Talk:Sword of the Spirit/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Admin review

I have noticed this page has been added to edit warring noticeboard. I would perhaps suggest reviewing all edits by the user who raised this notice, as the notice omits several details and may be misrepresentative. I would also perhaps suggest that this page might need further admin attention, as we currently have a swathe of COI and suspected COI editors, some of whom are engaging in attempted outing. There are also issues with misrepresentation, and some editors directly insulting others (some of this has been reverted thankfully) that may need resolved. Linn C Doyle (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: I had noticed you have previously been helpful removing db-attack drive-by tagging by COI editors. @MelanieN: I had noticed you have previously been helpful by protecting this page from vandalism by COI editors. @CogitoErgoSum14: I had noticed you have been helpful reverting vandalism previously on this page. @JzG: I had noticed you have previously been helpful in helping sort out rulings on what is appropriate and inappropriate editing on this page. Is there any advice you can give on resolving current issues on this page. Quite frankly I think this talk page and the editors involved have gone far beyond the need for admin attention and I have no idea where to begin, I would really appreciate some guidance in how to approach all this.

• Declared COI attempting to out IP only users and threatening lawsuits
• Undeclared COI and suspected undeclared COI all pushing corporate vanity edits (suspected paid editors).
• Editors insulting other editors
• Pushing of minority opinion content
• Persistent vandalism
• Persistent disruptive editing
• Suspected sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry

Linn C Doyle (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to get admins involved, I'd like to point out that Linn C Doyle is also a suspected COI editor, and has also engaged in disruptive editing, edit warring (including 3RR violation), insulting other users, and has recently refused to engage in conversation regarding constructive edits. I don't want any admins joining in the conversation now to think this is a one-sided issue. Sudonymous (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: Firmly disagree with all of these allegations which you have failed to evidence. You think I am a COI editor based on my edits, however I am confident my edits are reliable, accurate and neutral, and you have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary despite being repeatedly invited to do so, a fact you conveniently omit. You raised the edit war complaint which is still open, do not misrepresent this please. Please desist from jumping on every edit I make as a chance to harass me. You have commented on every single edit I have made for days with harassment, insults and accusations, this is not constructive. Thank you. Linn C Doyle (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: Similarly, you think I am a COI editor based on my edits, but without any evidence that I am. I know that I am not a COI editor. I have explained repeatedly how your edits are biased, I will not do it again until an admin asks me.

The admin agreed that you had broken the 3RR rule, and told you to revert your edit, which you did. I think I am correct in saying you broke the 3RR rule.

I am not "jumping on every edit [you] make as change to harass [you]". You have repeatedly accused me of being a COI editor / sockpuppet, and of being unconstructive when it is you blocking progress on this page. I am allowed to respond to these accusations, it is not harassment to defend my integrity. Sudonymous (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Well we disagree on that this I am sure everyone is capable of reviewing the edit history and reading above discussion.Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Number 57: @Arbitrarily0: you have also been helpful in dealing with issues on this page, so tagging you as potential admins to help out. Sudonymous (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I should make you aware that if you review previous discussion @Arbitrarily0: requested no further involvement with this page.Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Admin here. Linn C Doyle, please lower the temperature. You should seek outside views from relevant WikiProjects, as admins won't resolve content disputes. While one editor here has a declared COI, that doesn't mean you get to keep asserting without evidence COIs or sockpuppetry for other editors: please read WP:AGF. You must not make claims such as threats of lawsuits without providing diffs. Your editing and discussion is often too confrontational: please don't use bolding, because it looks like shouting; please be more concise; please don't keep reverting before consensus can be reached; please edit other topics to cool off and get more familiar with editing in general. Wikipedia editing does not have to be and should not be a constant fight (see WP:GREATWRONGS). Fences&Windows 00:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Hi, in case there's any confusion I'm declaring a conflict of interest as an SOS member.

I tried to draft a page several years ago but it didn't work out. I made a minor edit to the language a few weeks ago.

I don't think my involvement is really relevant to the broader discussions.

more92 (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Words Attributed to Atwood Are Not Her Words

@Sudonymous:, @Linn C Doyle:, @Jadbaz: I brought this up earlier, but it seems to have been lost in the wall of text above. I think this is an important point, and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

• The source states that Atwood quoted from the clipping which itself said that POH ‘subordinates its women, discourages social contact with non-members, arranges marriages, moves teenage disciples to households for indoctrination . . . their treatment of women is very Islamic. It’s a form of brainwashing.’.
  • These aren't Atwood's own words.
    • These are the words of Mrs Janice Ross as quoted by Frank Bajak in an Associated Press article.
    • Atwood was quoting the AP newspaper clipping, which in turn was quoting a certain Mrs Janice Ross.
    • There's no indication that Atwood was even familiar with POH, beyond this clipping, so I doubt that the community itself was an inspiration for the book.
    • According to the source, the newspaper clipping about the community was one of the many inspirations for the book - not the community itself.
• To further prove the invalidity of the Atwood article as a source for this Wikipedia article, one can read this article from National Review by Jim Geraghty which lays out how it's chronologically impossible for the clipping to have influenced the book, since the clipping was published after the book.
  • Whether or not you agree with his views, or his tone, please take the time to read it and follow his argument - and you'll see that he's right: it's chronologically impossible for the clipping to have influenced the book.
• I would think this quote shouldn't be included at all for the reasons laid out above. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Franciskouj (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Franciskouj: Hi Francisco.

