Talk:Kathryn Ann Clarke

Spinbuster's Deletion of the "Controversy" Section

I am responding to a deletion of the "Controversy" section of this article made by the user named "Spinbuster."

According to Spinbuster, he or she deleted the section because the information contained in the section, "is not verifiable and is strickly opinion based on private emails an ex husband released in order to damage DFOT."

First of all, Spinbuster can not deny that there WAS a controversy as that would be deliberate censorship with suspicious motives. To attempt to deny the controversy is to deny the following bona fide FACTS:

A: There was discussion of Kathryn Ann Clarke (a.k.a. "Anne") from July 2006-April 2007. That discussion can be found on Semper Fi Catholic as well as Unity Publishing.

B: The Catholic Community Forum (CCF) user "MDS" did publish on the CCF web site a conversation he claimed to have with a Direction For Our Times representative.

C: MDS' post kick-started discussion of The Volumes as there were some problematic things that arose from MDS' discussion with the DFOT representative (some of which were listed under the "Controversy" section so I will not reiterate them here).

D: This discussion was noticed by and placed on Unity Publishing and was not the last thing that was published by Unity Publishing about Kathryn ("Anne").

E: On March 5, 2007, Unity Publishing placed an article that exposed "Anne" as Kathryn Ann Clarke.

F: On March 7, 2007, Dr. Mark Miravalle wrote a response to Unity Publishing. This response was duly cited here on Wikipedia.

G: On March 15/16, 2007, Kevin J. Symonds, former student of Dr. Miravalle, wrote a response to Dr. Miravalle. This was duly cited here on Wikipedia.

H: On April 9, 2007, Unity Publishing then published an edited version of E-mail correspondence that Kathryn Ann Clarke and her future DFOT CEO passed between them.

I: To date (January 3, 2009), Unity Publishing has not written another article on Kathryn Ann Clarke ("Anne").

Spinbuster was wrong to deny the above facts, de facto, by deleting the Controversy section. The above events DID happen and WERE appropriately referenced from the written tradition in the entry. The problem that Spinbuster had with the above facts was that they attacked (to use Spinbuster's own words) the Direction For Our Times apostolate. Such is not enough to delete an entire section.

Spinbuster then argued further for their deletion as that the source for writing the Controversy section was based upon the witness of the CEO's husband. I will treat this in more depth further down.

Because Spinbuster does not believe what the controversy was about, that does not negate the fact that a controversy happened and can be referenced here on Wikipedia.

Never once were the motives of the people behind the controversy discussed as that is pure speculation and not verifiable (in either direction, pro or con) from the written record to date. Furthermore, I highly doubt that Spinbuster has spoken to anyone who produced the evidence that went into publication of Unity Publishing's March 5, 2007 article. Thus Spinbuster is not able to claim what their motives were. Spinbuster's slight condescension upon the husband of DFOT's CEO was a vain attempt to disparage the materials in the Controversy section.

In fact, the Controversy section discussed (with citation) more than just the E-mail correspondence between Kathryn and her future CEO. The article also talked about the reaction to MDS' discussion with a DFOT representative that was placed on the Catholic Community Forum.

I am suspicious that Spinbuster was trying to delete the Controversy section because he or she is a supporter of Kathryn Ann Clarke.

Any further deletions in or of the Controversy section by Spinbuster or anyone else (non-wikipedia administration) will result in an automatic report to Wikipedia.

BenedictKJS (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

References

For some reason, I am unable to replace the Reference notes that were provided in the Controversy section. I will get those back up as soon as possible. Meanwhile, however, here is what they were:

1 http://www.catholic-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3296

2 “MDS” describes himself on his profile as being from Chattanooga, Tennessee and born on March 14th, 1968. MDS stated he did not want to name the representative on the Forum so he removed reference to the representative’s name.

BenedictKJS (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Modified the Controversy Section

I have modified the "Controversy" section so as to clean-up and simplify the grammar and syntax.

I also added a photo gallery with two photos--one of the author "Kathryn Ann Clarke" taken from her Teen Reads web site page. The other photo is of "Anne a lay apostle" during one of her speaking engagements. I added the photos for comparison purposes.

• Kathryn Ann Clarke
  Kathryn Ann Clarke
• "Anne a lay apostle"
  "Anne a lay apostle"

BenedictKJS (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So what is the long & short of it, are they long lost twins or the same person? What did Miravale say? The whole things seems like f-a-k-e... Is that so? So why not say so? And who owns the copyright to the photos? Watch out for that before they call their sharks, excuse me, lawyers... History2007 (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

To get right to the point: Same person. Tried to be neutral. Miravalle and DFOT have not publicly posted his response to Richard Salbato. I have a copy of said response. Can't say so: sharks. BenedictKJS (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

On the Eliza10 Edits

I have deleted the recent edits made by Eliza10 that created an entirely new "Controversy" section. This deletion was because the edits were redundant and the neutrality questionable. A quick check of one of Eliza's added references shows that she is a supporter of Direction For Our Times/Anne a lay apostle/Kathryn Ann Clarke. Thus her bias betrays that she was rushing to the defense of Kathryn, which is inappropriate to the usage of Wikipedia (again, neutrality).

Regarding Eliza's desire to see a citation of the claim that Kathryn didn't travel around the time of Salbato's expose onward, I don't think she looked at the Deal Hudson article closely enough. Writing in June of 2008--15 months after Salbato's March 2007 expose--Hudson, who had just spoken with Kathryn, wrote that she had not travelled since early 2007.

BenedictKJS BenedictKJS (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Need reliable sources

None of the sources cited in this article meet the WP standards for WP:Reliable sources -- independent, published, third-party sources -- adequate for an article about a living person. Blogs are not sufficient. The WP:Notability of the topic has not been demonstrated, even. Has there been no book, newspaper, or magazine coverage of this author? If not, the topic doesn't qualify to have its own WP article. --Chonak (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Bishop O'Reilly's Commission

In later literature on Kathryn Clarke ("Anne") and Direction For Our Times (DFOT), it is stated that Bishop O'Reilly formed a commission to examine Mrs. Clarke's claims. This is actually a mistake.

Bishop O'Reilly formed the commission on June 8, 2009, not 2010. The old DFOT web site has this information and was preserved on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine (http://web.archive.org/web/20090830170738/http://www.directionforourtimes.com/churchposition.html). BenedictKJS (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Outing

It seems odd that given WP:BLP we are choosing to out the personal information of this author who clearly wishes to remain pseudonymous. The linkage between her true identity and her allegedly-revelatory pseudonym is given by the Women of Grace blog, probably reliable enough. But the rest of this article was peppered with blogs and questionable sources as well as WP:PRIMARY sources so as to call into question the whole framework. So, is this something we wish to do, identifying this woman by her real name, and do we really want to discuss not only the topics of her YA fiction and work with domestic abuse victims, but also her alleged locutions and spiritual writings? And should we be doing this in the same article? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)