Talk:Josette Sheeran/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early comments

I've heard rumors (within my church, the Unification Church), that Josette Shiner is (or was) a member. Unfortunately for encyclopedia writing, the only corroboration I've found for that online is a website dedicated to smearing both the Bush administration and the Unification Church - using the age-old "tar them with the same brush" tactic. I don't consider arch-deprogrammer Rich Ross or conspiracy theorists lik David Icke to be reliable source. But they are verifiable, so let's go ahead and use them:

• Sheeran was once the managing editor of the Moon-controlled Washington Times before she left that newspaper and experienced something like a religious epiphany. Suddenly in 1996 Sheeran went from two decades of devotion to the self-proclaimed “messiah” and membership in his controversial Unification Church, to an Episcopalian. (Rick Ross)
• Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and UN ambassador John Bolton are attempting to have former Washington Times editor Josette Sheeran Shiner become the next Executive Director of the World Food Program. Sheeran Shiner is a member of Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. (David Icke)

Does this sound good? --Uncle Ed 21:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides the Moonie controversy, this page reads like an official bio put out by the State Department and is hardly neutral in tone.

LOL, I copied it from a public-domain State Department site. It *is* an official bio! So, help me rewrite it neutrally.

And is there any more info on sources who assert or deny Shiner's old ties to the Unification Church? (I guess I could look her up in the database, or just call her on the telephone, but I was hoping for something a bit more encyclopedic.) --Uncle Ed 20:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• She joined Moon's Unification Church in the 1970s, but has said she later became an Episcopalian. [1]

Smeelgova's campaign

Smeelgova, perhaps in the future you will consider reverting only the specific edits with which you disagree, rather than a sweeping reversion of ALL someone's edits followed by an attempt (which is not always easy to get exactly right) to put back in the edits you don't have a problem with. I believe the latter method is inherently problematic and impolite, except in the case of reverting an outrageous body of edits. -Exucmember 20:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Perhaps in the future you will assume good faith and not leave such rude comments in the edit history? Thanks. Smeelgova 20:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC).

I don't think exuc meant anything bad by his comments. Perhaps it's just a terse writing style? He and I have had several editorial exchanges, and I think we're beginning to enjoy a good working relationship.

Smeel, I value your contributions to UC-related articles. Let's all try to work together here.

By the way, I'm wondering why it's so important to our readers that Shiner was (or was not or still is?) a "member of the Unification Church". Is there a stigma attached to UC membership? Or is it a badge of honor?

I see her as a "mother feeding the world", and I credit the UC as producing (or raising up) someone whom the world can trust to "feed the hungry, heal the sick".

• "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
• "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' (Matthew 25:37-40) --Uncle Ed 15:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Smeelgova, are you most interested in accuracy, or in promoting a POV agenda? I said "I think" Sheeran decided she didn't consider herself a Unificationist before 1997, so I thought it better to leave it as the more vague "1990s." Don't you think it's more reasonable that someone decides to leave the group, then afterward looks for opportunities to disengage with an affiliated employer? Your adding two articles with different titles from the same online "newspaper" that somehow have the same copy, conveying an outrageous conspiracy theory supported only by a single unnamed source is not helpful. A personal attack on a living person from an unnamed source is not acceptable.

Also, you have misrepresented what I did. You mass deleted all my edits, then were unsuccessful in putting back the ones you considered acceptable. When I commented in the edit summary "restoring improved 'Note' and 'References' sections that were rudely deleted" - not naming you by name - I was simply stating a fact, not assuming bad faith. If I stop to chat with a friend I meet on the sidewalk, and you slam into me from the side or behind because you were walking backward down the sidewalk, would you chide me for assuming bad faith if I referred to the incident later as "some guy rudely walking backward down the sidewalk"? You didn't intend to slam into me. Usually when an editor mistakenly deletes someone's edit that both agree were constructive and helpful, the editor simply apologizes. Instead you gave me an irrelevant and patronizing lecture about assuming good faith. You claimed that identifying an action as rude is itself "very rude." (Apparently, you don't think your calling my action "very rude" is itself rude, however.) Instead of writing what I have just written, I let it go. Later, when you deleted a key piece of information that happens to refute one of the more ridiculous POV arguments you seem to be trying make, I generously commented "restoring crucial fact that was accidentally deleted from the article", assuming that it was an accident.