• National Review is not a reliable source. Penguin is. You have been repeatedly previously informed about this.
• The AR article linked in national review author and by yourself has a different title and wording to the one in the image in the Penguin article which Atwood references. It is not the same printing.
• The relevant in quote adjustments of what is and is not attributed to Atwood have already been included in the article.

Thank you.Linn C Doyle (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

COI

@Linn C Doyle:, why did you add a COI tag for me? I told you I don't have a COI. User:Fences and windows above told you not to keep asserting that users have COI's without any basis for saying so. You would do well to heed their advice. I removed this tag. If Sudonymous or someone else wants to re-add it let them do it - I won't remove it until it's resolved. But please refrain from doing so, Linn until your COI status is resolved. Jadbaz (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Jadbaz, you may have missed my later comments at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1008504374#Sword_of_the_Spirit, where I pointed out that your first major edit in 2008 was to create a draft of an article on this topic. I believe you likely do have a COI, though of course I cannot prove so. Fences&Windows 18:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Jadbaz I do not understand why your willingness to be identified as a COI editor is dependant on what editor tags you as such?Linn C Doyle (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

More Distuptive Editing

@Jadbaz: Hi your edits have been reverted as you have again blanked several references and some content over multiple edits. The page has been restored to pre-destructive editing. Can I please clarify several things:

