Talk:Dan Fefferman/Archive 1

Is he really notable?
An article on Mr. Fefferman was already deleted, or maybe merged. I still think his notability could be questioned. The article mainly just tells about him doing various jobs or acting as a spokesperson. Is there any indepth coverage of him as a person? Redddogg (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources show that the subject satisfies WP:NOTE. There is certainly coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And "doing various jobs" is biographical info on what he has been doing with his life, essentially from 1974 through to the 2000s. Not really sure what else you are looking for or what in particular you are dissatisfied with... Cirt (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Added some more info and sources. Added some other potential sources to a Further reading sect. Cirt (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the article should be deleted. But it was before. Redddogg (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. On another note, thanks for adding those categories! ;) Cirt (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * His notability could be argued either way. I think I voted "Keep." Steve Dufour (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Dan Fefferman was prod-deleted back in August of last year -- which is no bar on a new article being created on the topic. It was almost-immediately recreated by Ed Poor, as a short, unsourced, stub with a built-in merge template -- so it was almost immediately redirected. Once an article on him actually gets around to citing the coverage of his involvement in the Fraser Committee hearings (as this one does), its notability and thus continued existence becomes assured. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Cirt (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Rename?
He is most often called Dan, not Daniel, including by most of the sources used for the article (those online that is, that are easy to check). How about renaming the article "Dan Fefferman"? Steve Dufour (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cirt (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. Cirt (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Cites
Please do not remove cites, it is preferable on articles on controversial topics to have inline citations after each sentence. And especially so for this one which is both a controversial topic, and a WP:BLP article. Cirt (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, both on general principles (duplicating a reference over and over does not add to WP:Verifiability), and particularly where: You've been taken to task previously, in an RfC on a related article, for ref-bombing -- I would suggest a little restraint here. I would also suggest that Fefferman hasn't been a "controversial topic" for three decades. The problem with previous articles on him was failure to source & failure to establish notability, not that any particular claim was under serious dispute. "Controversial topics" generally evoke coverage discussing/arguing the controversy, so are rarely deleted on notability grounds. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Where the material is clearly not "controversial", as is the case with the 'Early life and family' section.
 * 2) Where groups of references are duplicated -- as is the case in the above section (made all the more absurd as one of the refs makes only bare mention of Fefferman and does not in fact verify any of the claims), and in the first two sentences of '1990s-2000s'.
 * I have not been "taken to task", and this is not "ref bombing". It is having the cites for the information at the end of sentences, instead of at the end of paragraphs. It is a common referencing style for articles, it is used on WP:FAs, and it is especially important for WP:BLPs on controversial topics, and the Unification Church is most certainly a controversial topic. The benefits certainly outweigh whatever reasons you have for removing the cites. Cirt (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A cursory examination of the first five articles in Category:FA-Class biography articles revealed almost no evidence of employment of consecutive references, within a paragraph, to the same (group of) source(s). (Sole counter-example that I noticed was a single case where a parenthetical was referenced to the same source as the main text containing it.) Referencing at the sentence level is sometimes used, but generally only when different sentences are referenced to different sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and you have failed to establish the connection between this source and Fefferman's 'Early life and family', let alone to each and every sentence in it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A cursory examination of recently-featured articles that are BLPs from Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-02/Features and admins actually does show heavy use of in-line cites at the sentence level as opposed to at ends of paragraphs. Cirt (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you have failed to actually look at this source to see where it has info on the subject. Cirt (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In those articles, I see only thin (and heavily inconsistent) evidence for use of sentence-by-sentence citation except when necessitated by the cited source changing sentence-by-sentence. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay well anyways I respectfully disagree. I am glad we can both agree that the article itself is improved upon prior versions. :) Cirt (talk) 05:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I would suggest that you cite a single example from the BLPs on that list of an article that consistently apply sentence-by-sentence citations where consecutive sentences are cited to the same source. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I have 'looked', and I have looked again, and still can't see any relationship between the two. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I was wrong. I incorrectly named the cites. It is fixed now. Cirt (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible sources


Additional possible sources. I will work on doing some research regarding above. :) Cirt (talk) 04:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Short paragraphs
Let's please avoid short paragraphs of two sentences or less. Cirt (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree in most cases. In this one there seemed to be a jarring (to me anyway) change of subject that called for a break. hmmm.... We could also added a little more to make the second paragraph longer. :-) Redddogg (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Relationship of his organization to the Unification Church
I'm planning to revive my attempt to delineate the proper relationship of organizations (like Fefferman's ICRF) and the Unification Church.