Why are you so bent on connecting this person to a church she left 10 years ago? Like Sheeran, I also joined the Unification Church at a young age in the mid-70s, was a member for a couple decades (though marginal in the later years), and left about 10 years ago. I realized I had made a mistake. I was young. I was surrounded by supporters. Until the later years all my friends were members. In the later years I found out a number of things about the church and the leadership that were hidden from the members. Criticism and calls for reform within the church are discouraged as "negativity," for cultural reasons and because there is a besieged mentality. Add to that the fact that outsiders who are detractors almost always exaggerate and often engage in blatant falsehoods, it only encourages members to feel persecuted and to deflect criticism. Once I discovered some important facts about what really went on at the highest levels within the church, and probably could not reform sufficiently to become of net positive benefit for the world, I made the courageous decision to change my life and rebuild it. Most members who have joined the Unification Church have done the same (according to a statement by Tyler Hendricks when he was president of the U.S. church, that number is close to 90%). Some of us have become highly educated or accomplished in professional careers. If I become more well-known in my career, should I expect that people like you are going to come after me for a mistake I made over 30 years ago as a teenager? -Exucmember 21:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Inner City Press

• I will ignore your personal attacks and tirade above. It is not constructive. And clearly through your long vitriol we can see that it is you who has a "POV agenda". However, we ALL have our own POV agendas when we do anything in life. As to the reputability of Inner City Press, from their article page: In mid-2006, investigative journalism at the UN by Inner City Press uncovered and led to the United Nations Development Programme halting its disarmament programs in the Karamoja region of Uganda in response to human rights abuses exposed in the parallel forcible disarmament programs carried out by the Uganda People's Defense Force. See also the Ugandan newspaper The New Vision. I would think that an investigative journalism piece that has this affect on an official program of the United Nations certainly is a reputable source! Smeelgova 22:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC).

Yes we all have POV. I thought by putting my cards on the table and letting you understand my perspective that we might come to some agreement. I have tried to let you understand my point of view. I would have appreciated if you had done something similar, because at present your POV seems utterly strange to me (I mean this sincerely; it is not a criticism or attack), and your agenda is still hidden. In return for my honesty and openness, you ignored the substance of what I said (I would still like to know why you're doing this), and wildly mischaracterized my comments. There is not an ounce of "vitriol" in anything I said, there was no "tirade," and I did not make any personal attack on you. Perhaps you were embarrased that I pointed out the logical contradiction inherent in your telling me that calling your action "rude" (though I did not name you) was called "very rude" by you, but calling me "very rude" is apparently not rude.

A libelous, crackpot conspiracy theory that doesn't even identify its source is yellow journalism whether it is passed on by Inner City Press or by the New York Times. It is not acceptable here. -Exucmember 04:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel that way. However, if something is reported in investigative journalism, sources are NOT always revealed, as mentioned below. And "libelous, crackpot conspiracy theory" is CERTAINLY only your own POV, and your own opinions and judgements. I have moved the material that offends you into the footnotes section. Hopefully this is an acceptable compromise. Smeelgova 05:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

All journalists use "unnamed sources"

• It is very common for journalists to use unnamed sources. Both The Washington Post and Associated Press articles used unnamed sources. This does not make the article any more or less reputable. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein used an unnamed source to take down Richard Nixon. Smeelgova 00:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

Discussion on two pages

I moved this discussion here from Exucmember's Talk page, as the discussion about this page was split between here and there:

"Rudely Deleted" I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith, and not make these sorts of nasty comments in the edit history. I did not "rudely delete" anything, these edits were my first foray into this article. If you feel a certain way, we can talk it out on the article's talk page. But to make comments like that in your edit history for all to see - that's not nice, and doesn't foster a good working relationship. Smeelgova 20:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC).

Perhaps in the future you will consider reverting only the specific edits with which you disagree, rather than a sweeping reversion of ALL someone's edits followed by an attempt (which is not always easy to get exactly right) to put back in the edits you don't have a problem with. I believe the latter method is inherently problematic and impolite, except in the case of reverting an outrageous body of edits. -Exucmember 20:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Perhaps in the future you will assume good faith and not leave such rude comments in the edit history? Thanks. Smeelgova 20:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC).