• Shepherding movement ref is that the 'covenant community' design used in SoS is devolved from Mumford Prince and Co. Deleting this and cherry picking only to include statement on leadership is disruptive.
• You deleted a referenced journal article and content due to the website which hosted a version of this journal article in text. The fact that this is available in text via an independent website does not affect the reliability of Journal Publishing. This is disruptive editing.Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jadbaz: you had raised a couple of points which I would really like to work together on. The edit to the Shepherding info seems to me like you want to discuss headship within this group. It would be fantastic if you have content on this that you would like to contribute :D I think the clarification of 'throughout history' to 'throughout the 80s and 90s' is great too. It would be awesome if you had content you wished to contribute regarding the investigation of SoS communities by bishops. Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Linn C Doyle. So you seem to agree that adding information concerning the timing of these incidents is helpful? I can make some of these changes - I just want to check that you won't undo my edits. Jadbaz (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Responding to each part of the dispute separately: 1. George Bacouni has his own article, so he is WP:NOTABLE by Wikipedia's definition (unless you think that article should be deleted, which is another question). He is also the archbishop of Beirut and The Sword of the Spirit has a location in Beirut, so his view seems like it could be relevant for a reception section. Finally, the reception section is currently entirely negative, which suggests the article may be giving WP:UNDUE influence to one side. Actually the entire article is pretty negative, I question the POV of it. That being said, Jadbaz|'s inclusion needs serious work. The citation style doesn't work well with the rest of the article or Wikipedia's usual style of citation, and I don't think you need to provide the full quote, just like the previous quote on "concerns" regarding Sword of the Spirit is not a full quote. @Sudonymous: So one thing I would clarify is that the article does not have a negative bias, simply the article reflects the content of reliable publishing regarding this organisation in a neutral manner. I would definitely agree that much of this could very much be perceived as negative, but there is no negative bias in the article itself. Regarding the Bacouni quote the main issue I have with this is it is from some pamphlet published in a remote corner of the vatican website. Though the individual may be considered notable, the source is definitely not on any list of reliable publishers. Tbh I fear that opening up the article to such unreliable opinion pieces is a bit of a can of worms and will be detrimental to the article overall.Linn C Doyle (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC) @Sudonymous: If you have a source regarding the Sword of the Spirit community in Beruit it would be great to include. I cannot seem to find anything online detailing a SoS location in Beruit so I am curious as to where this information is from Linn C Doyle (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC) The article is primarily focused on scandals involving SoS and negative statements about them/their actions, I would call that a negative bias. For example, there is very little information on what SoS actually is or what it does, and instead a focus almost solely on the negative elements. It is good to include information on these negative elements, but it cannot be the entire article. The Bacouni quote was within the reception section, which is specifically about summarizing opinions on SoS, so there is no issue that it comes from an opinion piece. Furthermore, since he is a catholic archbishop, the Vatican website is a perfectly reliable source for what his opinion is. If you check the Sos website, they list their locations which includes Beirut. Sudonymous (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Sudonymous: So I couldnt disagree more I'm afraid. I have had extensive discussion with admin over quality sources and the vatican website is not one. There is zero peer review and corrections for starters, and an inherent bias besides. This is absolutely not WP:RS. The real issue quite frankly is opening up the article to quoted personal opinions from self-publishing web resources. For example there is extensive blog style content detailing domestic abuse, sexual abuse and cult-issues. If we include a bishops blog, why not also the blogs of ex-members? Such poorly sourced opinion pieces with no reason for reliability is really a bit of an issue. I am afraid I am going to have to firmly disagree here.Linn C Doyle (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC) Peer review is not the definition of a reliable source, Wikipedia sourcing is not limited to academic journals. If that was the case we'd have to remove many of the other sources and claims on this article. Bias also does not necessarily prevent a source from being reliable; this is covered in WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Once again, this quote was included in the Reception section, which is specifically focused on opinions. WP:RSOPINION makes clear that sources can be considered reliable as a source of opinion, even if they are not reliable as a source of fact, and I think this clearly applies to the Vatican website. If you think this article shouldn't have opinions, then we'd need to remove the entire Reception section, and all the opinions snuck into other sections, such as the Margaret Atwood quote. Those blogs of ex-members detailing abuse are making claims of fact (that abuse occured) not opinion, so a higher standard of reliability applies. Furthermore, most of the people writing those blogs are probably not notable, so it does not make sense to catalog their individual opinions. Instead it makes sense to cite reliable sources that summarize their claims, which you already have throughout the article. If we had a reliable source stating "many archbishops approve of SoS for x, y, z reasons", then it would make sense to include that instead of a quote from an individual archbishop, but as far as I know we do not have that, so a single archbishop's reaction makes sense for a Reception section. Sudonymous (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Sudonymous: Also to clarify, Margaret atwood is notable because the are a world-reknown writer. Their opinion is included because it was published by Penguin. Adrian J Reimers is notable as they are a Prof in Catholic Theology with direct experience of this group. Their opinion is included because it was published in an academic journal. A self-published quote from someone within a junior management role in a loosely relevant organisation, whether it be religious or corporate, is not on par. Would be awesome if it was published in NYT or something, but its not, though it would be fantastic if someone was to provide a source that was published by someone who fact-checks or takes corrections. The primary reason for not including poorly sourced references, is to keep the article at a high standard, and as low-quality sources on this topic result in a lot of headbutting over contrasting views. See People of Praise talk page and edit history for an example of what I am trying to avoid. Quite frankly if anything this is a positive bias for this articleLinn C Doyle (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Sudonymous: Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. It's self-published, plain and simple, and with a horse in the race besides. It would be a great react if it was in the washington post though. I dont think opening the article up to sources of this quality will be constructive...for instance in that case why not include ex-coordinator