Talk:Universal Life Church/Archive 4

Conflict of interest?
I am unsure if being an ordained ULC minister and forum moderator makes have a conflict of interest. Plenty of ordained ministers edit this article neutrally. He's not in a position of authority within the ULC. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that being an ordained ULC minister and forum moderator makes me have a conflict of interest. As said, Plenty of ordained ministers edit this article neutrally. I'm not in a position of authority within the ULC. Panda317 (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, I disagree that I have COI. Panda317 (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As, the editor has a declared, professional connection to the subject. It is possible for the editor to edit without bias, but there is an inherent risk of COI editing and the warning is appropriate. See also WP:DISCLOSE.  General Ization  Talk   17:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Since I have no position of authority within the church, and even though I am an ordained minister of said church, I believe that no conflict of interest exists. I am impartial to anything but the truth. I seek the truth. I strive to do only that which is right. And, even though I am a moderator of the ULC Seminary page on Facebook, I believe this also does not prove a COI exists. I hold no position of authority with either entity. I have no professional connection to the subject. Panda317 (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC) Edited for indent Panda317 (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read Conflict of interest carefully. It is not an accusation, but a situation, and you have declared a relationship with the subject that brings that policy to bear. Provided you follow the guidance in that policy, there should be no problem.  General Ization   Talk   04:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Panda317 (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Dubious head count
User Me-123567-Me has just put in a claim that the Church has 5,000,000 adherents. The adherents.com source linked to says that it is using this dead web page as its source (archived here), and as that is a ULC page, it's not a third party source. The ULC sourc makes the statement that "his flock of mail order ministers grew to more than 5 million worldwide." If that's the number of ministry certificates they had generated at that point, it is dubious that that was even the number of members then - the earliest ministers would have had thirty-some years to die off by that point, and I've seen no sign that the church tracks the deaths of its ministers. And even if they hadn't, that claim is almost two decades old. So we have a number that is both unreliably sourced and horribly dated. Better to leave that claim out than to have that problematic claim. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

User lnb77 - The adherents link used in the citation leads to ulc.org which is the branch of Monastery and has no affiliation with ulchq. An article from the Modesto Bee is cited at present. It states in the article that the number is 18,000,000+. No further citation is needed since it is obvious who states it in the article (ULCHQ) and the news source is considered a recognized, established and respected source with a sizeable circulation.


 * No, it does not state in the article that the number of adherents is the 18,000,000+ claimed. It states that close to 18,000,000 certificates have been mailed out since 1962. It makes no statement of how many of those recipients are still alive, much less adhere to the church. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As there has been restoration of this claim, I've added the "dubious" tag. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Next Steps
Hi everyone. Following up on the previous conversation. It seems like my edits to the history section now work for everyone, so I'm beginning to look through the next sections. I see most information is sourced by the organization's (or organizations', haha) websites, so it should probably be written from scratch based on third-party sources, if it's even notable or relevant to the page topic. Will start snipping away soon, and appreciate any help and/or feedback. Thanks!104.245.78.106 (talk) 06:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You may find that difficult as the ULC doesn't have a wide-range of third-party coverage. However, some of their own sources are allowable depending on the topic. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Do you mind elaborating on that? What kind of "their own sources" would be acceptable? I always assumed that generally, if a topic doesn't have third-party press, it doesn't meet notability criteria.104.245.78.130 (talk) 05:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia terms, "notability criteria" is for whether a topic gets an article or not, and not on that particular content of the article. This is not to say that that coverage (or lack thereof) of some aspect in third-party sources cannot be used to judge whether inclusion is due... but for a church, their beliefs would seem to be clearly of import in describing them, and their own statement of their beliefs would generally be assumed reliable unless shown otherwise. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly! And that would apply to anything internal even such as their corporate by-laws, for example. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, gotcha. I think I've stumbled across other opinions before, but in this specific case, I completely agree. Other topics/articles cover much more dynamic, ongoing news, so which stories would merit inclusion would probably depend a lot more on press coverage. This topic seems pretty constant, so it's a less relevant debate. The next question that I'll pose, then, is how to define "their" beliefs, or "their" corporate by-laws, to use your examples, when it seems hard to determine which websites are the correct ones to cite? Thanks again for your help.104.245.78.11 (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Worldwide View Tag
Hi again. Does anyone know what to do with the last tag? I'm a little confused about its relevance, as this article discusses something based in and focused on primarily the United States. What "worldwide view" should be presented? Does anyone want to weigh in, or should I just remove it, too? Thanks!104.245.78.60 (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove it for now... Hope that's ok. Thanks for all of your help with this article!104.245.78.87 (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The Knot survey
I just undid an edit citing a newspaper which cited the Real Weddings Survey by The Knot. The edit presented two problems: The information probably should not be included, but it definitely should not be presented in copyright-violating form. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) The text of the sentence was copied directly from the newspaper source, which runs into problems with our rules against violating copyright.