You have misrepresented what I did. You mass deleted all my edits, then were unsuccessful in putting back the ones you considered acceptable. When I commented in the edit summary "restoring improved 'Note' and 'References' sections that were rudely deleted" - not naming you by name - I was simply stating a fact, not assuming bad faith. Usually when an editor mistakenly deletes someone's edit that both agree was constructive and helpful, the editor simply apologizes. Instead you gave me an irrelevant and patronizing lecture about assuming good faith. You claimed that identifying an action as rude is itself "very rude." (Apparently, you don't think your calling my action "very rude" is itself rude, however.) Instead of writing what I have just written, I let it go. Later, when you deleted a key piece of information that happens to refute one of the more ridiculous POV arguments you seem to be trying make, I generously commented "restoring crucial fact that was accidentally deleted from the article", assuming that it was an accident. -Exucmember

Notices of WP:AN/3RR Josette Sheeran Shiner I am filling a WP:AN/3RR about this page Josette Sheeran Shiner. If you have any further questions or statements please DO NOT leave them on my talk page. Please place them here on the Talk:Josette Sheeran Shiner page. Smeelgova 06:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

3RR does not apply; see immediately below. It seems dishonest for you to loudly instruct me not to leave items on your Talk page, since I have never done so. Can you explain this? -Exucmember 07:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am just reiterating that in this situation, due to the uncivil manner in which you have acted towards me and the personal attacks, that this would not be appropriate, my apologies. Smeelgova 07:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

• You have been much more uncivil, and I responded to your incivility with tolerance for several exchanges. Even so, I have not engaged in a single personal attack, and, again, it seems (from my point of view) dishonest of you to repeatedly say I have done so. -Exucmember 07:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well then, we seem to be at a miscommunication impasse on who has been uncivil to whom. Suffice it to say that we each feel we have been uncivil to each other. For these reasons, I do not feel that it would be productive for you to comment on my talk page. Thanks. Smeelgova 07:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

Policy on biographies of living persons

"Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." See header above. -Exucmember 06:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Your personal interpretation of poorly sourced is wrong. See discussion above. Thanks. Smeelgova 06:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

"See discussion above"?!? You'll have to do better than that. Read the policy in the header. There is no question that the libelous accusation is poorly sourced. -Exucmember 06:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

1. The Washington Post, Associated Press, and The Guardian, among other investigative journalism media sources, all commonly use anonymous sources as references in articles.
2. Inner City Press is a reputable publication. There investigative journalism exposed a scandal at the United Nations that actually forced policy changes:

   In mid-2006, investigative journalism at the UN by Inner City Press uncovered and led to the United Nations Development Programme halting its disarmament programs in the Karamoja region of Uganda in response to human rights abuses exposed in the parallel forcible disarmament programs carried out by the Uganda People's Defense Force. See also the Ugandan newspaper The New Vision.

3. The information in question is not libelous:

   As Inner City Press reported on September 29, open-source research reflects that Josette Sheeran (Shiner) was an active member of Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church from 1975 through at least 1996. After that date, it is reported that she went "into the world," including into William Bennett's Empower America organization and then the U.S. State Department, in order to spread the Unification Church's message and position. Beyond controversial views on abstinence, mass-marriage and other matters, including the UN, these include business ties with and praise of North Korea.

   The information is in fact, factual, and backed up by sources, as well as "open-source research" as stated in the article. And as seen by their excellent work in uncovering other scandals above, this is NOT a media source that would tread lightly in this situation.
4. There have been NO legal threats or accusations made to the media source regarding this information.
5. Please do not respond in-between my comments above, but respond below instead. Thanks. Smeelgova 06:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

Points 1 & 2 are irrelevant, as the material is undeniably poorly sourced. Points 3 & 4 are irrelevant, because the policy states that "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately" (emphasis in original) and then goes on to add "especially if potentially libelous." [1] It is potentially libelous. [2] Even if it weren't, the material would have to be removed immediately under Wikipedia policy. -Exucmember 07:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• The material is not poorly sourced, for it itself comes from a reputable secondary source. Smeelgova 07:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC).
• The material is not libelous, for it is factually accurate. Smeelgova 07:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC).
• I request that you stop leaving such incredibly long edit summaries. Talking here on the discussion page will suffice instead. I will do so as well. Smeelgova 07:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

What is the secondary source? I thought it was "It is reported"? -Exucmember 07:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Inner City Press itself is the secondary source, as a reputable form of investigative journalism. Smeelgova 07:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

Then what is the primary source? -Exucmember 07:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You would have to ask the people at Inner City Press. However, I am repeating myself here, reputable media secondary sources such as those cited above often do not make a habit of citing their sources in articles. This in no way affects their reputability, however, as the reader places trust in the prior reputation and history of the organization, i.e. the investigative journalism skills of Inner City Press, with the United Nations scandal. Smeelgova 07:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

There is a limit on the length of edit summaries, and "incredibly long" is not allowed. My personal preference is for a more complete edit summary, and a pet peeve of mine is no edit summary, but I am happy to oblige in an attempt to move toward less conflict and greater agreement. -Exucmember 07:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for making an attempt at being more civil. This is appreciated. Smeelgova 07:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

I do not appreciate your repeated pattern of responding to my offers of olive branches by inaccurately implying that I have been uncivil and other jabs, attacks, and grossly misleading characterizations. Why don't you return kindness for kindness for once? -Exucmember 06:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is Shiner's religious affiliation publicly noteworthy, not private?