opinion... https://www.scribd.com/doc/118237557/Index-Of-All-Docs-RE-The-Sword-of-the-Spirit-Related-Topics-by-John-Flaherty-Scribd-com @Linn C Doyle: He is an archbishop in the Catholic Church, based in a city where SoS has a branch, he is not "someone within a junior management role in a loosely relevant organization". You can argue his opinion is not relevant, but you cannot do so while also arguing that Margaret Atwood's opinion is relevant. Once again, it is not "poor sourcing". Please read WP:RSOPINION, self-published pieces are reliable for opinions, and the reception section is about opinions. According to WP:NPOV we are supposed to describe conflicting opinions on articles, not avoid them, and the Catholic Church's opinion is relevant. This comparison to random people creating personal web pages and claiming to be experts is completely disingenuous. He is not some random person, he is an archbishop, and we aren't citing him as an expert, but as someone whose opinion is relevant. And the idea that it would somehow be more reliable if it was in wapost, when either way it is an opinion piece, makes no sense. Sudonymous (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC) @Sudonymous: Regarding "This comparison to random people creating personal web pages and claiming to be experts is completely disingenuous" you have misunderstood. This is a quote from the wiki guide on self published articles. I would refer you to "Self published books and newsletter". This includes the vatican, an organisation which sees no peer review or corrections. Again regarding Margaret Atwood you have misunderstood. The point is that Margeret Atwoods opinion is Notable AND Reliably Published. Penguin is a reliable publisher. Though we may disagree on whether being under the employ of religious organisations establishes notablitly, that really is not my point of contention. It is the fact that 1. The source falls under wikis self-published guide and should be avoided. 2. The archbishop can be easily identified as having a 'horse in the race'. For example as an archbishop in a minority christian country, the archbishop may find themselves more likely to present christian organisations with a positive bias, and less likely to intentionally not present anything which may reflect negatively. 3. The publisher, unlike, for example, washington post, does not take corrections or provide any reputable verifiablity of information contained in publishing. 4. I suspect you maaaaay be overestimating the level of affiliation between this group and the vatican... So we disagree on whether this CAN be included but maybe we can agree on whether it SHOULD be include? Amongst notable self-published opinion 'reception takes' regarding this group, why not take https://www.phosaletheia.org/post/the-beginning-of-healing as an example. Do you think we SHOULD open this article up to self-published opinion reacts? Do you think there is a sensible reason for perhaps only using reacts from reliable sources such as mainstream news and academic journal publishing? Personally I think there is a lot of disagreeing low-reliablity sources for opinions on this group which can lead to squabbling, but there are some high-reliability sources, and these sources agree, so I think maybe stick to high reliability sourcesLinn C Doyle (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC) @Linn C Doyle:, @Sudonymous: thanks for your work on this. @Linn C Doyle: I think it makes sense that the best place to get a bishop's opinion is the Vatican's website. If I were a journalist looking for a bishop's opinion, I expect they'd get it from the Vatican website. It just says what the bishop thought - not whether he was right in his opinion - I think this is what Sudonymous is trying to say.Jadbaz (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC) @Linn C Doyle: once again, it is an opinion piece. The Vatican is a reliable source for the opinions of Catholic archbishops. I also don't see why "corrections" or "verifiability" applies to an article about someone's opinion. Are you worried that the archbishop changed his opinion and they refused to correct the piece? That they lied about what he said? What is the worry about reliability? Once again, read WP:RSOPINION, reliability standards are different for opinion pieces. Yes of course the bishop is biased, it's an opinion listed in the reception section! You are taking standards meant for statements of fact and disingenuously applying them to opinion pieces you dislike, and I ask you to please stop. @Sudonymous: Firstly, I am not being remotely "disingenuous". Secondly I have not made any statement on whether I 'like' or 'dislike' this opinion. I have only made statements on whether I consider this source as reliable, and have made my case with reference to wiki guidelines, and sensible editing. In fact I have repeatedly openly invited yourself and other editors to provide reliable publishing reflecting the same sentiment. To answer your question, yes I do have a concern that the 'Synodus episcoporum bulletin' does not print corrections. Yes I am concerned that the 'Synodus episcoporum bulletin' is not a known reliable news source and may not be accurately reporting the Bishops statement. My primary concern, however, is that the bishops statements, being an opinion which you rightly point out is biased, and which you rightly point out is self-published, does not provide anything remotely verifiable that the statement made is factually correct. As you correctly point out the standard to which I am holding this article is correct for statement of fact. The article content is largely factual statement of the 'evangelical' operations of SoS in lebanon, factual statement regarding practices and relevance to scripture, and factual statement about the conversion experience within the SoS 'evangelical outreach'. What reliable verification is provided that the bishop knows anything about the sword of the spirit? What reliable verification is provided that the bishops factual statements are accurate? What reliable verification do we have, given the bias, that this is not promotional self-publishing, given the bias and the topic of 'converting to christianity in Lebanon'? These questions are what make me class this as a low-reputability article. I believe the non-inclusion of such low-reputability articles is both in line with wiki policy and sensible. No, I do not think Margaret Atwood would not then have to go. Penguin is a reliable publisher. The article states not only what Margaret Atwood thinks, but why the authors opinion matters (wrote an internationally acclaimed book which included concepts based on the study of the group, the interview goes through newspaper clippings from Atwoods research from the time). The quote, statement of relevance, and statement of any facts in this article can be considered reliable. I do not understand why the non-inclusion of unverifiable self-published local church newsletters means interview with world-renown author as published by a world-renown reputable publisher needs to be removed. Can you please clarify this rational for me? I would also appreciate clarification of why you repeatedly imply that I am exhibiting a bias here? Have you read the sources cited in this article? Have you searched for other reliable or notable publishing regarding this group? Would you dispute that I have reflected the content of the cited sources accurately and neutrally? Would you dispute that the sources cited are the main body of reliable and notable publishing on the topic? Do you understand that I have repeatedly invited yourself, and other editors, including known COI editors, to produce reliable publishing for inclusion in this article? Do you think that I am expressing a minority opinion? It would be great to iron any issues you are having out :) Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC) @Linn C Doyle: Your editing history makes it very clear that you have a negative opinion of SoS. You don't need to directly say it for it to be clear. I've also repeatedly shown you wiki guidelines (WP:RSOPINION and WP:ABOUTSELF) which clearly show that the Vatican is a reliable source for the archbishops opinion, but you refuse to even respond to those comments. Please read those two pages and you will see why it is a reliable source for an opinion. Once again, you can argue that his opinion isn't relevant, but you cannot argue that it is an unreliable source. Your insistence that is unreliable is based on you refusing to read the guidelines I have linked you. @Sudonymous: My editing history shows bias? How so? What moral statements were made? Do you think the inclusion of extensive news coverage to child abuse within this group is a biased viewpoint? All the content I have contributed to this article is reliable and accurately reflects the content. The sources used are the body of reliable work on the topic, not a minority opinion. In fact you have been repeatedly invited to challenge this by contributing other sources, and have failed to do so. Throwing around accusations is not constructive. 