Talk:Josette Sheeran Shiner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Josette Sheeran Shiner article.

Contents

[edit] 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]

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] All journalists use "unnamed sources"

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/s/Talk%7EJosette_Sheeran_Shiner_4f7d.html"