Why are we even mentioning Shiner's religious affiliation? Is it merely to "out" her? Or have public questions been raised about loyalty or competence by advocates for or against her appointment? Or has the church used her appointment for a PR boost?

We don't usually dig into the religion (or sexuality) of public figures, unless it has become a public issue (like a female singer whose virginity or lack of it is a major theme of her hit songs). --Uncle Ed 15:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I would say the fact that this issue has been reported on in The Washington Post, Inner City Press, Associated Press, The Guardian, and The Nation makes it notable. Not to mention the fact that the George W. Bush Administration pressured The Washington Post not to mention this in their article (they did anyway), that part is notable and a kind of creepy attempted influence by government on the press as well. Smeelgova 15:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC).

Sorry, my question was unclear. You answered the question, "How do we know this is a big issue?" What I really want to know is, "Why is it a big issue for people?" In other words, what does it matter to them what religion she is or was? --Uncle Ed 17:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not "people" so I don't know why it is a big issue for people. But as evidence by the at least five media stories above, it is. Smeelgova 19:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC).

All of the information about Shiner's religious affiliation mentioned in the article was added by User:Smeelgova. I believe the main purpose is, as you said, to "out" her. Except in this case the "outing" is for an affiliation 10-30 years ago. (And it's also to criticize the Bush Administration by repeating the Washington Post's version of being asked - did they say "pressured"? - not to include a long past religious affiliation). If you look at Smeelgova's contributions for just the last few days, you'll see how one-sided they are, how they are almost all on anti-cult topics, and that he spends a great deal of time (evidence of devotion to his - what should we call it? - "crusade"?). -Exucmember 07:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I request that you stop addressing my personal actions on this talk page. I do not appreciate these personal attacks. Whatever my edit history is, it is not relevant to this particular article. The facts remain above, that major news sources have reported this within the past weeks. I am not trying to "out" anyone, how could I, when this information has already been written about in major news sources? I am simply trying to cite sources with references citations. And, by the way, everyone comes here with a POV and an agenda, and one could draw similar conclusions by looking at User:Exucmember's contribution history. Unlike him, however, I will not post a link to it here. For I feel that is not kind and downright rude, as it has zero bearing on this particular discussion, except for completely changing the topic of it. Smeelgova 19:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC).

Contributors and contributions

I would like 90% of the comments on this page to be about Josette Shiner. Please take your personal problems elsewhere. If you need my assistance as a Mediator (or since I'm kind of "involved" with the article already, you'd prefer another member of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee to help you), you know what page to go to. ^_^ --Uncle Ed 18:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that comment. As long as User:Exucmember can stay away from personal attacks, and actually addressing any types of personal issues regarding other users as opposed to content of the article, I think we'll be fine. Thanks. Smeelgova 22:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC).

My comment was not intended as a personal attack; it was a statement about the parts of the article added by Smeelgova. Summary: Those parts reflect a highly biased one-sidedness, part of an apparently consistent anti-cult crusade. I disapprove of the highly biased nature of the edits. -Exucmember 07:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And I disapprove of your assumption of any reasoning behind my edits. I could look at your very narrow edit history and make similar assumptions, but I will not. Let us both agree that your comments about assumptions as to the motivations behind anyone's edits are inappropriate, non-constructive, and do not abide by User:Ed Poor's request of I would like 90% of the comments on this page to be about Josette Shiner. Please take your personal problems elsewhere. Thanks. Smeelgova 07:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

Date Shiner left church: 1994

I contacted a Unification Church member who knew Shiner, who turned out to be one of Shiner's best friends in the mid-90s. When Shiner left the Unification Church, she gave all her church-related things to this friend, including items that Unificationists would consider personal and valuable. Without my even asking anything about when she left the church, this person volunteered the information that Shiner left the Unification Church in 1994. Just because Shiner has not been publicly hostile to the Unification Church is no reason to give creedence to bizarre conspiracy theories. Unlike some people, she may have felt that she had better things to do than to become a zealot for the other side and go on a crusade against her former church. -Exucmember 18:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's policy on original research, Wikipedia:No original research. Thanks. Smeelgova 00:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

Though academics cite "personal coversations" all the time, I wasn't proposing that the fact I discovered be added to the article, (though if I were to cite the source, the addition should be allowed according to the appropriate section of policy on original research.