 * 2) The Real Weddings Survey is not a strong source. As one will see at the press release for the most current year, it was only a survey of The Knot members, and while they claim a huge portion of wedding couples, the percentage of those who responded is small, which makes the self-selection problem large.
 * I am sorry about the Copyright violation. That was a mistake and I corrected it. I made clear in the content I just added the weakness of the survey, stating that it was internal. Although the survey might not be up to the standards of a comprehensive, academic study, I still think it is indicative of a trend which deserves a mention in this section. I left the next part in, which says there are jurisdictions where using a ULC officiant can still be a problem. I hope this is a good solution. Thanks 104.245.78.198 (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The trend is... that the sort of people who are willing to answer this survey for this website has shifted over those years? And no, I don't think saying "internal" showed the weakness of the survey, or even was clear what it meant... but you used to go on to make a claim about couples in the US, rather than website users. I've adjusted it somewhat. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixing this page
Hi all. I see that this page has several tags and multiple issues. Content is all over the place, mostly out of date and very poorly sourced. I'm thinking of going in and basically rewriting it from scratch using the info I can actually find online- any thoughts or objections before I get started? Thanks!104.245.78.69 (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would recommend going carefully over the talk page and its archives before attempting major editing, for several reasons... not the least of which is a history of past edits based on sources that prove problematic (largely other organizations trying to hold themselves up as the rightful wielders of the ULC name in some form.) To the degree that you can keep your rework in addressable sections and lumps that can be addressed, that is likely to make negotiating disagreement easier. Be bold... but be prepared for your boldness to be met with at least points of disagreement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Register before you begin. Your IP address could change at any time and that makes leaving messages on your talk page difficult. Also, don't throw something out just because the source wasn't online but offline. A lot of hard work has gone into this article over the years. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:NatGertler, wow, thanks for pointing out the archives, I completely missed those. What a loaded page. To be honest, I know very little about the disputes- only what I've seen in a bunch of forums through Google- nor have I any idea who the "real" church is. The article I've been working on is more of a bare-bones piece that focuses on the history and actual facts (I think? :)) that I could find on this topic. I assumed I'd basically replace the existing content with something like that, and then have the rest of the community hash it out as they add whatever content they know of that is also relevant. I've started looking through the archives like you suggested and see that a user called User:FisherQueen suggested this exact plan a few years ago, does anyone know what happened with that?
 * User:Me-123567-Me, thank you. I know it's hard for people to accept anonymous editors, but I've always worked this way. I prefer each edit and comment to stand on its own, and realize this may set me up for some bias against my work, but I hope the legitimacy of my edits and open discussion will compensate eventually. As for sources, I think I included several offline sources that are already cited in the article in the draft I worked on- I didn't mean online specifically, I simply meant sources that I could find while researching the topic with no previous knowledge of existing materials.104.245.78.85 (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * With a username I know at a glance who you are and if you can be trusted or not. That's true of almost all editors here. It's not a bais so much as us getting to know you and if we can trust you. IP addressese are automaticaly suspect because they're behind 98.9% of the vandalism on Wikipedia. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I've got to disagree. I block a lot of usernames. I have no way of telling by a username if they can be trusted if I don't already know them. There is a problem with dynamic IPs as they be nature keep changing, but still, go by the edits, nothing else. Of course having an account gives you more privacy. Doug Weller  talk 17:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I stand partially corrected. - I always check an IP's edits if I'm suspicous, especially if they didn't use an edit summary. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback everyone! I just started making changes to the page and assume there will be some consequent discussion. Looking forward!104.245.78.32 (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that this first batch of edits has a number of problems.