'I refuse to read WP:ABOUTSELF'? That is a lie. I have, in fact, responded with specific reference to the self-publishing conditions this source fails. The statement is a statement of opinion in the reception section, clearly phrased as a statement of opinion not as one of fact. Holding it to the standard of a statement of fact does not make any sense, as we are not pretending that it is one. Opinion of claimed 'factual' activities the sos partake in (THIRD PARTY). See WP:ABOUTSELF items 2, 3, 4. This source fails. Writing a book loosely influenced by SoS does not make one an expert on SoS, I don't see how that makes her opinion relevant. It is not a "local church newsletter" is is a publication from the synod of bishops of the Catholic Church, with a quote from an archbishop in a region that SoS operates in. Why do you continually use language like this to downplay the notability of the archbishop and a Vatican newsletter? Once again please read WP:RSOPINION and WP:ABOUTSELF, it is a reliable source for this specific usage. Studying at doctoral level, however, does make one an expert. In fact a doctor in a field of study is generally the MOST relevant opinion. I am baffled as to why you contest this? Once again, reread WP:ABOUTSELF yourself. I'm sure you've accurately summarized the sources you've cited, but the bias is in your choice of information that you think is relevant. I've already detailed before the problems, I don't see the need to repeat myself. If someone who did not know what SoS was read this article, they would walk away with very little information on what SoS is or does, but a lot about different scandals and the negative opinions people like Margaret Atwood has about them. This is not NPOV. Yes you keep saying this but your only challenge seems to be to repeatedly say this. As I have repeatedly told you this is the body of reliable published work on the topic, not a minority viewpoint. This content is not 'selected' to represent a 'bias' as you keep accusing. It is the available reliable content. I have looked for positive review in reliable publishing. I cant find any. I have openly invited yourself, other editors, and COI editors to bring forth positive review from reliable publishing and include, informing you that I would welcome this. I have openly invited yourself, other editors, and COI editors to bring forth factual information from reliable publishing and include, informing you that I would welcome this. WP:NPOV "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This is NPOV. It ticks all those boxes. It is not my responsibility to go digging for sources which represent the minority opinions which you are pushing to include. Linn C Doyle (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Sudonymous (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC) If you think we shouldn't include opinions in this article then make that case, but then you also have to remove Margaret Atwood's opinion. Your argument that the Vatican is an unreliable source for the opinions of their employees makes no sense. Sudonymous (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC) @Linn C Doyle: I also suggest you read WP:ABOUTSELF. Self-published sources can be considered reliable if they are about themselves, and I would consider a piece about his opinion to be a piece about himself. Sudonymous (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC) @Jadbaz: Do you have any connection to the Sword of the Spirit affiliate community 'People of God' in Beruit? 2. While the sexual abuse scandals of individuals like Scanlan should definitely be mentioned in their articles (and his does), but I'm not sure if it makes sense to mention on this page, especially since none of the articles cited in Sword of the Spirit#Servants of Christ the King mention Sword of the Spirit or Servants of Christ the King. Given the current state of the article (relatively short on information), I don't see the need to dedicate two paragraphs to a sexual abuse scandal that Sword of the Spirit is not directly tied to. @Sudonymous: So you will find mention of Scanlan, Bertollucci and Sword of the Spirit in this article Bellant, Russ (November 18, 1988). "When Right Goes Wrong". 25 (5). National Catholic Reporter. You will find discussion of Scanlan and Sword of the Spirit here too. http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2000a/021100/021100o.htm Again I am a bit baffled as to the pushback on this one. Both were promininent and influencial leaders in this organisation. Abuse allegation are very notable. The Catholic Church article has a dedicated section, and a wiki page dedicated to Catholic Church sexual abuse cases I do not see any reason why this isnt just as noteworthy in the [[Charismatic Movement}}. So again yes I would love for more contributors and more reliable sources. There could definitely be more information included. I dont see this as reason to remove information however.Linn C Doyle (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC) I agree that abuse scandals are notable, but it makes more sense to include them in the articles on Scanlan and others, instead of this organization, as I have yet to see a source directly tying SoS itself to the abuse (e.g. was it an SoS member being abused?). The Catholic Church article is actually a perfect example of what I mean about due vs undue weight. Both Catholic Church and this article have two paragraphs about sexual abuse scandals, but Catholic Church is a much longer and more detailed article, including much more general information about the church. Of course I don't expect the SoS article to be nearly as long as the one on the Catholic Church, but this article should give more weight to things like history, function, organization etc, instead of it's current focus on the negative. Sudonymous (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Sudonymous: Firstly, that comparison is completely bogus, claiming the the catholic church has two paragraphs relating to sexual abuse? There are entire independent wikis on the topics, not two paragraphs. Again I have actually contributed content here on History, communities, practices, finance, reception, academic study, and the relevance of communities. This content is all displayed neutrally and reflects the content of reliable publishing regarding this group. Claiming content is unduly weighted I dont understand? It is simply unfortunate that the noteworthy things this group has done and its practices are things that you perceive as unsavoury. I think four sentences in the whole article detailing sexual abuse in the group. I would point out that considering the extent of this topic (there are a lot of cases I have not listed), this representation actually limits discussion of the issue to particularly prolific figures in the Charismatic Renewal. Hardly undue weight. Both cases occur during the time these men were in leadership at Sword of the Spirit (timeline detailed in refs). I have here a copy of the servants of christ the king membership directory, where Scanlan is listed as leader, and Tiesi and Bertolucci as members. Again, here is the article detailing their leadership roles during this time: Bellant, Russ (November 18, 1988). "When Right Goes Wrong". 