It is the opinion or viewpoint of Moon opponents that some organizations founded or inspired by Rev. Moon are "affiliated" to the Unification Church. That is, their POV is that these organizations are what Merriam-Webster calls:


 * closely associated with another typically in a dependent or subordinate position 

Another viewpoint is that the relationship is not one of affiliation, but more like the relationships among the various 12-step groups. For example, Debtors Anonymous declares that is "has no organizational affiliation with Alcoholics Anonymous" - although both groups are founded on the same (not to say identical) principles.

I would like therefore to say not that ICRF is part of (or "affiliated with") the Unification Church but rather that it is part of Rev. Moon's Unification Movement (as is, of course, the better known Unification Church). (This is not to hide the relationship - that would violate Wikipedia's guidelines as well as Rev. Moon's own teachings. ;-)

This is important because the Fraser Report asserted closer ties (I believe they used the word "monolithic" as well as a neologism they coined: the "Moon Organization"). However, this is just one viewpoint, and the church (along with sources I'm sure Hrafn can help me find) has another viewpoint. Let's be neutral about this, okay? --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ICRF is not part of the UC, but I have no objection to characterizing it as "affiliated with" the UC. As our web site states, "ICRF acknowledges with gratitude that, at the current time, it receives the bulk of its funding from institutions and individuals related to the Unification Church community." I do have some problems with the article's characterizations of other organization's I've headed. Would the contributors be amenable to consider these objections? Dan Fefferman (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that you don't object to the word "affiliated", but I want to make sure the word isn't abused. Some people (present company excepted) are trying to conceal the autonomous nature of various Unification Movement activities and groups. I am seeking clarification as an antidote to concealment, an aim I see as consonant with the aims of this encyclopedia.


 * For example, CARP has often said that is was not "affiliated" with the church. It was not a church itself, nor was it the "student branch" of the church. (Question: Is STF the student or youth branch of the church?) Tiger Park, then head of US CARP, told me pointedly that CARP is not affiliated with the Unification Church - apparently in response to reports he had heard about me refusing to conceal its fraternal relationship: I had been saying that both CARP and UC were founded and led by Rev. Moon, and some carpies objected. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I can only speak for certain about ICRF. ICRF files with the IRS as a "supporting organization of the Unification Church," meaning it does work that the church itself would do. I also would not object to ICRF being described as the "religious freedom branch of the Unification Movement." Technically speaking, ICRF is officially affiliated with the Universal Peace Federation as well, although we are not currently cooperating actively with the UPF. ---Dan


 * I would point out that the fact that "[t]he Collegiate Association for the Research of Principles (CARP), founded by church members at Waseda University, Japan, in 1964" and held its second annual annual International Leadership Seminar "at the Unification Church's International Training Center in Barrytown, New York" is part of the UC's at-least-semi-official history. I'm unsurprised by Tiger Park's comments -- from what I've seen to date its not uncommon (though by no means pervasive) for UC-affiliated organisations to deny or play-down their relationship to the UC. As to what CARP currently thinks, it's hard to tell, as both www.worldcarp.org (obscure message: "Pleace try to cantact i s y o o @ w - m v . c o m") & www.worldcarpusa.org (domain parked) are down. In any case, the more general issue is more appropriate for Talk:List of Unification Church affiliated organizations than here. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Addendum: actually, even if the sites were up, they probably wouldn't tell us anything useful -- one of them still listed Hyo Jin Moon as the worldwide president of CARP at the time of its demise (don't know if this is through failure to update the site or failure to replace him). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with that Talk:List of Unification Church affiliated organizations is a more appropriate place to discuss this. Also, we should take our lead from wording style and presentation, from independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Farrakhan
The treatment of my writing on Farrakhan downplays my criticism of the Nation of Islam and my concerns about the UC's alliance with this group. I would like to see this corrected. The secondary source which quotes me on this apparently does not include the following published statements by me (either that or the Wikipedians who wrote this section chose not to include them): "Minister Farrakhan leads a movement that officially calls for a ban on interracial marriage and the establishment of a separate nation for American blacks (points 4 and 9 of the official 'Muslim Program' published each week in the "Final Call" newspaper). Until these two points are officially renounced, there can be no doubt that both Minister Farrakhan and his movement are still racist."

