Talk:Myles Munroe

Response to request for Speedy Deletion

I can understand how one can make a prima facie case that this is spam, but I believe the Myles Munroe clearly meets the Wikipedia requirements for notability, and hence, whereas the current content of this page aren't perfect, this page is no more commercial than the current Wikipedia entries for other notable writers, such as Salman Rushdie, or notable evangelists, such as Oral Roberts.

Regarding notability, Myles Munroe has already been listed as notable on Bahamians with a request for a page. This article was created to meet that request. A Google news archive search results in over 300 news articles about Dr. Munroe since 1980. Additionally, the awards and honors he has received are quite prestigious. When Mr. Rushdie, for example, was awarded Queen's Birthday Honours (an award that Myles Munroe received some years earlier) it resulted in strong protest from several Muslim countries.

One might argue that a link to Dr. Munroe’s home page is commercial, but this standard practice in Wikipedia.

One might also argue that the link to an Amazon listing of his works is commercial, but this was merely to provide a reference on the number of works he has authored. If it is felt to be overly commercial, then it can be easily deleted without unduly compromising the article.

I believe that the above response fully addressed the concerns about spam but would welcome further elaboration of any issues I have missed.--Nowa (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Using honorary degrees as titles

Clearly this article was written by the PR arm of his ministry. My issue is the use of Dr. As best I can tell, he does not have an earned doctorate, only honorary degrees. Besides the fact that Wikipedia articles do not continually use a title (not even for notables like Jonas Salk or Albert Einstein), just because someone likes to use an honorary title doesn't mean we should. I am going to remove all the Dr. titles from the article. The rest of it needs work, too. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Bob: While I don't yet know what Wikipedia policy is for addressing/titling of article subjects who had honorary doctorates, it's a doctorate bestowed on the individual nonetheless. If it's bestowed on an individual by a reputable, credentialed college or university, then it's still a doctorate. People can be legally called whatever they choose to be called, and it appears that Munroe's staff, colleagues, and close associates referred to him as "Dr.". Personally, I don't believe that those who receive honorary doctorate degrees should call themselves "Dr.", but my personal viewpoints - and the personal viewpoints of anyone - on this subject aren't necessarily policy. Until we know what the MOS states on this, leave "Dr." out, but be prepared if we find the MOS says "Dr." is permissible as a title regardless of our personal feelings on the subject. Further, it's really more in line with the MOS to refer to him as "Munroe" throughout the article, so I don't think that "Dr." as a title is going to be much of an issue, regardless. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Let me refer you to the Wikipedia article Honorary degree which states: "With regard to the use of this honorific, the policies of institutions of higher education generally ask that recipients "refrain from adopting the misleading title"[6] and that a recipient of an honorary doctorate's use of the title "Dr" before his or her name should be restricted to engagement with the institution of higher education in question and not within the broader community." I can attest that this is the practice in most communities. My church group strongly warns against any of its ministers using the title if their degree is honorary or even from an unacredited school. There are many who love to use the title to give them greater respectability. If their work gives them respectability, that's more important than a title anyway. Those of us with earned degrees get a little touchy about this. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into policy on this. I realize that those of "us" with degrees frown upon those using titles that don't apply to them. But, like I said, our opinion of whether or not they should or can use those titles doesn't play into what goes into Wikipedia. And let's not forget that Bill Cosby is frequently referred to as "Dr. Bill Cosby" (he also has an honorary degree) and the public by-and-large doesn't seem to mind. I mind, you may mind, but there are those who don't. Regardless, it's policy HERE we should be concerned with. You found what we needed to support not using "Dr." in the article, and that's good enough. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW, Bill Cosby has a bunch of honorary degrees, to be sure. However he has an earned Ed.D. (Doctor of Education) from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. That one is very real. He is more than entitled to use it any time he wants. But, of course, we do not refer to him as "Dr. Cosby" in the article. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing

I cannot find any evidence (after searching many sites) of him ever being awarded this. That being the case I am removing any reference to it until someone can provide such.voiceofreason 18:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgyver2k (talk • contribs)

Quoting an uncited article from "Fox news latino" hardly qualifies as proof of him receiving the OBE. I will remove that reference and await an actual source.voiceofreason 20:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgyver2k (talk • contribs)

