Talk:Integrity USA

NPOV

this page is blatenly Biased,please fix it. I would fix it myself but my own opions would proboly just make it worseTjb891 21:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:NPOV

I agree...this page needs major cleaning.--Lord Balin 03:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Almost the whole page is lifted from http://www.integrityusa.org/WhatIsIntegrity/index.htm the orginisations own website. I can have a go at rewritting it but Im not really a fan of their position so it might be a bit biased the other way. Also does anyone have anything on organisations that go the other way (ie anti gay (or should it be pro hetrp;))) and their opinions?

CaptinJohn (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Integrity USA Still Exists

The beginning of this article states "Integrity USA (1974-2019) was a nonprofit organization..." Although Integrity USA is a deeply troubled organization (as noted in the article), it still exists. Click here to see the latest news. John Clinton Bradley (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

North Carolina-based IP address keeps erasing info on 2019 resignations

Depending on the time of day when you log in, Integrity USA is either an extant organization doing hyperlocal organizing, or extinct. Who knows which is which? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcd504 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:ActualCOI

WP:ActualCOI Agaulnashings12 (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Constructive criticism given in a civil, respectful manner is a vital part in a collaborative project like Wikipedia, and it should be welcomed rather than discouraged. Wikipedia values contributions from everyone—novices and experts alike. It is important to listen to readers who find an article biased, confusing or unconvincing. They might not have the expertise to fix those problems, but the fact that they report them probably means that an article needs improvement. Agaulnashings12 (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

How did Integrity USA "lose" $400,000 over two years?

From Episcopal News Service article:

According to IRS filings, Integrity had $516,152 in net assets at the start of 2013 and had been taking in well over $200,000 per year for the preceding several years. By 2015, the last year it filed a full return to the IRS, Integrity reported $134,029 in net assets. That year, it reported just $54,574 in revenue, but $225,225 in expenses.

I think this information on missing $400,000 needs to be edited carefully.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pemberlies (talk • contribs)

Requested move 15 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved per nomination to the original title. (non-admin closure) —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Integrity USA scandal in The Episcopal Church → Integrity USA – This now-defunct organisation is easily notable enough per WP:ORG for its own article, but was moved on 31 March by a WP:Single-purpose account, and converted by that same editor into a one-sided article on the organisation's failings, bordering on an attack page. Step one to get the article back to a WP:Neutral point of view is to move it back to Integrity USA, its original title since April 2005. Storchy (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 17:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The organisation still exists, and proposal may have come from WP:COI to cover up an ongoing scandal within The Episcopal Church.

A comparable precedent for the article title's would be: Financial scandal in the Orthodox Church in America

Constructive criticism given in a civil, respectful manner is a vital part in a collaborative project like Wikipedia, and it should be welcomed rather than discouraged as "bordering on an attack page." Integrity USA's scandal within The Episcopal Church has more verified citations than its purported "programs and activities" or "founding" section. Pemberlies (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The precedent is not comparable: there is an article Orthodox Church in America, and the financial scandal of that organisation was created as a separate article Financial scandal in the Orthodox Church in America, to keep the main article to a reasonable size. Storchy (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Christianity has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 23:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Organizations has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 23:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Merge The reasons previously listed aren't ideal, but this article contains very little information that goes together as a "scandal". This article would do far better as a "Controversies" section. Listing it as a single "scandal" is inappropriate using the current sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: thanks for your comment. Do I understand you correctly that you support the proposal to move the article back to its original name of Integrity USA? Storchy (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Storchy: Yes. Will try to add material to further elaborate on the group's history. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Abuse" and other issues of neutrality

The word "abuse" has been repeatedly added to the lead section, in tandem with a link to Anglican Communion sexual abuse cases. I tried to remove the abuse article from the "See also" section, since there is not a single allegation of it against this group, and its presence is unhelpful. I also tried to remove "abuse" from the lead section, as it's a bizarre way to describe financial misconduct. It was immediately restored, with a Wikilawyering defense on the grounds of a Wiktionary definition. I don't use the term WP:POV pushing lightly, but a single-purpose account seems determined to turn this into an article about a scandal, rather than a WP:NPOV article about the group.