Instead my motive was to provide you with the information that the date you have is wrong. Shiner cut all ties with the Unification Church in 1997 when she left the Washington Times, but she left the church earlier. -Exucmember 04:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well then, thank you for informing me, though it does go against most published secondary sources. Smeelgova 08:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC).

As I said, most articles say that she "cut all ties" with the Unification Church in 1997 when she left the Washington Times. That is not the same as the date she left the Unification Church, which you have erroneously placed in the article as 1997, reverting my "1990s" edit. The Inner City Press article that you so arduously defended has incorrect (and even contradictory!) information in it concerning these dates, which it admits are based on "open source" information. The fact that Inner City Press cannot even present this poor quality information in a way that is not self-contradictory leads one to suspect that other information in the article is incorrect also. -Exucmember 18:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Phrases like "cut all ties" and "no association" don't ring true. For example, Shiner had addressed Mrs. Moon's Women's Federation for World Peace because of her employment at Washington Times. It seems she didn't turn her back on her (former) church but maintained cordial relations.

Two extremes thus can probably be ruled out:

• that she's still a full-fledged member - impossible, because she said she's an Episcopalian, not a Unificationist
• that she utterly repudiates her connection with Unificationism - unlikely, as she's addressed the church's women's group.

Perhaps it would be intereresting to find a church statement on how "close" they regard Shiner these days. We could then contrast that with statements from any church opponents who are still trying to (a) tie her ("Moonie appointed to top UN post") or (b) distance her ("she escaped, thank god"). --Uncle Ed 19:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously irrelevant information

Im no fan of the republican party either Smeelgova but that doesn't mean you have to be vigilant in putting completely irrelevant information on this page just to make it look bad. I see you have given absolutely no help at editing any other part of the page or looking into anything good that Josette Shiner has done. You are completely focused on the one thing that is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with her political appointment by the UN to lead the WFP. I am surprised by your ludicrous and extremely unscrupulous behavior on this board. If you don't like her then look for something relevant to put on the site, not something completely and utterly irrelevant. [unsigned comment by MrHistory84, 16:54, 1 December 2006]

It's not obvious to me that Shiner's church affiliation is irrelevant to the article. Forty years ago, the first Roman Catholic was elected president; his religion was a factor in the campaign. Thus, his religion mattered to U.S. voters.

Some people may care about Shiner's religion and/or previous religion, as she will control a multi-billion dollar UN budget. Rather than deleting the section, how about (a) summarizing it or (b) explaining WHY various partisans consider her religion (1) an obstacle to her doing a good job, (2) an asset that will help her do a good job, or (3) none of anyone's business.

We can't simply sweep controversies under the rug. Someone will trip on the lump! ;-) --Uncle Ed 22:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not appreciate these personal attacks. I have backed up my information with citations from numerous very highly reputable and widely published sources, as mentioned above and outlined in the article's references section. If it is good enough for The Washington Post, The Guardian, Inner City Press, The Nation, the International Herald Tribune, and the Associated Press, it should be good enough for Wikipedia. Thanks. Smeelgova 07:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC).

Has anyone asked her why she prefers the Episcopal Church to the Unification Church? Steve Dufour 01:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A could question. We should try to find this in sourced material at some point. Smeelgova 05:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree with MrHistory84.

1. A long discussion of former religious affiliation is obviously irrelevant. When Kennedy was elected there were fears that his loyalty to the pope would compromise his ability to act in the national interest. Most people today would agree those fears were based on religious bigotry. The same kind of religious bigotry might today question Shiner's "split" loyalties - if she were a Unificationist. Even accepting that an interest based on bigotry is legitimate for an encyclopedia, what is the basis for a long discussion of a former religious affiliation? I'm afraid the analogy to Kennedy doesn't hold.

2. I agree with Ed in pointing out that no reason is given for why Shiner's former religion is relevant, in spite of the fact that the discussion of it is hugely long, out of all proportion to it's importance (which I believe is none at all, but I am willing to compromise on this point).

