Talk:Convergence Movement

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Convergence Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090408212334/http://thecci.tv:80/ to http://www.thecci.tv

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Jack Lumanog

@Loose canon and AndreasMar: Could you please explain why the content about him removed? And why is he added to the article at the first place? I have no horse on the race. Please discuss here instead of reverting one another. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The partisan information provided is inaccurate and does not reflect the tone and content in the rest of the article on the Convergence Movement. Loose canon (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The information is verifiable through the Anglican Church in North America's website, and the Kentucky Secretary of State. The sources used in the article are also archived through the Wayback Machine and verify every single thing. This is now playing on ignorance. AndreasMar (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

That information through the ACNA and even Lumanog's own website says he joined that Apostolic Communion of Anglican Churches, whose founder is notably infamous through the ACNA blog without naming him or the denomination, and through the other article which showed their "erratic" history and ordination of an anti-pope (also featured in a major news source besides that minor source). The Secretary of State further showed their use of the same/similar PO boxes, etc for these so called "accredited universities." Anyways, the information on Lumanog and that body which now is allegedly trying to meddle in after having drafts failed for Lumanog's separate article persistently, ties in how Convergence Movement has gained even more recognition not just among the Catholics through Sly who left the CEC for the Catholic Church. AndreasMar (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

While it may be factual that Lumanog join the Apostolic Communion of Anglican Churches, is it notable for it to be included on this article? I didn't contest the facts that Lumanog joined, but is his joining so notable to the Convergence Movement that his joining have to be mentioned on the article? ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This is the point. Thank you @SunDawn Loose canon (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Also check the citation from the ACNA article. There is no mention of "excommunication." That is a partisan addition and is not supported by the article. Loose canon (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Please stop messing up the discussion thread here. This is intentional confusion now. And really? No excommunication? "Mr. Jon I “Jack” Lumanog is no longer with the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). During a restorative period while under an ecclesiastical suspension, Mr Lumanog elected to seek ecclesiastical status with another non-ACNA faith group. This and other professional and personal decisions have led to him being inhibited from ministry by me. This means he is no longer a priest with, and has no ecclesiastical standing in, the Anglican Church in North America."... per the source. So, they even show on their own Lumanog website they are not a member of the ACNA... AndreasMar (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

How is that the point when you first claimed in the edits it was a "personal attack" and then the information is inaccurate? Are you trying to play both hands here or what? Just to even try and fight a patroller...what is the reason now? Personal or what? There's too many flags being thrown up for me. I feel this is genuinely just something personal because there's too many connections with the Cornell College article, the fact Lumanog associates with it alot, and even this information which you only came back to engage in Wikipedia upon because "personal attack" and "partisan" and "inaccurate" info. AndreasMar (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, considering the ACNA is part of the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches, with a huge presence digitally and physically, it should be notable definitely because it dawned that hey, this little movement is gaining recognition whether controversial or not. That information through the ACNA and even Lumanog's own website says he joined that Apostolic Communion of Anglican Churches, whose founder is notably infamous through the ACNA blog without naming him or the denomination while hinting at him, and through the other article cited which showed their "erratic" history and ordination of an anti-pope (also featured in a major news source besides that minor source). The Secretary of State further showed their use of the same/similar PO boxes, etc for these so called "accredited universities." Anyways back to the elephant in the room, the information on Lumanog and that body which now is allegedly trying to meddle in after having drafts failed for Lumanog's separate article persistently, ties in how Convergence Movement has gained even more recognition not just among the Catholics through Sly who left the CEC for the Catholic Church. AndreasMar (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

One thing is for sure to add in my case, if this is partisan and inaccurate despite verification of information...why so fiesty? Also, why the deliberate undos of even SunDawn trying to be a third party to listen? AndreasMar (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Point taken @AndreasMar. Still learning Wikipedia. Loose canon (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I can see that Lumanog might be notable for ACNA, but I am not convinced enough that his entry affects the movement as a whole. But can someone explain to me about Darel Chase? His actions might be controversial, but is it closely related to the Convergence Movement? If it didn't affect the whole movement, it should be removed from this article. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

So, this information on Lumanog can be placed in the ACNA page? And for Darel Chase, despite ordaining Rutherford Johnson as well making him somewhat notable for this movement by his consecrations, and the creation of a accreditation and diploma mill as verified with the government, you can say he is closely related to educating in some manner and consecrating Anglicans from GAFCON and a anti-pope, right? AndreasMar (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The controversial figure ordained Lumanog as a bishop when leaving the ACNA, likewise ordaining that anti-pope and bringing in someone (Lands) who was part of a former province of the CEEC, and even bringing in another Anglican realignment bishop from South Sudan? What's there to add for notability with their actions broadening the Convergence Movement? AndreasMar (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The way I see it, Lumanog and Chase are not notable enough to be in this article. While their individual actions might be notable, their actions didn't represent the whole Convergence Movement. There will always be controversial fringe people on any spiritual movement, and the way I see it both Lumanog and Chase are not shaping or influencing the movement enough. Including them is WP:UNDUE and have problems with WP:WEIGHT. While ordaining an antipope seems to be notable, I didn't think it represents the Convergence Movement. And his accreditation mill is even further from the Convergence Movement. Such claims could be placed on Chase's article, but I didn't think he is notable enough. Is there any more evidence that Chase and Lumanog influence Convergence Movement heavily? ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

What's there missing? [1], [2], [3], [4] for example? AndreasMar (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Reading the whole history section from start to finish, it may as well be better to rename it: Development. AndreasMar (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

SunDawn may I also mention a further perhaps conflict of interest with the name Loose 'canon' and the fact according to Lumanog's own website: "Then from 2011-2019, Dr. Jack Lumanog served the ACNA faithfully in two full time roles simultaneously as both Canon to the Archbishop as well as the Chief Operating Officer. As Canon to the Archbishop, Lumanog assisted the Archbishop chiefly in carrying out the mission of the Province, both domestically and with international Anglican mission partners." This is too many COI correlations between the college Wikipedia page, the drafts for Lumanog which were never approved, and this instance here. AndreasMar (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This pattern I'm analyzing shows its either Lumanog themselves or a representative of them. AndreasMar (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)