25 (5). National Catholic Reporter. I dont know if you can access that article, I am sure I can scan it in and send it over to you if you are particularly interested. Once again new reliable content is welcome, I just dont see any need to remove notable and referenced existing content Linn C Doyle (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC) I think perhaps if you believe the article is sparse in other areas, then it would be awesome if you could contribute some reliably sourced content to improve the articleLinn C Doyle (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Linn C Doyle: Two paragraphs within the Catholic Church article. Yes they have an article on their own, but that is because they are individually notable. I'm talking about balance within the Catholic Church article, where the abuse is only a minor portion of the article. Yes you provided some information on things like history, practices, etc, but look at the relative lengths: the sexual abuse section is longer than the history section, and the Member Community section is focused almost entirely on negative aspects of these communities. @Sudonymous: Disagree quite frankly it has its own wiki, not two paragraphs. Rome was not built in a day. Feel free to contribute. These are the news sources pertaining to this group. This group is not mentioned much in reliable news other than to discuss cult and sexual abuse issues. Therefore the content of the article, which is based on reliable sources, reflects this. Unfortunate? Yes. Biased? No. For example editors with declared COI (SoS employees) have suggested articles for inclusion to reflect positive review. Even the best these chaps could source had perhaps one positive review statement and the majority discussing how a bishop had fired all SoS affiliates from a catholic school. I asked the COI editor if they still wanted this neutrally and accurately included in the text and got no response, so decided best to leave it as further comment on that particular group (people of hope) was not required. Do you see where I am coming from? If I accurately reflect the sources, this is what you get. The fact that even their own employees cannot source reliable positive review speaks for itself frankly, and frankly I am going to lengths to minimise inclusion of negative content. I have taken care to make no value statement in text. I have contributed about 20 paragraphs on history, practice, academic study, reliable published reception, history, membership and practice. This is not biased editing or undue weight in the slightest thank you very much.Linn C Doyle (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC) News sources are done. I am currently on academic publishing, then textbooks. To clarify what I'm talking about by undue weight: as someone who hadn't heard of Sword of the Spirit before reading this article, I still don't really know what they are after reading this article. I know that they're an "association of christian communities", that they are part of the Charismatic Movement, that they have a long list of scandals and are accused of being a cult, and that they sometimes do things like exorcism. But I still don't understand what these christian communities actually are. Do they hold church service? bible study? Are they the type of cult that lives on a compound? What are their day to day activities? I could not answer any of those questions based on this article. @Sudonymous: You can answer some of these questions thanks to my reliably sourced and neutrally presented contributions. You will be able to answer more as more constructive edits are made to this page. This is not, however, my sole responsibility, nor good reason to remove reliably sourced and neutrally presented contentLinn C Doyle (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC) I'm not denying that they were leaders of SoS at the time of the abuse, that seems clear. I'm asking what the abuse had to do specifically with SoS, as opposed to Scanlan et al 's other positions. If there is a source saying that Scanlan was abusing members of SoS, then I think it definitely belongs in this article. Otherwise I think it is best left to his article. Sudonymous (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC) I would suggest that discussing the identity of victims is a poor choice of topic. Suffice to say they were in leadership roles with SoS at the time. The sexual abuse of children by senior leadership is noted where relevant on the wiki articles for other religious organisations. It is therefore relevant here too surely? I cannot understand why you think it would not be? Can you please explain? Perhaps some clarification that the Franciscan University of Steubenville is extremely closely affiliated with SoS, to the extent that Scanlan was president, Ralph Martin was on the board, its fundamentally a SoS institution for most of its history, though centred around ralph martin and word of god, rather than steve clarke, so to an extent links have deteriorated since the investigation by bishops of SoS covcoms through the 80s and 90s.Linn C Doyle (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Linn C Doyle: I don't think you need to discuss the identity of the victims, but if they were part of SoS I think that should be mentioned. I did not know about the close link between Franciscan University of Steubenville and SoS; if that's the case then yes I think this information should be included. Information about the link between SoS and the university could also help flesh the article out. Sudonymous (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC) Here's my understanding: there is a historic link between Steubenville (where the Servants of Christ the King community was located) and the Sword of the Spirit - they were both part of the Charismatic Movement. And Scanlan was a major player in this link. But the community in Steubenville disaffiliated itself from SOS in 1991 - when the organization was 9 years old as an organization, although it has roots in the Word of God community etc... Now SOS is 39 years old. I don't understand why Steubenville issues are still relevant here given that they've been disaffiliated for so long - and for the greater part of the history of the organization? Linn, you mentioned that Scanlan had ongoing affiliation with SOS. I was not aware of this and I asked you to point me to evidence for this twice, but this is what I received: "You have already been directed to sources for sclanlan (Servants of christ the king) and bertolluccis (FIRE) involvement with SOS. Though this information pertains to individuals, the timeline of abuse occurs during SoS leadership roles. Abuse within an organisation is well notable when it comes from senior leadership at any point in history." This doesn't solve my concern. How do we know that he was involved in an ongoing way? That's not my understanding, so please show me evidence that he was involved in an ongoing way. In a comment in this article, John Flaherty says: "It wasn’t until 1994 or three years after Bishop Ottenweller kicked the Sword of the Spirit out of the Diocese of Steubenville that Fr Scanlan was able to renounce the Sword of the Spirit in private letters written to me and my former spouse." So it doesn't seem like he was involved beyond 1994. Jadbaz (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Definitely something worth doing at some point. I would like to point out this is not a minority view being expressed here there is a whole thing another notable point involving Patrick Egan who was relatively notable.Linn C Doyle (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC) @Sudonymous: