Talk:Unification Theological Seminary

Mickler quote
Is it appropriate to have such a lengthy quote, from the seminary's own VP, in the seminary's own journal, in this stub of an article? It would seem to be blatant WP:UNDUE (as well as a general violation of WP:NPOV not mentioning this bias). HrafnTalkStalk 06:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In your edit summary you called the quotation "very partisan." I honestly don't know what you mean here. The content of the quotation appears to be relatively uncontroversial, and the assertions within it close to being undeniable by anyone familiar with the Unification Church. It does seem a little lengthy for a short article, but perhaps it can be restored to the article - maybe in a footnote if not in the body - when the article has become more developed, especially if some other published opinions on the purpose of the seminary can be found. Steve Dufour has removed it citing WP:Undue weight, so I've moved it here (just below) for future consideration. But first, I coincidentally just ran across this comment about Undue Weight by Ed Poor:
 * Articles should present all major points of view. It's wrong to game the system by appealing to guidelines such as WP:Undue weight as a justification for eliminating mention of an idea, or the arguments that support or criticize an idea. We need to avoid misleading our readers about how much support an idea has, but suppressing the idea entirely or concealing the reasons its adherents advocate it is not necessary.


 * Here's the Mickler quotation:

UTS vice-president Michael Mickler writes in the seminary's Journal of Unification Studies: The core mission of the Unification Church, as the name HSA-UWC indicated, was the "the Unification of World Christianity." However, the ability of the church to relate ecumenically to Christian churches was quite limited prior to the creation of UTS. ...[T]he establishment of UTS marked a turning point in the UC's ability to relate constructively to the wider religious community. ...UTS represented a commitment to self-reflection, research and scholarship, and the beginnings of an intellectual tradition. The church, in general, had limited opportunities to think through issues deeply or to develop ideas about how its teachings related to other faiths. ... The establishment of UTS indicated that the tradition was willing to tackle contemporary intellectual challenges rather than separate intellectual endeavor from faith or retreat into a ghetto of religious fundamentalism.


 * Also (another topic), do we know whether UTS is still in Warning status? -Exucmember (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with sourcing statements that "[T]he establishment of UTS marked a turning point in the UC's ability to relate constructively to the wider religious community. ...UTS represented a commitment to self-reflection, research and scholarship, and the beginnings of an intellectual tradition." to this seminary's own VP. It seems to go against the spirit of WP:PEACOCK & WP:SELFPUB #3, to allow such a positive self-assessment in. Assessment of the seminary's impact should be left to reliable third party commentators. HrafnTalkStalk 08:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement itself is pretty undeniable. You've described it as a "positive self-assessment", but it can just as equally be read as a criticism of the early American Church. Your analysis is somewhat inaccurate, as Mickler is a historian (PhD from Berkeley) writing about church history. It is unfair to imply that his objectivity as a historian is compromised by his position at UTS. Is he allowed only criticisms? Church historians write about their own churches all the time. Mickler has a strong record of academic publishing (more than any other Unificationist religion scholar in the world who comes to mind). I understand your point, but I don't think it's fair to say he is not reliable, especially in this case where the "positive" conclusion about the seminary's role is proportional to the shortcoming he points out in the American church. -Exucmember (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would be reasonable to add a paragraph saying that the UTS helped the church to relate better with the mainstream religious community. Or even that one of its purposes was to gain more respectability for the church.  I'm sure there are other sources that say that. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Does the UC relate at all well with "the mainstream religious community" on a theological level? My impression was that the greatest rapprochement was at a political level (through shared social conservatism with the Religious Right). HrafnTalkStalk 18:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess we will have to wait for reliable sources to discuss it. On the other hand, mainstream or fundamentalist Christian criticism of the UC on theological grounds is hardly mentioned in the UC articles and really should be since it is one of the major sources of controversy relating to the UC. (p.s. Generally speaking, people of different religions do not get together and agree to all believe in the same way.) Steve Dufour (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Unificationism's greatest success is probably in its interfaith work, and it's interfaith conferences are very highly regarded by academics in that sphere. (I was told this directly by professors on several occasions.) You don't hear about this in the press. It's much more interesting to hear about how a Korean national is using questionable funding and money-handling methods, and huge amounts of money, to influence American politics. -Exucmember (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if we were to find a RS for this claim, it would seem to link this "success" to the Interfaith organizations, rather than directly to the UTS. HrafnTalkStalk 06:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right. It should be mentioned there. On the other hand, any published opinions about the UTS could be added to this article. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Such as a published opinion from the person who has written more academic books and articles about the history of Unificationism than any other individual? -Exucmember (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If this individual is a reliable third-party commentator, then certainly. HrafnTalkStalk 19:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Mickler's opinion is fine, but if we include it in the article other opinions should be there too. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

National composition of students
I think the latest version of the article, which only mentions national composition of students for 2003, is misleading. References we are able to find should not be a tail wagging the dog of accuracy in the content of the article. People who don't know much about the church may erroneously assume (as Hrafn did) that the seminary was intended for a population of primarily Korean and Japanese students (while knowledgeable observers are aware that there was never a majority of Korean and Japanese students until the mid-90s). The phrasing does not have to be misleading. -Exucmember (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The source states:

The original text stated:

...which is a very close paraphrase of the source -- and therefore WP:V. The new version states:

As far as I can tell, the source neither mentions that "Most, if not all, of the UTS's students are Unification Church members" or that the number of South Korean and Japanese students is a result of "the church's focus [becoming] more international" in recent years. These claims would appear to be WP:OR.

