraph from the article -- which is fairly similar to your "held several leadership positions…". Would you object to, or support, a merger on that basis? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better to nominate for deletion another time. If so I would vote to delete. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unreliable sources I would like to remove

I have attempted to remove some links that I believe fail WP:RS but they have been reverted back in by Jclemens. Here are the links I would like to remove, if nobody has serious objection then I shall attempt to remove them again as they fail basic policies for reliable sources.

1. Casey, Rick (2008-05-24). "Commentary: Did Bush sip Moon's 'holy wine'?". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved 2008-12-28. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) - This is a dead link, the page does not exist, it should be removed as a reference.
2. Walsh, 2002, page 147 - This is a meaningless footnote that has been marked with {{specify}} for some time already. It should be removed.

There are 3 sites that require registration (marked as Registration required) and should be removed as nobody has found alternative sources.—Ash (talk) 07:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please become more familiar with our sourcing policy before presuming to remove links, especially when you are advocating a merge; most of the objections have been answered below.

The Walsh reference is probably to one of the Thomas G. Walsh books published by Paragon: not an independent RS, but certainly allowable in a BLP for non-controversial matters. I'm inclined to figure out which particular book it was, and repair it. Jclemens (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I found and fixed the Walsh reference, which had been dropped out in the history, and apparently no one had gone looking for it before now. It was there last December, a second footnote to that source was added without using <ref name=> syntax, someone deleted the main reference, and then someone tagged the orphan'ed second reference. Pretty straightforward, actually. Just needed a bit of research within the article history itself. Jclemens (talk) 08:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Did Bush sip Moon's Holy wine article is gossip

I would like to point out that the Casey article story is about gossip. Leaving the reference without a source to view the original story is not appropriate for BLP unless quotes are added to give this source context. I have added a quote to the reference from the original document. Perhaps after reading the contested gossip this contains, someone would like to remove the reference as required by BLP.

Presumably there is no objection to removing the dead or registration only links from the references. —Ash (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I object, and you have stated no policy basis for removal. If you remove the citation or its undelying material, especially in light of your expansion of the simple fact into a detailed quote, you have unclean hands. Jclemens (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am unclear what you are objecting to. My statement above was presuming that removing a dead url (not the citation) was okay. The statement before that was that if this citation is considered gossip in breach of BLP then the BLP guidance actually tells us to remove such material immediately (I don't understand why you would not consider that a policy basis for removal). Now are you objecting to anyone removing redundant dead urls, or are you going to positively explain why the Casey article is not actually gossip and is in compliance with BLP rather than just objecting without explaining why? BTW I also don't understand what you mean by "unclean hands" was that just a jibe or did you not understand that I might have tried to be helpful by including an expanded quote to demonstrate the nature of what I think is gossip not fact?—Ash (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to read and understand how to deal with dead links. Removal is not a preferred way of dealing with them. Please read WP:DEADLINK and WP:DEADREF (part of WP:CITE). The unclean hands assertion revolves around the obvious questions regarding your both attempting to remove sourced content and merge the article. Are you asserting that those two actions, though virtually simultaneous and without prior precedent of your interactions in this article, are unrelated? Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Love Healer: How Bishop Met His Wife article is gossip

This article is hearsay and fails BLP. The only involvement of Jenkins is tangential in the story and it fails to provide anything of relevance to this BLP. Hearsay elements involve a "premonition" of marriage with further claims and counter-claims. The quote from Jenkins does not state that he is representing the Church when making a statement for the newspaper article and the quoted marriage is itself contested for any official status in the article. Consequently it does not demonstrate the sentence in the article it is a footnote for.

Again, leaving these links as "registration required" with no context is actually misleading for this BLP as the majority of readers will be unable to verify the information these sources contain.—Ash (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Same objection. This time, you're wikilawyering--what, exactly, is controversial about what is cited to this source? Jclemens (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If honestly believe this is Wikilawyering, please follow WP:DR rather than making the accusation casually.

I'm going to take a break; I suggest you actually read the source material, compare it to the statements of fact in the article and if you are then going to stubbornly defend every single poor quality source for this BLP then perhaps we should raise an RFC to reach consensus where other views rather than just ours can be heard.—Ash (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to quote BLP for you: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." There is neither any good faith assertion--with the exception of your above insertion regarding Bush--that any of these quotes is controversial, not any good faith assertion that any of the material is poorly sourced. BLP simply does not apply. Rather, WP:BURDEN has been met, and you may feel free to propose wording changes--or even make them boldly in the document--which improve the wording of the sentences attributed to the cited sources.