3. The poor quality Inner City Press article gives contradictory dates. Other articles use a date based on an obvious misinterpretation of the facts. I changed the 1997 date to 1990s, but it was immediately reverted. I subsequently found out that the 1997 date is definitely wrong. The correct date is 1994 (see above), but we don't have a published source, and I don't want to cite "personal communication." Why has there been no discussion of the date problem, or my proposed solution which was deleted ("1990s")? Better yet, let's use "mid-1990s."

-Exucmember 16:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I find the information about the past unification church affiliation to be completely irrelevant as well. As we can see from the narrow minded history of the user Smeelgova, the user only edits articles about conspiracy and cults. These comments about Shiner's religious affiliations are a huge disgrace to the integrity of wikipedia. Oxford1982 22:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So far 3 people have voiced the opinion that any mention of a former religious affiliation is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. In spite of this, about 1/4 of the text of the whole article (some in footnotes) is devoted to this irrelevant topic (and, as has been pointed out, all of it added by one person with an obvious agenda). Ed also questioned the relevance, and proposed a comprimise: "Rather than deleting the section, how about (a) summarizing it...." Nevertheless, no summarizing has been done yet. Ed, maybe you should be the one to do it. -Exucmember 19:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, please note all of the widely circulated, reputable sources above that have made this an issue. Smeelgova 19:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Not every topic mentioned in a half-dozen newspaper articles is significant. And not every "issue" is appropriate to put in an encyclopedia article. -Exucmember 20:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

But it was notable enough for all of the publications listed above to mention, some at length - and the fact that the George W. Bush Administration pressured The Washington Post specifically about that issue - that makes it even more notable. Smeelgova 22:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Smeelgova wikipedia is not a place to spread your radical insane ridiculous conspiracy theories. It is obvious to see your narrow view, as seen in your sad gigantic amount of edits each day all on the same topic of conspiracies and cults. Please either summarize the information or take it off completely. How in any way are you being unbiased? You have not added one bit of information on anything else other than crazy conspiracy/cult related things. Oxford1982 22:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. I will not take well to any of your suggestions if you continue this tirade of personal attacks. If you have some particular specific point about content, then we can discuss that - provided you improve your politeness. Smeelgova 07:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Smeelgova you have shown 0 tolerance to changing your narrow view. The problem is personally you. You have a completely tabloid crazy extreme radical narrow view, there is no denying that. How can I discuss with someone who is obviously off their rocker. 69.255.8.51 15:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I have no idea who this is. Second of all, I will not engage in discussion nor cooperate in any respect for an individual who is so intent on perpetrating ad hominem violations of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. Smeelgova 10:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

New York "News World"

Hello. I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia. I made a small change in the section on the journalistic experience of Josette Sheeran Shiner because in talking about her first experience with the daily The News World in New York it said the [New York News] World, and the link in -New York News- referred to a page that has nothing to do with that paper. I changed it to New York [News World], for which no page exists as yet. I knew Mrs. Sheeran Shiner personally at that time and she was in fact my first direct superior in the National Department (editorial) of The News World during November-December 1976 as we were preparing for publication of the very first issue of the paper on the last day of that year. I later switched to the International Department. I still have a few copies of the paper from 1977 and also 1979. In June 1979 I worked again directly with Mrs. Sheeran Shiner (she was then still Miss Sheeran) in Washington D.C., where she was our bureau chief. The News World was published by Newsworld Communications, Inc., with editorial offices in the New Yorker Hotel - owned by the Unification Church - and from about mid-1977 out of the "Tiffany Building" at 401 Fifth Avenue, NY, NY 10016, which was also bought and restored by members of the church. I worked there off and on until mid-1982, when the paper was still called The News World. The first, simple mockups of the future Washington Times were put together under the leadership of Mrs. Josette Sheeran Shiner herself in The News World's editorial offices. In my opinion The Washington Times could really be considered her baby, because she laid much of the groundwork for the paper on the editorial side, even though her name was not listed as prominently as those of others (her name was also never on the masthead of The News World, even though she always played a crucial role). The parent company of The Washington Times is, of course, still Newsworld Communications, Inc., but The News World itself, whose name was chosen by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, is long forgotten. If I remember correctly the paper's name was changed to The New York Tribune in 1983 for a short time, and then it became The New York City Tribune until it folded around 1993. hillwalker 22:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Steve Dufour 14:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's merge this information into News World or New York Tribune. --Uncle Ed 14:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Restoring my deleted comment