As far as my "erroneous assum[ption]", my impression is that the South Korean/Japanese church has always dwarfed the American one, so it is not a stretch to assume that this is where the majority of seminary students came from -- but in any case, this 'assumption' was never stated in the article. If we want to explicitly state that the 2003 proportions were the result of a change in "focus", we need a WP:RS for this.

Also, given that there does not appear to have been a radical change in the relative sizes of the American versus Asian churches, we would have to explain what this change in "focus" actually constituted, and why it was reflected in very different proportions of seminary students. HrafnTalkStalk 19:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right. The latest edit has it completely backwards and seems to imply that the church expanded from the USA to Korea and Japan, rather than the other way around. What really happened, BTW, is that there were a number of college graduates in the American church in the 1970s who wanted to become church leaders (the two qualifications for UTS admission) who formed the early classes. Nowdays, according to my understanding from 3000 miles away, is that it is mainly people born into the church who are attending. Korea and Japan have many more of these while most American "second generation" members have not yet graduated from their first four years of college. If you haven't changed the wording I will. BTW the other sources make it clear that UTS students are UC members only. Dr. Yamamoto says the purpose is to train leaders and theologians in the church. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here you go: UTS = UC members only: Sandon 1978, " approximately 110 Moonies engage in a two-year curriculum", Yamamoto 1995, "It is used as a theological training center, where members are prepared to be leaders and theologians in the church"  I admit that it is possible that one or more non-members attended the school as students over the years. That is why I wrote "Most, if not all...." Steve Dufour (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Steve, I see now how what I wrote can be read the way you characterized as "backwards." I still think it is important, however, not to mislead readers into thinking that the original intention of the seminary was to serve a primarily Asian student population. I'll leave it to you two to clarify this if you share my concern not to mislead. "Change in focus" was from the source. But perhaps it's not the best way to explain the radical change in the nationality makeup of the students. -Exucmember (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really think the nationality of the students is that important. It was in the source article so I just mentioned it in the article. As far as I know the focus of UTS has not changed. It is still to train people to be leaders in the church. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Most graduates of UTS are from the US, not Asia. Perhaps it would be best to delete the rest of the sentence after "from around the world". -Exucmember (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the source explicitly states this. If we wish to remove this clearly relevant information, we would (i) need a more reliable source contradicting it (ii) as we will have impeached the reliability of this source, we really should consider eliminating it from the article. Further, if "most graduates of UTS are from the US" but most of the church members are in Asia (as seems to be the case), the claim that it "is the main seminary of the international Unification Church" needs further clarification. HrafnTalkStalk 07:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no rule that every fact in a source must be included in the article. I just thought that one was somewhat interesting. (p.s. In order to make an article interesting you have to state some concrete facts, or so I have found. ) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is fine the way it is.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

History of accreditation status
I don't think a detailed history of UTS's accreditation status is very important in a short article. As Steve Dufour said on a different topic two lines above, "There is no rule that every fact...must be included in the article." I think the fact that UTS is fully accredited is sufficient. -Exucmember (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree (14 months later), it is such a minor issue. Accreditation is not needed at all to train church leaders, the Seminary's core mission. Borock (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you "do the honors"? The art of exercising good judgment about where to pare an article down in places that have too much detail seems to have been lost in certain places on Wikipedia in favor of preserving the absolute sacredness of all references, regardless of how irrelevant the associated material may be to the quality of the article. -Exucmember (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible COI edits?
There is a Tyler Hendricks account, named the same as the seminary's current president, who has started making edits to the article. There's no guarantee that User:Tyler Hendricks is, in fact, Tyler Hendricks, but there's very little reason for anyone to impersonate Hendricks.

Hrafn blanket reverted these additions, but I would prefer to discuss and vet them here. Several appear to have included a good faith attempt at sourcing, and none appears to be overtly self-promotional. WP:COI is designed to reduce disruption or puffery. If Hendricks is Hendricks and really willing to come here and contribute on an NPOV basis, then there's no disruption. I'm sure Hrafn or any other editor can evaluate each change on the merits, tagging or reverting individual changes if they're inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "The warning was rescinded ..." is cited to an unpublished letter and so is not WP:V.
 * 2) "With the establishment of its Extension Center ..." is sourced to WP:SELFPUBlished puffery, so should be excluded (it also goes beyond what the source says, so is additionally WP:OR).
 * 3) Thomas Ward is not notable enough to warrant an article, so should not be included in the list.

In reference to this edit -- please read WP:COI for the correct guideline on what is "non-controversial". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Lee Shapiro
I changed "killed while filming a documentary" to merely "died", as it was worded before. I think the other wording is undignified, besides giving a hint of propoganda. This article is not the place to talk about the evils of Soviet foreign policy. Besides this people should go to Lee Shapiro's own article to find out the details. Redddogg (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

New president
Last year Richard Panzer (founder of Free Teens became the UTS president. It's not Tyler Hendricks any more. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Some links, if you don't mind using internal church sources:
 * Richard Panzer Takes the Helm at Unification Theological Seminary
 * Hendricks UTS president from 2000 to 2010


 * None of those look WP:RS, let alone third-party. But then, the UTS's own 'History' page now points to an article on one 'Jocelyn Brazil' -- so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you don't think UC-owned or UC-related websites are reliable sources about who's helming the UC's seminary, then you're not a very trusting person. What if I told you I attended the ceremony where Panzer was inaugurated? Would you believe me? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that some IP-only site (if this is an official UC source then why doesn't it have a UC domain name?) or the UTS Alumni association make for particularly good sources. If a third party source can't be found (which admitably probably means that the UTS presidents aren't noteworthy in the first place), then something identifiable as an official UC/UTS source would seem appropriate. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)