 * There is now a list of celebrities in the introduction that is sourced to a Guardian article which does indeed say that these people were ordained by the Universal Life Church, but cites as the church's website to get ordination the GetOrdained.org website, which appears to be some quite possibly separate San Jose organization, not the Modesto organization that is the subject of this article. And then the Guardian claims that the ULC's website says something, but the website they link to is that of the ULC Monastery, which as discussed here is not the ULC. The NYT article used as reference has a similar confusion.
 * In any case, the listing of celebrities up front seems to be focused on a matter that's trivial, particularly in comparison to, say, noting that many who seek the ordination do it so that they can host weddings, which can be established from existing sources. Really, that seems to be the ULC's main role in the world.
 * You've deleted the statement that the church had a different name at founding, as well as statements from the founder about the intent; those are both examples of the sort of information that's good in an encyclopedic article, and it's not clear why you deleted them.
 * That is my immediate set of "consequent discussion". --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That a source's primary topic isn't the ULC doesn't bother me. I'd rather have that from The Guardian or The Guardian than say the ULC Arizona News Packet. (If there was such a publication.) However, we do want the reference to be for the correct church. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at your feedback now and will try to implement changes accordingly... Also happy to work together in the text itself if you have ideas/sources to include! Will see what I can do... Not as familiar with the separate websites and different organizations (who's who, etc) so may end up making the same mistake again.104.245.78.137 (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Am I the only one that notices the contradiction regarding Virginia in two consecutive paragraphs? Kdmckale (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Start by fixing Virginia?
“... although four states, Alaska, Massachusetts, Vermont and Virginia, allow anyone to solemnize a marriage.[14]”

“Courts in North Carolina and Virginia have ruled that, under applicable state law, ULC ministers are not authorized to solemnize marriages and a marriage at which a ULC minister officiated therefore is not valid.[18]

Contradiction, anyone? Kdmckale (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Upon further review, the main problem is the use of reference [14] (Center for Inquiry v. Marion Circuit Court Clerk, No. 12-3751 (7th Cir. July 14, 2014) as of 7 June 2019 18:12 EDT). While it’s a credible source in general, the subject of the source is Indiana state law and not Alaska, Massachusetts, Vermont, or Virginia. While the statement may be true, it is a secondary source and there are no primary sources cited in the document itself to show from where Circuit Judge Easterbrook found this information. Hence, it is not a credible source in how it’s currently being used. Kdmckale (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks like there were some dubious IP edits in November. I'll revert.  John M Baker (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Recognition
"Most jurisdictions recognize marriages solemnized by ULC ministers.[8]"

That might be true in the USA but not worldwide. Blaise (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The current version of the statement is an outright falsehood and is contrary to the cited sources. There are a lot of people who edit this page because they have a vested interest in people hiring ULC ministers to solemnize marriages.  I'll revert to a more accurate version.  John M Baker (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The most comprehensive source on the subject is a 2011 state-by-state survey which finds that four states have disallowed ULC-ordained marriages, and the rest have either expressly allowed them or remained silent on the matter. The previous cited sources reflected only those four states, created rather a misimpression. As for the bulk of content-forking, that was not "inexplicably removed", but was split out into a separate and far more detailed article. BD2412  T 23:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Let me explain why these edits are highly problematic, and why I am reverting them.
 * The new text in the lede fundamentally mischaracterizes the article by Joanna Grossman in Verdict (a source that, oddly, the cite does not even reference). It was not a comprehensive survey; it was merely a discussion of the legal issues with the solemnization of marriages by ULC ministers.  It did not say that "Most jurisdictions in the United States recognize marriages solemnized by ULC ministers," nor did it say that "most jurisdictions in the United States have either expressly allowed, or not disallowed recognition of marriages solemnized by ULC ministers."  These statements are essentially the opposite of what was said in the article, which concluded, "The fact that there are several states in which ULC marriages have been declared invalid suggests that would-be spouses ought to, at a minimum, be more cautious in selecting an unconventionally-ordained officiant."
 * While Grossman's article is a well-written piece by a knowledgeable law professor, it is just a magazine column, nothing more. There actually is a scholarly article on the subject, and it's the one by Robert Rains in the University of Miami Law Review, also cited.  In language that probably should be added to our article, it says that "even a reasonably intelligent (and suspicious) person could be readily misled by the ULC into believing that by becoming a ULC minister he can legally perform marriages throughout the United States, and beyond."  (Rains believes that this is not something the states should be regulating, but I am focused on facts as they are.)