Perhaps you'd like to chop out large parts of the massive attention given in the article to a trivial subject: Shiner's former religious affiliation. Ed seems not to have responded so far to my request that he undertake the summarizing of that material (which he proposed). -Exucmember 05:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and did this. I hope the result is ok. Steve Dufour 14:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Steve: thanks for doing my work! Ex: sorry, I become very busy in mid-December, as I was given a new position at work. --Uncle Ed 14:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you will do a great job there. Steve Dufour 14:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Religions affiliations

• There is no "controversy" over this. Please cite secondary sources that utilize the word "controversy", and we can discuss your perceived need to change the subsection headings. Smee 16:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
  • I dimly remember some Unifiation Church opponents (maybe Rick Ross?) trying to stir up some controversy, but I think their attempt fizzled. The opponents were insinuating that the UN shouldn't give such a high position to someone from "that awful cult". You can google it, if you think it's worth mentioning. --Uncle Ed 14:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If there was not controversy I will remove the whole section. Steve Dufour 14:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Again, this information has been reported in: The Washington Post, The Guardian, Inner City Press, The Nation, the International Herald Tribune, and the Associated Press, it is relevant, highly cited and noteworthy. Smee 16:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Some people want to not mention her religion at all, which would be the normal thing to do. Some want to go into great detail giving lots of quotes. I think a good compromise would be to just mention it and give some links if people want to read more. Steve Dufour 18:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This information is clearly of interest, as it has been mentioned in many different publications. The incident where the George W. Bush Administration pressured The Washington Post not to discuss her ties to the Unification Church is certainly most odd and notable. Smee 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Please discuss here individually what specific material you have issues with. Smee 19:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

I went ahead and made this change. If you want to say something about Bush pressuring the Post you could add that too. Steve Dufour 18:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have. I believe I have edited the section in-line with your original intended compromise. The information is now not provided about all of the publications in the section itself, but rather in the footnotes, if the reader really wants to dig into it. Smee 18:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Good work. It is much better now. Steve Dufour 18:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Great! I am glad we have finally been able to come to a consensus on this. Smee 18:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

The article is still quite bloated on the minor topic of a past religious affiliation, which several people recommended be deleted entirely, and one suggested summarizing. I have removed the redundant links, one single expansion, and changed an exaggerated and misleading word to the actual word used. -Exucmember 19:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The links are a useful resource. I have changed the subject headings in the EL section so as not to appear in the TOC. Smee 19:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

User:Smeelgova, why are you insisting on using the exaggerated and misleading word "pressured" when the word used in the report was "pressed"? -Exucmember 19:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have taken your recommendation and changed the word accordingly to "pressed". Smee 19:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

A problem with exact quotations

The article says: Shiner's former membership in the Unification Church was raised in an Associated Press interview, where she explained that she had "no association with the Unification Church since I left the Washington Times in 1997." I'm sure that she did say those words, since the AP does a good job on that kind of thing. However it doesn't really seem to be 100% literally true since someone mentioned that she has attended some church related functions since then. I guess it depends on what you mean by "association". Steve Dufour 20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

someone mentioned that she has attended some church related functions since then - do you have a source for this? Smee 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm guessing no association means that she's not a member any more, i.e., "not associated with". That doesn't mean she's been disfellowshipped or that she's decided to drop or shun her old friends, I guess. Same story for Richard Cohen and for a friend of mine who's in the music business (but doesn't want his name mentioned in "blogs"!).

Should we dig up her e-mail address and just ask her? :-) --Uncle Ed 20:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It was mentioned earlier on this page. I guess you could dig up the achives. My other point was that sometimes it is unfair to take one sentence out of the thousands a person says or writes in a lifetime and print that as if it is the final word; not that I haven't done that kind of thing too sometimes. Steve Dufour 03:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Details, ties, bias, and resumes

I changed the wording a little since none of the news stories really went into any detail. I also changed the word "ties" to the more neutral "relationship". Earlier I took off the tags which said the article was biased and resume-like without explaining here. The thing is Josette in the eyes of the world is really a "15 minutes of fame" person, unless she does something remarkable in her new job. So there has really been no public discussion of her except for the mini-controversy about her UC membership. That means the only information about her is resume type stuff. On the other hand we Unificationists appreciate her great contribution to the success of the Washington Times and wish her great success in whatever she does. Steve Dufour 14:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure that you do... Smee 18:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

I happen to have lots of friends who have left the UC. There is no rule that says you have to stay. Steve Dufour 18:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed... Smee 19:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps the Unification Church article could address issues of recruitment (i.e., "witnessing", indoctrination, "love-bombing", "brainwashing", etc.); as well as issues of retention (i.e., people staying in because of fear of "going to hell", peer pressure) and departure ("deprogramming" or "exit counseling", apostasy, or simply dropping out).