You had requested clarification re abuse timeline you have been directed to information regarding scanlan and bertoluccis involvement with SoS. To clarify the abuse timeline here is an article from the Troubadour and then an article extracted from Albany Times Union. It is clearly stated RE bertolucci, scanlan and tiesi that the abuse happend during the time in which they can all be readily identified as operating in SoS leadership roles. https://www.troubonline.com/university-discloses-results-of-sexual-misconduct-review/ http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/2002_07_21_Tilghman_PriestRetreats_John_Bertolucci_1.htm 3. I do not have access to your source on the Shepherding movement, so I cannot directly help with this dispute. That being said, Linn C Doyle, if you are arguing that "the covenant community style used by the Sword of the Spirit devolves from the Shepherding movement", I think there is a better way of wording it than "The Sword of the Spirit is an international, ecumenical association of Christian communities within the Charismatic Movement[1] which takes its roots from the Shepherding movement", which could be read as saying the entire Charismatic Movement is rooted in the Shepherding movement. Maybe something like "within the Charismatic Movement, and which is also influenced by the Shepherding movement"? @Sudonymous: So yes no problem with some rephrasing, simply any edits to this have either altered the meaning so that it does not accurately reflect the source, and mostly been mingled in amongst disruptive edits. But yes if someone wants to retain the meaning and clarify the phrasing that sounds great to meLinn C Doyle (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC) @Sudonymous: So also to clarify here the source states that the leaders from the Shepherding Movement taught the 'community building' style that the Sword of the Spirit is based upon. New Wine isn not a great source but reliably we can say that Derek Prince published a fair few articles detailing this community building style, the partiarchal pyramid leadership structure, focus on submissiveness, the 'handmaiden', tithing etc, and many of the unique pentacostal variants. In the early 1970s Ralph Martin and Steve Clark (SoS founders) worked under the Fort Lauderdale Five (Prince, Mumford etc) with a group called 'the council' (sometimes the ecumenical council, other variants depending on text) - see David Moore the Shepherding Movement. I think there is a good photo of them all in Ch5 or 6 from that time. During this time Prince, Mumford etc were running an association of Shepherding communities. 1975 Clarke and Martin start the association of catholic covenant communities with True House, People of Praise etc. This runs 1975-1981 where it collapses, People of Praise and many other major groups and many other groups leave the association and Sword of the Spirit begins, becoming the new governing body of the remaining communities. So all this is covered in most reliable textbooks which discuss the Shepherding Movement in any great depth. In literature on the charismatic movement SoS is generally a bit of a footnote to Word of God but some texts (Csordas for example) go into more detail. Tbh I am a bit baffled as to the pushback on this one. This is pretty common info for anyone who studies the Shepherding movement or charismatic christian communities, that the sword of the spirit community structure is based upon Derek Princes publishing in New Wine and Ralph Martin and Steve Clarkes experience on 'the council' working with an association of shepherding communities then went off to start their own catholic variant. Everyone who I can identify as belonging to SoS seems to have been told a different story. Linn C Doyle (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC) Once again I do not know about the Shepherding movement or its relation to SoS, so I am not disagreeing over whether there is a link. I simply think it should be stated more clearly, because at the moment it implies that the Charismatic Movement comes from the Shepherding movement, which I believe both of you agree is not accurate. Sudonymous (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Sudonymous: So just to clarify again I have no objection to changing the wording, I simply have an objection to SoS COI editors repeatedly blanking or changing the meaning of this section. Again to clarify the statement is that the Sword of the Spirit itself devolves from the shepherding movement, as well as the covcom style, as Ralph Martin and Steve Clark (SoS founders) first worked building covcom associations under the Fort Lauderdale Five council (Mumford, prince etc) and structured there orginisation based on the teaching of this groupLinn C Doyle (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Sudonymous: I don't have much to add here. Since the source itself is very weak in establishing the link I'd think it would be better if it weren't in the article at all or at least if it weren't in the Lead Section. Here's precisely what the source states, in a footnote to chapter 3, on page 280: "Footnote #3. The form of covenant community headship apparently is an adaptation of the "shepherding" relationship practiced earlier in Derek Prince and Robert Mumford's neo-Pentecostal Christian Growth Ministries, now defunct." Check it out here.Jadbaz (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Jadbaz: So to clarify once again you have been repeatedly directed to other pages in this book which discuss prince and mumfords involvement in SoS. These pages are referenced in the article, and you have repeatedly blanked or altered this reference to only point to the quote you discuss. You have also been directed to supplementary sources to satisfy your own research. New Wine magazine records (which are published by prince) and David Moore the Shepherding movement. There is another book here that puts this point in history, I am busy, but for you I will dig it out.Linn C Doyle (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Linn C Doyle: I agree that the repeated blanking of the section is uncalled for, which I criticized Jadbaz for. @Jadbaz: I'm confused why you think the link is weak, when even the quote you share clearly makes a connection. I'm not sure whether this belongs in the lead or the body, but I think the article definitely should mention the influence of the Shepherding movement on SoS. Maybe it would make sense to give a more detailed explanation of the link in the body of the article? This would help diffuse the issue of potential misrepresentation, and it would have the added benefit of strengthening the article's overall content. Sudonymous (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Sudonymous: Yes it is nice to clarify as our fellow editor still seems confused on this issue. Personally I think it comes in the lead then gets further discussion in history when I can get back to adding content rather than reverting vandalism quite frankly. Indeed I have on multiple occasions openly invited editors to reword as they see fit, provided the meaning is retained. Do we actually need to agree on a sentence here? How about "the sword of the spirit is ...charismatic...FULL STOP...the sword of the spirit association of covenant communities takes roots in the shepherding movement". Break the statement and make it clear? Go ahead, I have at no point expressed an issue with this Linn C Doyle (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Sudonymous: The movements are connected, I agree. I guess the main issue I had was the way it was worded: "Movement A takes its roots from Movement B". I agree with your suggestion: make the details of the link clearer and work it better. I still think it doesn't belong in the lead but that's just my take on itJadbaz (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC) @Jadbaz: Yo have repeatedly altered the content to change the meaning and have deliberately