I went on to say "I hope the Unification movement will be careful in future coalition efforts with them. In particular I hope that stronger efforts will be made to ensure that the official platform of marches we participate in more accurately reflect unificationist values than did the platform of the Million Family March. I also hope that we do not rush blindly into future alliances with the Nation of Islam without carefully weighing the consequences." (see here).

The current treatment of this topic ignores the seriousness of my criticism of the NOI and tends to make it look like I am an apologist for the UC's alliance with them. In actually I have been a vocal critic of the alliance and I think I deserve to be credited as such. Dan Fefferman (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you suggest any independent reliable secondary sources? Cirt (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is very unlikely that any would think Mr. Fefferman's opinion on this would be worth their mentioning. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A case could also be made that the paragraph about one memo is a WP:Coatrack here. There is no article on Nation of Islam - Unification Church relationship, nor AFAIK is the UC even mentioned in Nation of Islam related articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a coatrack - as I merely included every mention of the subject as discussed in independent reliable secondary sources. But I could trim it down a bit. Cirt (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would tend to support Cirt on this. The material on Fefferman in the '1990s-2000s' is all fairly low-key stuff, and it is not clear that the the MFM/NOI material is given any WP:UNDUE weight. And no Steve, "Mr. Fefferman's opinion on this" should only be 'mentioned' if a reliable (preferably third party) source can be found for it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the problem with writing an article about someone of marginal notability. If Dan was really considered important his statements would be covered by the news media. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They have been. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Only a few times in the last 30 years. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Much more than "a few". Cirt (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, then, compare to the news coverage of Josette Sheeran, a truly notable person who is in the news almost every week. A Google news search of Dan shows only a few mentions here and there, barely one a year. None cover him in depth, which is why this article has so little information about him as a person. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion does not seem productive. If you think he is not notable, AfD is that way. Cirt (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Bogus sources removed
The article was filled with bogus sources which did not point to real newspaper articles. Further, I did a search for "Daniel Fefferman" and "Dan Fefferman" among major publications; I found nothing significant. The "sources" pointed to Wikipedia articles about the Seattle Times with no mention of Dan Fefferman. These "sources" have been removed, and will continue to be removed; if they're reinserted, a message on the administrators noticeboard is in order.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Citations do not require a URL to the source to be valid.
 * 2) A number of references do contain URLs to the source (some behind paywalls, some not).
 * 3) You removed them all regardless.


 * I checked each source. None checked out. They were removed. What's misleading is making the source look like it points to a legitimate inline reference (and which can fool casual editors). But instead, they point to a Wikipedia page. It's subterfuge, borderline fraud. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Complete bollocks: And just because the citation contains a wikilink does not mean that the cited source is the wikilinked article -- it generally means that it is an article on the source, the source's author, the source's publisher, etc. Have a big fat WP:TROUT & get a clue. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The articles exist, see for example:
 * 2) The books cited appear to have valid ISBNs, and therefore can be presumed to exist -- I know for a fact that Bad Moon Rising does -- you can find it here (and search it) at Google Books. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For example -- if a citation states "" the source is not the Wikipedia article on The Seattle Times, it is an article in The Seattle Times. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've restored the citations since they clearly cite dated publications and not wlinked articles here. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How come I can't WP:VERIFY any of this article???? Great, books supposedly exist; articles exist, supposedly. How come I can't verify them?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * SHOW me the article in the Seattle times. I searched for it. Didn't find it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So find a library which has back issues of the Seattle Times. Lexus Nexus may also have them. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia doesn't require the sources to be available online. A book, obviously, is not an online resource.--Atlan (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with and, see also WP:SOURCEACCESS. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely agree... see: WP:V... However, this thread does raise a legitimate issue... we should probably not include wikilinks to other articles within citations, as they can be confusing to the reader. Blueboar (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, they point out where others can go, to quickly get more information about which publication is being cited. Cirt (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Truth be told, I don't think there's a need to WP:CREEP and dumb things down only because one editor may have muddled, for a very short spell, how things are cited here. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with . Cirt (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