It's referenced by a reliable source. Please see WP:VERIFY. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability over truth. Keep removing it, Mcgyver2k, and you will end up getting reported for edit warring. Your choice. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

WV I am in partial agreement with Mcgyver2k regarding sources for things like the OBE. Stories that appear in much of the news media within the first couple of days after an event like this are forced to rely on information that has not yet had time to be properly researched. Sometime, their information comes (uncredited) from other news agencies so they all end up saying the same thing, true or not. If the first news source got the OBE information from Munroe's web-site or even from Wikipedia (irony of ironies), then everyone will report it, since it's not a critical fact. So, I think it is wise to be slow to put these things into a page. That said, I do like the most recent source cited. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I searched specifically for a UK source. In fact, that particular source publishes recipients of the OBE year-to-year. It's already a reliable source (Fox News Latino is a reliable source as well, most certainly). It's coming from two reliable sources - one in the UK - and we have no way of knowing where they go their information. To think they got what they've written from Wikipedia is using pure speculation and probably falls under WP:CRYSTAL to some degree. That said, if it's reported in a reliable source, then it's valid for inclusion. I see no reason to remove the OBE content in the article considering the fact that we now have two reliable sources supporting the inclusion of it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I found lists of recipients on several websites but no reference of this man on any of them so I have to conclude that the original mentions of him on the news sites (hardly authorities in and of themselves) were likely pulled from Wikipedia. Yes, quite ironic. Calling a main stream media outlet (of any color) a "reference" is quite the stretch in my mind.voiceofreason 21:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgyver2k (talk • contribs)

Mcgyver2k, please familiarize yourself with what is considered a reliable source in Wikipedia and what is not. While you, as an individual, can make conclusions on where sources get their information, putting your conclusions into article content is WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYNTH, equating original research. None of which is allowable in the course of editing Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is the list of recipients in 1998 and his name is not one of them so let's put it to bed that he did not receive it: voiceofreason 23:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You're trying to prove a negative with an online newspaper? I hardly think an online publication is the definitive source for those receiving any honors. We'd need something more reputable and infallible to prove he was NOT given the OBE in 1998 (or any year, for that matter). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I provided a list of all the winners but that's not good enough for you? Wow! Okay, I'm done.voiceofreason 00:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgyver2k (talk • contribs)

The list provided of the actual announcement of the Queens honors list would be accurate, misinformation spreads over time, if we say he was awarded it iin 1998 then we look at that list, its not there. If no-one else does thier research we shouldnt follow suit. And as per WP:POSTNOM

" should be included when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated". What are his links to the UK? If we can find a source for the award of the OBE this may become clearer, but the OBE should be removed from after his name in the meantime. Murry1975 (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A list in a news publication can most certainly be wrong, and that's all the list is: something a newspaper printed. It's not the official list. Regardless, many reliable sources say he DID receive the honor, not one source says he did NOT receive the honor. His links to the UK are that he was a citizen of a British Commonwealth. In fact, the UK source that doesn't list him as an OBE recipient is the same publication that just two days ago says he WAS a recipient. We don't try to interpret - as you and Mcgyver are suggesting. We add content based on what we can find in reliable sources. Numerous reliable sources say he received an OBE. No valid reason (so far) exists to keep it out of the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You are the one trying to prove a negative here. They don't publish names of non winners, they publish names of winners. If you think that the media outlets don't cut and paste from other media sources instead of fact checking before printing/posting then I simply cannot help you. They guy was never awarded it and he probably never received the silver jubilee thingy either since I can't find ANY reference to it online. That is all.voiceofreason 16:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgyver2k (talk • contribs)

If he recieved it there would be a citation for it, "awarded for his.....". like this, oh wait its the list from 1998!!! And guess who is not there... And as for the sources that give conflicting information, we cant give weigth to one report and not the other. He was not an OBE, I have found him listed in articles but I havent found his citation, which is proof. Murry1975 (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The original source is dead , but its new version [1] is primary self published. Which isnt listed on the offical public record.Murry1975 (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Want to have a civil discussion, Murry1975? Then don't start sounding like Mcgyver2k in tone and attitude.