This article was also linked in the "See also" section of Anglican Communion sexual abuse cases, by the same editor. Why? Storchy (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

"Abuse" should not appear in the lead. It's barely mentioned in the article, and what is mentioned in the article isn't accurate. The sentence reads: "On November 25, 2019, following her published statement defending the abuse by Integrity's leadership, Integrity USA's president resigned, citing the need to spend more time with her family." The word "abuse" never actually appears in the source; it appears to be SYNTH, or perhaps POV-pushing. A much better word choice would be "mismanagement", which actually appears in the source. -- Kbabej (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I've done some more work on removing other WP:SYNTH within the article, along with some unsourced claims and some off-topic sentences about a board candidate's political career, and some more general edits for what I hope is a more neutral tone. Do you have any further recommendations? Storchy (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

You've done a good job with cleaning this up! Kudos. I don't have any immediate thoughts. --Kbabej (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The author’s claim that there are no sexual misconduct allegations concerning the operations of Integrity USA is, sadly, inaccurate. I advise caution regarding the manner in which this article continued to be edited. Pemberlies (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm all for caution with serious allegations like sexual abuse or sexual misconduct, especially about living people. You're claiming that there are sexual misconduct allegations: have you got reliable sources to verify this? Storchy (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source for that claim, @Pemberlies? Nothing in the article or the current sources on the page suggest any sexual misconduct. And agreed - we need to use caution, but not in the way you're positing. Sexual misconduct allegations are very serious, and should absolutely not be included without reliable sourcing. --Kbabej (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

If a section about sexual misconduct allegations within the operations of Integrity USA is eventually published (if and when the information becomes more accessible,) it would be best to make that section independent from the financial misconduct allegations. Each would be serious enough to merit its own section.

The claim that there are no sexual misconduct allegations concerning the operations of Integrity USA is, sadly, inaccurate. I advise caution regarding the manner in which this article continues to be edited. Pemberlies (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

And you will still need reliable sources to verify your claims of "sexual misconduct".

Regarding your re-addition of claims of "homophobic slurs", please see WP:RSOPINION, which says "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person..." Blogs are not a reliable source. Storchy (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

How about a published statement by Integrity USA's President regarding the comments published on November 15, 2019? Pemberlies (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Post it here please, and we can all have a look at the reliability of the source, and what it actually says. Storchy (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

No, deleted Facebook posts are not regarded as reliable sources on Wikipedia. Please don't use those again as sources for contentious claims, especially about living people. Storchy (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kbabej: I've tried to do some more cleanup today for neutral tone, and would be glad to hear your thoughts on it.
At the moment most of the article is a detailed account of the misconduct allegations late in the organisation's lifetime, sourced mainly by one journalist from the official EC news outlet. There's almost nothing about what happened in the organisation from 1974 to 2019. It would be good if more content could be added about the actual work they did as an organisation, and I'm hoping to add more of this. However, as a straight British man, American LGBT Christianity is not something I'm very familiar with, so it will take some time for me to do this. Since you're from the US, I'd be grateful for any help you can offer. Thanks, Storchy (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

If Integrity formally dissolved, where is its remaining $51,631.22 in LGBTQ+ Episcopal ministry funds?

https://storage.googleapis.com/wzukusers/user-29408920/documents/19a3bc34a9fe4781a5f7f6639669963b/Treasurer's%20Report%20for%2019%20May%202020%20reviewed.pdf Pemberlies (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Pemberlies, that is not for WP to determine. That would fall under original research. --Kbabej (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Article connection

@Pemberlies, I asked this on your talk page but you have not replied. Do you have a connection with this article or topic? Your entire WP editing experience has been focusing on this area. --Kbabej (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Misconduct by Christian clergy

@Pemberlies: You've re-added Category:Misconduct by Christian clergy. I can see nothing in the article about misconduct by clergy. To whom is that category referring?

You've also re-added Episcopal Survivors Network to the external links. Again, what's the connection? Storchy (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Storchy, I removed that. There isn't a connection. The Episcopal Survivors Network pdf is talking about sexual abuse and related issues, not financial mismanagement. --Kbabej (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)