'Reliability' of sources
I have noticed a number of errors derived from supposedly "reliable" secondary sources here. For example, I'm listed as the editor of the National Journal of the Unification Church in 1989. I was working as an editor of two journals at that time, but neither comes close to the title mentioned here. Further, another "reliable" source claims correctly that I was accused of contempt of congress by the Fraser subcommittee but either that source or the authors of the article fail to mention that I was never in fact cited. These and other statements involve serious errors of fact not open to interpretation and it is kafkaesque that they cannot be corrected except by reference to other "reliable" sources, among which no UC publication nor my firsthand knowledge can be included. Dan Fefferman (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you suggest some additional independent reliable secondary sources to use? Cirt (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Fefferman: There is no rule that insists that if something is in a "reliable" source, it must be included. UC publications certainly can be used, even without attribution, for noncontroversial humdrum statements, and there is nothing wrong even with using firsthand knowledge to remove errors in the article, if it can convince a consensus of editors here. WP:OR has to do with what is in the article.  There is no prohibition on using OR to get rid of things.  BLP suggests respect toward your correction of errors.  I can't access the source, but "National Journal of the Unification Church" seems to be a description rather than title of one of the publications you edited, adding the correct one(s) and citing your editorship to them, and replacing the current title - which doesn't seem to have existed - should be OK.  The contempt non-citation needs a source for us to explicitly say it. The article currently doesn't say anything false, although any way of rephrasing to eliminate mistaken inferences that you were actually cited would be welcome.John Z (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * @, perhaps you could suggest some sources to use, and we can go from there. Cirt (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Table of roles
Is this really needed? It just seems to repeat information that is already given. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a nice summation. Similar to a Filmography table for a film director. Cirt (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it does any harm. However it gives the impression that it is the official timeline of Dan's career in the UC. BTW he is also known as a singer and songwriter. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources? Cirt (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Relation of CARP and UC
Please provide a source asserting that CARP is an organization of the Unification Church, or else stop putting that back in. I was told personally by the US director of CARP in the 1980s that it was "not affiliated" with the church.

We should not use unclear words such as affiliation or affiliated, which imply a senior-subordinate relationship, in cases like this.

Not unless you have a source saying that the UC is the controlling body and that CARP is a subordinate organization: in that case "affilated" fits Webster's definition of "closely associated with another typically in a dependent or subordinate position "

I'd prefer for us to acknowledge the dispute between the two sides that assert:
 * 1) that CARP is "affiliated" with the church, and
 * 2) that CARP is "unaffilated"

We should also point out what is undisputed: that both organizations are led by the same man, i.e., the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. But we should not use the word affiliated is appropriate as it gives the appearance of taking sides in a controversy, which as we all know is forbidden by WP:NPOV policy. Please support this policy without further edit warring, because I don't want to escalate this to conflict resolution. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEAD, this was already cited later in the article. It is now cite in the lede as well. Cirt (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't get your reference to WP:LEAD but what I'm trying to do is change it from a bio that says CARP is an arm or affiliate of the church to a bio which says that various sources call it an arm, etc.