Where is the official list, Murry? A list published by an online newspaper isn't the official list. So far, I've not seen the official list and, from what you've posted here, neither have you.

And one thing the two of you seem to be missing: the Queen's Birthday Honours OBE list appears to be separate from the typical OBE honors list. Perhaps a different time and presentation? I think so.

No, neither of you have proven anything. Only that a newspaper didn't have Munroe's name on a list they published back in 1998. Newspapers make mistakes and omit names frequently. His name NOT being on a list in a newspaper article is proof of nothing. Remember, the threshold of content inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability over "truth". so far, source after verifiable and reliable source states Munroe received the honor. That's good enough for inclusion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Want to have a civil discussion? Leave out personal remarks then. The London Gazette isnt an "online newspaper", its an offical journal of the UK government and is used to announce and record events, such as the Queens awards. It is the most reliable source for the announcing of OBEs. Murry1975 (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Is The Queen's Birthday Honours where awards and titles are presented a separate ceremony/occasion than when the OBE is bestowed on an annual basis? Yes or no. And, when and where did you post a link to the London Gazette, Murry1975? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

WV, yes, Honours are issued twice per year, once on the Queen's birthday and once on New Year's Day. It is within the realm of possibility that Munroe received a New Year's Day honor and conflated it with the Queen's birthday that year. BUT, he doesn't show up on that list either. When you go to the British Government page on Honours (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/honours-reform-and-operation#honours-lists), it lists the last several years and then refers the reader to The Gazette (https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices), which is the official recorded of government records for previous years. They have a great search engine which goes back to 1998 (convenient for us). Munroe does not appear. So, unless he received the OBE before 1998 and messed up the date, he is not a recipient. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Bob, interesting you posted your comments right before I was about to do the same. I looked into the London Gazette, looked into their archives, also found they go back to 1998, and found the difference between the New Year's honors and the birthday honors. Came to the same conclusion: Munroe is not listed. My hope is he wasn't lying and padding his resume; that he just got the type of honor and year wrong. That said, I am thinking the former rather than the latter. I have no personal or religious interest in Munroe, only in the article being as accurate and complete as possible. My guess is those who have become hostile and have sought to be aggressive and edit warriors over this issue aren't looking at the OBE inclusion/removal from anything but a personal aspect. Such is the heart of many disputes that get stupid and ugly in Wikipedia, I believe. At any rate, I'm glad to see the inclusion of the OBE go if it wasn't legitimately bestowed on Munroe. So disappointing to find when people lie just to make themselves seem more than they really are. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

WV, I likewise have no particular interest in Munroe. I've heard the name, but have never been exposed to his ministry, good or bad. I do, however, know the circles in which he travels and, sadly, exaggeration or fabrication of honors are not unknown. I will remind you that he insists on using "Dr." even though most would say he is not entitled to do so. It pains me as I am a fellow-Christian ordained minister. Munroe had great success and was well-known and respected. That should be all the credentials a man needs. But, as I said, in the particular religious circles in which he traveled, the desire to puff oneself up is all too common. I hate to speak ill of the dead and I don't know all the details. Suffice it to say that the removal of the title of "Dr." and of "OBE" are proper. If anyone finds a source with the UK government showing him receiving the OBE, bring it and restore the OBE. Otherwise, I really think this issue should be closed for now. It's too bad that WV got a little sideways with Murry1975 and Mcgyver2k. I think there was some misunderstanding and talking past each other, but it seems like we should all be on the same page now. That's what these discussions are for. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