I daresay the discussion has spilled over into the wrangle over Josette Shiner's 'link' to the Unification Church because we have not paid enough attention to the foregoing. --Uncle Ed 15:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for the figure you mentioned someplace that 90% of people who joined later left? That seems like it might be worth mentioning. Steve Dufour 19:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I calculated 96% dropout rate based on Tyler's estimate of 100,000 recruits and the church database having around 6,000 names.

Eileen Barker gives a similar figure (around 90%) in The Making of a Moonie. --Uncle Ed 21:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That should go in the article. I used to have a copy of that book, which I bought at a library clearance sale but left it behind when we moved to my hometown. Steve Dufour 04:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a worry that "Moonies will get government funding":

• Pat Robertson was worried that cults such as the Moonies, Scientologists, and Hare Krishnas might obtain government funding under President Bush's plan to give money to religious organizations. [2]

There was a similar flap over Richard Panzer's Free Teens getting an abstinence education grant. --Uncle Ed 13:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Could be... Smee 04:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Half of words in article are on PAST religious affiliation

The article is still too heavy on Shiner's past religious affiliation. Thankfully most of it is where it belongs, in footnotes (if it is to be in the article at all - Along with the majority, I believe it is irrelevant and should not be in the article at all). 477 words out of 981 are about her past religious affiliation (49% of the article). I propose that the quoted text from the “Moonie” article (Guardian) be dropped. It doesn't say anything of significance that is not already quoted from the other articles, and I'm not sure Wikipedia should be siding with religious bigotry; it makes the article look biased. -Exucmember 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ex. The only reason she is notable is her former UC membership. We members were looking at this to see if this would be a problem in her appointment and to see how the media and public opinion would react. Her appointment would have never made the news except for her UC connection. The problem is that the article couldn't really go into how "controversial" or "persecuted" the UC has been -- which is the key point which makes the incident meaningful. Steve Dufour 03:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting points Mr. Dufour. I had not thought of it in that manner... Smee 04:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

The article really should be turned upside down and her UC membership be put on top as the reason for her notablity. No harm would be done, I'm sure that UC members and critics are the only ones who ever check out the article now. :-) Steve Dufour 06:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be supportive of that idea. Smee 07:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

I wasn't being 100% serious. :-) Steve Dufour 07:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve, I think it's pretty clear the your statement "The only reason she is notable is her former UC membership." is mistaken. (Perhaps you were not serious about that one either, but I'm going to continue anyway.) The article was already here before Smeelgova started adding tons of stuff about her past affiliation with the Unification Church. Her notability was based on her being Under Secretary for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs. -Exucmember 06:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there an article on the office of the Under Secretary for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs? Steve Dufour 04:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We have come to a stable consensus on this article. Please STOP the relentless violations of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. Thanks. Smee 07:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Smeelgova, you have a habit of claiming that people are making personal attacks even when there is not the slightest hint of one. Why do you do that? -Exucmember 07:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from the article, Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, with emphasis in original: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thanks. Smee 07:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

I can't see anything that could even be mistaken as the mildest personal attack (and this has been true on other occasions involving other editors as well). That's why your response is bewildering to me. -Exucmember 08:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, in order for you to be unambiguous about these issues in the future: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thanks. Smee 08:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Since you're comments are so very unresponsive to what was said, let me ask you directly: What statement did you consider a personal attack? -Exucmember 08:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Look - let's not belabour the issue here. Your actions of pressing this even further is in and of itself inappropriate behaviour. Stick to: Comment on content, not on the contributor. - and you'll be fine. Smee 08:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Your initial outburst was to accuse me of making a personal attack. Since I can't see anything that can even be mistaken as a personal attack, I am asking you: What statement did you consider a personal attack? If you cannot answer, I have no choice but to remind you that such unfounded accusations may be interpreted as a violation of WP:CIV. Thanks. -Exucmember 08:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be wanting to pick a fight with me for some odd reason? This is very weird and quite frankly just plain ol' bullying which I will not tolerate. Again, Comment on content, not on the contributor. I will not participate in this egging on any further. Smee 08:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Archive 1