 * I assume you get the difference between saying X is a Y and reporting that A calls X a Y. Is this assumption correct? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * When we have WP:RS sources saying so, then we can cite those and say it is so. Can you present sources saying it is not? Cirt (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Unneeded sentence
This sentence just repeats information already given in detail:
 * The Seattle Times described Fefferman in 1989 as "a longtime Moon aide who headed the church's Project Watergate, a series of prayer meetings and public rallies on behalf of then-President Richard Nixon."[12] Borock (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is an assessment of the individual's capacity for the organization and its leader Moon, by a reliable secondary source. -- Cirt (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How about using it as a source then? I don't see the need to give the quote when the information it tells the reader has already been explained in detail. Borock (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Or if you want to give the quote, it does sum up the info well, then put it first in the section and then give the details explaining to the readers why it is true. Just a suggestion. The quote does no harm, it just gives no new info to the readers.Borock (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Directly attributing it to the secondary source allows the reader to understand where the info is directly coming from, and presents the info in an NPOV manner. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Format cites using WP:CIT templates
When adding new citations to this article, please format cites using WP:CIT templates. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence/claim to notability?
The opening sentence says that Fefferman is the head of one organization, yet there is little information on this in the article. It seems to me that he is notable as a person who has done many things as a member of the American Unification Church. Should the opening sentence be changed to reflect that? Just a suggestion. Borock (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggestion on proposed change for wording? -- Cirt (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Something like: "...a prominant member of the Unification Church who has held several leadership positions in related organizations." Borock (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good suggested wording. :) ✅ . Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think that's an improvement.Borock (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Replace_this_image_male.svg
Please read that file page. Please, do not remove the image placeholder. It is being used appropriately. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Replace_this_image_male.svg
 * I am probably the person most likely to provide a picture, unless Dan does so himself. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! At that time, we can replace the template, with a free use picture from Wikimedia Commons. :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not? He's not a bad looking guy. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove this image until an actual picture of the subject has been provided. -- Cirt (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I posted a request for opinions at Village pump (policy).Kitfoxxe (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Further Reading section
I don't really see the point of this section. None of the books are about Mr. Fefferman. They only mention him on one or two pages. Wolfview (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Profile in church publication
I agree that this probably not such an important event in Mr. Fefferman's life. However it was mentioned by a secondary source. I don't see any really compelling reason it should be removed from the article.Wolfview (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * According to that same secondary source Fefferman was part of Freedom Leadership Foundation (p138), making the profile that much more incestuous. As to the mention itself, its just a passing mention incidental to linking Karl Rove (the main topic of the passage) to Moon's 'Youth Council'. "I don't see any really compelling reason" to list a mere mention of the topic, where it refers to something that is in no way or shape an "important event". <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would further point out that the profile, in a publication of one of the church's political organisations, and mentioned in the secondary source in an entirely political context, has little to do with 'Church leadership'. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

My name, and what FLF was
My birth name is Daniel Fefferman. I added the middle name Graydon when I was 20. I go by "Dan" or "Dan G." on my official documents, although I have never formally changed my name.

The Freedom Leadership Foundation is properly described as an educational organization funded by the UC, rather than its "political arm." I have no objection to calling it a "political education" organization, but to engage in overtly political activities would have violated our charter under section 501 c3 of the IRS code. In fact FLF was investigated by the IRS on this point, and was found not to be a political organization. 72.66.91.113 (talk) Dan Fefferman —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Work history
I started working for the ICRF in 1997, not 1984 as the article claims. I think there might be confusion here between me and the original director of (I)CRF... Dan Holdgriewe. In 1984 I was at the Unification Theological Seminary. From there I served briefly as regional coordinator of the UC in California, and then as publications director of the American Freedom Coalition in DC 71.126.163.151 (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Dan Fefferman

Farrakahn
The article incorrectly summarizes my letter to UC members about Louis Farrakahn, and the link to what I said is broken. What I actually wrote can be found here. http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/feffermn/fefferman_MFM_letter.htm  ... My conclusion was a warning: "Minister Farrakhan's movement still teaches that interracial marriage should be banned and that black Americans should create a separate nation from whites. Until those teachings are changed, can we really say he is fulfilling his role...?'' Dan Fefferman (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)