When people start employing WP:IDHT and edit warring in conjunction with aggressive words and tone and then lie about me, yes, I tend to get upset by that. Go figure. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There was only ONE editor with the IDHT attitude on here, not reading sources supplied and resorting to personal remarks. And your last revert on the article, the entire article is a biography, having a biography section in a biography is nonsense, but in my brief dealing with you it makes sense that you blind revert that aswell. As you like showing other editors links WP:OWN is up your street, along with WP:THEM. Also it take tweo to edit war, and not only Mcgyver2k was doing that, but again its them. Murry1975 (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong on every point, but I don't suppose you will agree. By the way, have you heard of WP:BRD? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Those who are still hoping to find the official notice of his 1998 award of the OBE will be happy to see https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/55158/supplement/1. (Fourth Supplement of The London Gazette of Friday, 12th June 1998). His name is there. The entry is "O.B.E./To be Ordinary Officers of the Civil Division of the said Most Excellent Order:" Then it gives three names of people from the Bahamas who are being awarded the OBE. The second one is "Dr. Myles Egbert MUNROE. For services to religion." If you try to find Munroe's name directly from the main search box you don't find him -- possibly an OCR problem. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for doing the hard work and locating this verification, Ed. I'm also glad to find out that Reverend Munroe was not being dishonest about the award. It was kind of disheartening to think that he would have lied about such a thing. Much appreciated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Good work, EdJohnston. As an experiment, I took three of the other names from that document and ran them through the search engine. None of them came up. Obviously, the search engine is not as reliable as one would hope. I wonder if it is not keyed to the supplements or something? We now know that we can't use the search engine to eliminate someone. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Good edits coming

It's a little sad that it took this man's death to get responsible editors to look at the page and realize that it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. The complaint that it sounds like it was written by a PR person is certainly correct. I like the way the edits are starting to go--to turn this from a fluff page to a more neutral presentation of the man. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It will also be nice if more information on Munroe's early life comes out: names of parents, exactly where he was born, where he lived, siblings, etc. Sadly, articles on individuals known in sub-culture groups that are religious in nature often fall through the cracks and issues with those articles get ignored. I have removed the neutrality tag at the top of the article as it no longer reads like a promotional puff piece. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Article body

My current concern is with the article body and taking the subsections out, converting them into sections. I realize that articles evolve over time, usually getting larger with more content and with that in mind, small sections aren't a forever issue. Thoughts on this?

One more note: a similar article about a similar individual, Paul Crouch, is set up in a very similar manner. Ukexpat brought up today on my talk page that the set up of this article makes no sense (section following the lead paragraph called "Biography") because the article itself is a biography. I agree to a certain degree, but know that there are numerous articles in Wikipedia that are set up in the same manner (first section below lead being "Biography") and this is the first I've seen of anyone making an issue of it. I was accused of unconstructive editing by putting it back in the order it currently is in. I'd be interested in the views of other editors on this as well as any constructive suggestions. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I accused you of unconstructive editing because you blindly reverted all my edits, including my removal of unnecessary external links, and my addition of a DEFAULTSORT. There may be many articles like this (with "Biography" sections), but as and when I come across them (and where it makes sense), I remove the Biography heading and promote the subheadings beneath it.--ukexpat (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2014

MYLES MUNROE'S DAUGHTER WAS NOT KILLED ON THE PLANE CRASH. IT WAS HIM,HIS WIFE, HIS BROTHER-IN -LAW AND 6 OTHERS

204.236.78.224 (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

In the future, please do not use all caps.

References found yesterday and last night for this story state his daughter was in the crash. Do you have an updated, reliable source that states definitively that the daughter wasn't in the crash and who all the victims were? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done See update number 4: [2]. In a press release, they released the list of those passed away. "Dr. and Mrs. Munroe leave behind two young adult children, daughter, Charisa and son, Chairo (Myles Jr.) Munroe.". Stickee (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Length of controversy section

I see there has been some editing going back and forth regarding the controversy over Munroe's view on homosexuality. It seems to me that the length of this section is way out of proportion to the man's life. There was a controversy and it should be mentioned. Do we need this level of detail in an article so lacking in detail elsewhere. Could some of it go into footnotes? Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No. Add more content and detail as it becomes available (or find some content and put it in) to balance the amount in the section on his life, but don't get rid of the two issues mentioned in the controversy section just because there is lack of proportion. They guy was quite controversial in his country. There are several other examples of controversy he stirred up we could put in, to be honest. As time goes on in the days and months following his death, I wouldn't be surprised if some scandalous behavior comes to light and will likely go into the controversy section. Which will make for more seeming disproportion. More detail in his life is what needs to happen, not take away what's already there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Myles Munroe. 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/20060902230111/http://alumniweb.oru.edu/excell/spring04/pages/other/aoy3.html to http://alumniweb.oru.edu/excell/spring04/pages/other/aoy3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 10:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Me no too Sabi🤧...I rest my case

This man nah legend...may his soul rest in peace 105.112.225.245 (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)