 * The validity of ULC marriages is probably the most important issue for people to come to this page, and it is not responsible to just give a (misleading) reference in the lede. I don't think it would even be clear to readers that the linked article is where readers should go to learn about this.  And, frankly, the linked article is not a very good one.  It gives the impression that ULC-solemnized marriages are fine if no court has struck them down, and it cites only Grossman's article for that.John M Baker (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I may have been overly brusque, but to be clear, Grossman's article is a two-part piece. In the first part, she states: "I will provide a detailed jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction analysis of cases in which the validity of online-minister marriages have been challenged". In other words, all jurisdictions were searched, and these examined in the second part were the only ones where such ordination was contested. Moreover, in writing the article on the legal status of the ULC, I conducted my own state-by-state search of ordination statutes, executive decrees, and case law, and can confirm that there are no other states that have imposed limitations (despite substantial records of such marriages being performed in most states), and that most states have language in their ordination statutes which on its own terms encompasses ULC-ordained ministers. Based on this preponderance, it would be misleading to suggest that ULC-ordained marriages are at risk in any state where this has not already been litigated. In fact, there are more states where ULC-ordained marriages have specifically been upheld or allowed than there are states where they have been barred. BD2412  T 01:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * BD2412, as a working lawyer I don't have time to deal with these statements in detail. But I think that it's clear that Grossman had a survey of reported cases, not a survey of state laws.  I note that your new edits make statements that are not supported by the cited sources.  From your own account it seems clear that the Wikipedia article on which you want to rely contains original research.  And there is no basis for not including a summary of this important issue in the main article, even if there is another article that addresses it in more detail.
 * Maybe they shouldn't, but people rely on Wikipedia. People are making life decisions based on the statements in Wikipedia that most states recognize ULC-solemnized marriages, even though, and I must emphasize this point, that is not a factual statement.  It's highly troubling to see this article continue to fail to give important information to readers.
 * Also, can you clarify whether you have any conflict of interest? For example, are you a ULC minister, or do you have clients or friends who are ULC ministers?  I have no conflict of interest.  John M Baker (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no conflict of interest, as you would probably know if you looked into my edit history. I have no affiliation with the ULC, but I have been a Wikipedia administrator for fifteen years, and have roughly 1.5 million edits, over 4,000 articles created, including most of the articles on judges of the United States, and countless articles on statutes, cases, and doctrines. As you might have guessed, I am also a lawyer (and occasional lecturer in law), and I happen to be a former United States appellate law clerk. With respect to your interpretation of the sources, I can only say this: there are precisely four states that have held ULC marriages to be invalid. There are seven that have expressly held them to be valid. The rest have not passed on the issue, but marriages by ULC-ordained ministers are routinely performed in all of them, and no issue has been raised so far. Many of the states that have not passed on the issue have statutes that grant the power to solemnize marriage very broadly, some without requiring any ordination at all. Wikipedia does not project legal proscriptions that are not in place. There is no source that says that "most jurisdictions" do not validate such ordinations; even the sources you cite say "some jurisdictions". Show me a source that says "most", please. BD2412  T 02:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * BD2412, I'll respond to your points in more detail when I have more time. For now, I will just say that the standard practice, when an article is spun off from the main article, is to leave a short summary of the material that is removed along with a pointer to the independent article, see WP:Content forking.  So I think that there definitively should be a summary in the main text of this article, not just in the lede, with a prominent cross-reference to the longer article.
 * I'm sorry if I was too quick to suppose you might have a conflict of interest. It has been an issue for other editors of this page.  As for myself, I was also an appellate law clerk (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit) and occasionally lecture on law, and while I'm not an administrator and don't have 1.5 million edits, I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2006.  John M Baker (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I did leave a short summary, but perhaps too short. I would be agreeable to working out somewhat broader summary language, but would prefer to work it out here first rather than going back and forth in the article. I'm aware that this article, like pretty much every religion-related article in Wikipedia (and like many articles on business concerns), will have its share of "the faithful" coming by to "fix" the page as they see fit. I am more interested in properly representing that the law can not deprecate fundamental rights unless it does so expressly, even where those rights are exercised by the most loosely defined example of a religious organization. BD2412  T 03:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)