Further, I fully expect that if User:Hrafn, who is a stickler for sourcing and has argued against the preservation of this and similar articles in the past, found any defect in the references as used, he would already have entered the discussion to oppose such usage. Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, does this mean you are no longer accusing me of Wikilawyering and you do not intend to use any WP:DR process? I am taking this page off my watchlist for a while, I find your hectoring a bit too much to deal with. If you do pursue a complaint against me, please ask a third party to contact me.—Ash (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for a dispute resolution process. If you continue to behave in a disruptive manner, I will provide the evidence to one or more other administrators, who will likely block you and/or topic ban you for the disruption. Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"The Reliable Source" is an irrelevant opinion piece

This article by Lloyd Grove in the Washington Post is an opinion piece, not only unsuitable for a BLP but so tangential than it does not actually support the sentence it is quoted against. It does not call Jenkins "president" but instead when using the single line quote from him (in a 900+ word article) refers to him vaguely as "top church official". Again leaving these links as "registration required" is misleading for a BLP as the majority of readers will not be able to verify any claims made. This reference does not meet the BLP requirements and should be removed.—Ash (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Same objection. Not a BLP statement in that it's uncontroversial. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Walsh: The Hope of All Ages, A Unified World of Peace fails WP:SELFPUB

This document is subtitled "A Tribute to the Reverend and Mrs. Sun Myung Moon". It is an self-serving opinion piece with no direct contribution by Jenkins. The only mention of Jenkins is in an essay "Never Judge a Book by Its Cover" by Stallings. Consequently this document does not actually act as a source for the text it is quoted against, fails to meet BLP and SELFPUB (point 1), and as Jenkins is not actually a contributor it is not valid with the BLP rationale that he can be an expert on himself (and consequently it fails SPS).

This source fails to meet BLP and should be removed. Thanks to Jclemens for tracking it down but this demonstrates the point that without the ability for verification, sources are being used here in a misleading manner.—Ash (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's published by Paragon, which is a de facto vanity publishing house for the Unification church, which serves as an expert for purposes of Jenkins' role within the church. How, pray tell, is calling Jenkins a church leader self-serving? Really. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Tribute: Rev. Moon and the Black Clergy does not properly verify the text

This source states Jenkins was in Chicago for 17 years "helping lead Moon's movement" but does not specify his position at that time. It states he became the "U.S. head" of the Church and is "now the face of the church in the U.S." The text is using this source to verify his specific role as "president" and that he "pastored the Chicago Family Church of Peace for seventeen years". As the source is vague about the positions that Jenkins held at these times, not surprising as references to Jenkins are again tangential, it does not meet the requirements of BLP for this biographical data and should be removed.

Again as the source is restricted, this reference has remained unchallenged and unverified.—Ash (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read the above discussion where Hrafn challenged the same thing. The text in question is in a sidebar not replicated in every online database. And again, same objection. Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe I have access to the text you are referring to. Could you please add a copy of the relevant part here?—Ash (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Your unwillingness or inability to search is not my problem. It's the first section on this page at the moment. Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits removed.

1. Re: the Houston Chronicle link, per WP:DEADLINK "Dead links of online newspaper articles can be converted to references to off-line sources. Do not simply remove dead links; they often contain valuable information." c.f. Wikipedia:REF#Repairing_dead_links.
2. The ProQuest citations are as verifiable as any offline citations, and do not, in fact, need to be tagged as registration required. Each citation would stand alone fine as an offline citation, in that it consists of enough material to go find that document in any library with that publication in its holdings. Nothing in WP:Citing sources deprecates such usage.

I've reverted the offending edits. Jclemens (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for being offending.—Ash (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The edits were offending, in that they made re-sourcing that statement harder without good cause. The point of cleanup is not to throw away good info, even if the web has changed. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that archive.org has the Chronicle page, so it, too, may need to be converted to Proquest or some other paid database. Jclemens (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Should this article include links to "pay for" or Athens/restricted sites?

I note that the sources that include links to Proquest are not just "registration required" but are restricted to specific educational institutions or others with Athens accounts. This means that they are not available for just anyone to register, but have a firm restriction on availability. The alternative sites from newspaper publishers which happen to have archives require payment to access articles. My prior understanding of "registration required" is that it would be in the form of a free registration for access. Is there a common view here, or a firm guideline in WP somewhere, on the appropriateness of such links?

I do not feel that marking these links as "registration required" is fair on the majority of readers and does not meet the intent of the reliable sources guidance that uses the term. Such links tacitly create two levels of Wikipedia access; "layman" and "academic or wealthy". Note, I have raised this for wider discussion on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard‎#Michael Jenkins (religious leader).—Ash (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion back from BLP/N was that "You could also certainly ask the editor who added the citation to quote the relevant passages from the original article on the talkpage." This seems a fairly uncontentious way of verifying the sources. At least this way, concerned editors can ask for relevant quotes to reach consensus. Obviously if nobody can get quotes within a reasonable period of time, then the source can be said to be currently unverifiable and would be removed from the main article (possibly to be "parked" on the talk page until someone can verify it).—Ash (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That is an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT response. Pay sites are perfectly fine for all purposes, BLP included. If you'd like to acquire access to them and contest the wording, be my guest. Failing that, there's nothing remotely controversial about what's been said about Jenkins or anyone else in this article, which has remained essentially unchanged with regard to such claims since its AfD.

Were there 2 AfD's?

I seem to remember commenting on an AfD nomination for this article. Has it been nominated twice? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)