Wikipedia

Talk:Living Enrichment Center

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Darryl.P.Pike in topic Removed Content - unrecoverable {deadlink}
Learn more about this page


She has NOT repaid her debt in full

edit

I thought someone might want to look into this. First of all, it is strange that she has a page on the simple English Wikipedia site, meanwhile, she doesn’t even qualify to have one on the main page here. Second, the simple English Wikipedia page, makes the dubious claim that she has repaid all of her debt to her former congregation, a claim which is highly doubtful. Not surprisingly the only source for this claim is a link to a YouTube video of an interview with Mary Morrissey. How is this allowed on Wikipedia? This is not an acceptable source. Someone should go over on that page and edit it.

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Morrissey

Merge

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion
MERGE:

Consensus is to merge relevant material to Living Enrichment Center and leave a redirect in place. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should Mary Manin Morrissey be merged into Living Enrichment Center under WP:BLP1E? The main sources for the article mention her only in regard to the Living Enrichment Center financial scandal, and those sources are local media rather than national. Sources for other aspects of her life, such as her books and media, are primary sources or simple listings which we disregard for purposes of notability. There is also a sense of WP:UNDUE about the Mary Manin Morrissey article as all it can do is report her involvement in the financial scandal, which can reasonably be done in the main Living Enrichment Center article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

  • Support. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Support I recently responded to an edit request at Mary Manin Morrissey, and briefly wondered why the article existed. I think WP:BLP1E is probably relevant, as SilkTork suggests, and regardless of that I agree that the useful content from that article could sensibly be merged here. Begoon talk 12:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Support I appreciate this discussion as I do believe that any of the financial scandal should be kept with the Living Enrichment Center that was the source of the Scandal and not Mary Manin Morrissey alone. I agree with SilkTork's suggestions but I am unfamiliar with how a merge would actually work. Her notability with the works that she has done such as with world leaders, the United Nations should be of more importance because of the independence that has from the Living Enrichment Center. Again thank you for the discussion and please feel free to hit me up on email here. I am admittedly a wiki newb and do not wish to offend nor break any rules. I do not know how long a decision would take on this type of a discussion but I will keep checking back. p.s. I don't even know if I am signing this correctly :) Jeannie Inman (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
You may be slightly misunderstanding what is proposed. A merge would remove the Mary Manin Morrissey article entirely, after incorporating relevant content from that article to the Living Enrichment Center article, on the basis that, without the financial scandal information, there is insufficient notability for an article on the individual. The Mary Manin Morrissey article would become a redirect to this article, so that users searching for that term would be automatically directed here. Begoon talk 01:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
As I had stated before I did not know what a merge would exactly be. However I also believe that removing the Mary Manin Morrissey page altogether would be fine but not in a redirect form. If you do not feel that her life is worth an article that is fine. However, I also believe that the story should solely be placed under the Living Enrichment Center page and not have a redirect. Including relevant information from the current article on Mary Manin Morrissey's page into the article for the Living Enrichment Center should be done. I do not like the redirect idea at all and am unaware if there are other options. I think when we are talking or reading about a scandal with a church to point out one person and have that person punished via the net simply because someone can is wrong. Please let me know if there is anything else that I may be misunderstanding and thank you for your patience as I figure out the rules. It is a lot of reading and those of you that are pros at editing this, all I can say is I hope beyond anything that your talents are fully appreciated. This has given me a new appreciation as to what goes into every wiki page I have ever read or will read. Again thank you for your time. Glad to have the discussion. Jeannie Inman (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
The redirect is a convenience for users (see the description at the blue link). It just means that people using the search box and entering "Mary Manin Morrissey" would be taken straight to the Living Enrichment Center article. Even without the redirect it would still be the first search result. It just saves searching users one click. We would, in general, always use a redirect in these circumstances, so as not to break any incoming links to the article once it has been merged.Begoon talk 03:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I can totally agree with that Begoon. Can you explain if that means an address such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Manin_Morrissey would not exist at all and only searches done for Mary Manin Morrissey would be sent to the Living Enrichment Center? If that is the case I am all for that. That is what I would call neutral and more than fair if her name could be dropped from the url. Thank you for explaining how redirects work inside wiki. I hope I understood it correctly. Again I can't thank you enough for your patience. Jeannie Inman (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Begoon from looking at some of the examples on the link you had me look at, it seems her name would still be in the url which I can understand as it is part of what makes search happen. There is already a redirect going into Mary Manin Morrissey for just Mary Morrissey. I still agree that the redirect with the additions to the article on the Living Enrichment Center page would be great. It as least puts the scandal with the church and not solely on one person. In other words, if that is how it has to be done by keeping her name in the url while redirecting it I am also still ok with that. Unless there are other options that I am not aware of. I think both you and Silktork are going to get me addicted to learning all the ins and outs of wiki yet! Jeannie Inman (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that's right. That url would be a redirect, taking people directly to Living Enrichment Center, saving users 2 clicks (they would otherwise arrive at a search page offering a search with this article first in the results). The purpose of the merge is not to "scrub" any trace of the name or make it hard to find - it is to relocate relevant content to a suitable location, and possibly remove a biography of a living person notable for 1 event only - see WP:BLP1E. We don't really remove or omit redirects, since they are, as I said, a convenience. Begoon talk 04:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Picking up on what Begoon is saying. The redirect would serve to direct readers searching for Morrissey to the Living Enrichment Center article where we would have some information about her - the information that is largely relevant to that article: who she is, how she is involved, and what she is doing now. Editors on the Living Enrichment Center article would work to keep information on Morrissey proportionate to the main subject matter. The redirect would also serve to let readers know that we already have information on Morrissey, so there would be no need to create a new article. Sometimes when an article is deleted, especially a contentious or controversial article, somebody attempts to create a new one. As regards how long this discussion will go on for. There is no set time. Sometimes a merge will take place without any discussion if an editor feels it is appropriate. It depends on the circumstances. I feel that this merge falls within policy, and there is a consensus for it, so it should go ahead. However, there is no harm in waiting another day to see if anyone has an objection. And it might be worth pinging the significant contributors to get their input.SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I have contacted the significant contributors. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Support Thanks for reaching out to me regarding the merge. It looks like the merge would provide a more balanced article over all and would end the back and forth editing that was happening earlier this year without any new sources/information. I do think that someone will try to recreate the page since the page has seen a lot of activity since it's creation in 2007. Especially in relation to making the lawsuit highly visible. (Rastoll (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC))Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clean up

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

A crude merge has been done. There needs now to be a clean up of the material that has been placed in the article, as well as a clean up of the existing material. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have merged Edward Morrissey with this article, and I have done some tidying up - reducing large unnecessary quotes, and attempting to make the language more neutral. I have created a new section - Financial scandal - separate from the Closure section. I have placed some of the Edward Morrissey material with the Mary Manin Morrissey material and named that section The Morrisseys, as neither are more notable as regards this article. At the same time I moved some of the Financial scandal material out of the Morrisseys section into the Financial scandal section. There is a fair bit more work to be done, especially on the Financial scandal section, but essentially I think the article is pointing in the right direction. It would be useful to get some more reliable sources. The church is mention in some books: [1] - and they should be consulted as part of the ongoing development and improvement of this article.
I don't think I'll be getting any more involved in editing this article, but I will keep it and the redirects on my watchlist to monitor development. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Karen Joyce Hanzlik referenced, but is deceased.

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Karen Hanzlik is referenced as a 40% owner in Mary Morrissey's new business ventures.... "Karen Hanzlik, in the venture receives as much as 40% of revenue"

Ms. Hanzlik has since passed away (2011), with an obituary link as follows:

[1] [2]

I am uncertain if this information should be included, as she cannot own 40% if she is deceased. Higgs the Boson (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Higgs the BosonReply

Obviously, that claim is made by referencing an article that was written in The Oregonian before she died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.93.65.82 (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ http://www.genealogybank.com/gbnk/ssdi/doc/ssdi/v1:13A96A7F29F800D8
  2. ^ http://www.genealogybank.com/gbnk/ssdi/?lname=Hanzlik

Removed Content - unrecoverable {deadlink}

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I removed the following from the article because I could find any instance of an archive or other mention in a published document. The included citation is emitting a CS1 error, but the statement is rather empty of any real facts as it is and does not improve the article. I have chosen to place it here for a future consensus, if any, of its value rather than make any changes at this time. The intent is to clear the unnecessary error from the article.

  • ==Closure==
  • In 2006, Curt Kipp of the Wilsonville News Blog wrote that the abandoned Living Enrichment Center site at Wilsonville was reported to have been sold to a developer, with speculation that it would be demolished for redevelopment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wilsonvillenews.com/ArcStoryPage.asp?Database=Story&StoryID=3305 |title=Internet Archive Wayback Machine |date=2012-02-05 |access-date=2017-04-03 }}</ref>


---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Living_Enrichment_Center&oldid=1208531726"