and repeatedly altered the reference. All editors have been repeatedly invited to change wording as they see fit, providing meaning and references are retained. As point of fact, however, the statement as stands gramattically identifies SoS as relevant to the shepherding movement, not the neo charismatic renewal.Linn C Doyle (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC) @Jadbaz: @Sudonymous: Sara Diamond, Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right. Pg 114 More Direct Roots "between 1970 and 1972, a group of older, established charismatic Bible teachers saw the need to provide guidance and teaching the younger, new converts. Bob Mumford, Charles Simpson, Derek Prince, Em Baxter and Don Basham, each with their own careers in various parts of the country, formalized among themselves a "covenant relationship" and merged their respectively ministries" Pg 122: The Council. "Beginning at least as early as 1974 Bob Mumford, Charles Simpson, Derek Prince, Don Basham and Ern Baxter had entered into a "covenant relationship" with Ralph Martin and Steve Clark...Their alliance was called "the Council" and its purpose was to strengthen the shepherding system across denominational lines. By the mid-1970s, the Council had expanded to include Catholic shepherding stalwarts Paul DeCelles and Kevin Ranaghan, as well as Larry Christenson, a leader in the Lutheran charismatic renewal". Sword of the Spirit, via founders Ralph Martin and Steve Clark, and Covenant Communities, indeed Covenant Relationships of any kind, take roots in the Shepherding Movement.Linn C Doyle (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC) As stated from the get go, I invite all to reword this as long as meaning is retained. COI sockpuppets attempting to disrupt, alter or blank historical fact which is supported by various high quality sources will of course be reverted.Linn C Doyle (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Jadbaz: You should read WP:BRD. Since you are the one trying to change the consensus, when someone reverts your changes the proper response is to go to the talk page and discuss, not to repeatedly undo those reverts in an attempt to force your version through. I wouldn't say this is an WP:Edit War yet, but it's getting close. I also noticed your contributions are centered around Sword of the Spirit and related pages, do you have a WP:COI to disclose? @Sudonymous: Thanks so much for taking the time to give us your third opinion. Also, thanks for pointing me to WP:BRD. What you say makes sense, and I'll try to follow the procedure more closely next time. However, it might be worth saying: if you look more closely at the edit history - compare timestamps etc, you'll see that I didn't (as far as I recall) revert a revert without talking about it on the talk page. Having said that, I admit I did revert a revert without having Linn C Doyle's agreement - the discussion between us had reached a standstill. I now realize I should have asked for a third opinion in order to help reach a consensus. I'll be more patient next time. @Jadbaz: So you have indeed repeatedly blanked content and references, continuously doing so after reversion and encouragement to discuss. I am open to discussion, and would definitely not say discussion is at a standstill. I believe the problem is that rather than engaging in discussion you are simply leaving comment saying you will be pushing through edits which blank content and references.Linn C Doyle (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Linn C Doyle: I see it differently. My experience is that no matter how much I or another editor tries to get a point across to you, you're not getting it (please see WP:LISTEN). That's why I didn't see the point in continuing the discussion, and wanted to bring in a third editor.Jadbaz (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC) @Jadbaz: Baz deliberatly misrepresentative here. You have been informed via third opinion that your edits were innapropriate and that you were in fact the one pushing through an opinion wihtout reference or concensus. You have been informed by multiple users that you are making distruptive edits. Your edits have been reverted by multiple users. You have been invited to engage in discussion but your only discussion with me was to inform me you would be continuing to make distruptive edits regardless of attempts to discuss by others ad reversions from multiple editors of this page. You have been invited to make constructive edits repeatedly. Your opinion has been heard, first that you would like to remove referenced content, then later that you insist on deliberately altering the reference to remove direction to specific pages, and changing it to only point to the content you wish to include (cherry picking). All this is visible in the history. If at this point you still think the issue is everyone else needs to listen to you and do what you say, I am afraid there is little I can do to helpLinn C Doyle (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC) @Jadbaz: I see that you did usually discuss before reverting, but you never reached a consensus which is what is supposed to occur, and what we're trying to do right now. Either way, glad you understand the BRD process now. Sudonymous (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC) I don't have a COI to disclose. You're right in saying that I've recently edited this page more than others - but this was due to the state of the article and the behaviour of Linn C Doyle. She seems to be monopolizing the article. I did mention to her that I would redo the edits that I thought were neutral and I purposely edited in small chunks, to give her or other editors the opportunity to undo some edits and not others. Alas, she has undone all my edits (I went through all my edits to this page since 8 Jan. Except for one, which was reverted by an IP user, every single one of my edits them was immediately reverted by Linn C Doyle. If they were all bad edits then that's fine - they should be reverted. But I haven't heard from anyone else that they were bad edits. Please let me know what you think about them, Sudonymous.) @Jadbaz: So you have on repeated occasion been invited to discuss and informed of the reasons for reversion (pushing opinion, blanking content and references, general distruptive editing). I believe @Sudonymous: is perhaps referring to your extended wiki history circa 2008. Due to the behaviour? And what issue do you take specifically with my behaviour? You claim you make edits over long periods to give time for review, however we can all see in the edit history that your edits are made within minutes of each other. This is not leaving time for review. As these quick consecutive edits remove content reversion to pre-distruptive editing is the valid response. Well noted that more than one user has reverted your edits.Linn C Doyle (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Linn C Doyle: exactly, minor edits within minutes of each other, rather than one edit spanning several points to give you, or others, the chance to revert some and not others. I don't deny I'm familiar with the organization - otherwise how could I write about it? Especially due to the lack of sources, someone who has some familiarity with the organization will be best able to contribute. But familiarity does not imply a COI. In 2008 I tried to create an article on this organization but it didn't go very far. This article here was created by another user and bears no connection to the article I tried to create in 2008.Jadbaz (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC) @Jadbaz: Well thats not true either I can see the edit history where you have blanked sections and this has been reverted by another editor who also made the same points as me regarding distruptive editing. You have also made multiple distruptive edits in quick succession, which is bad form as it means each distruption needs addressed individually. Protocol in this case is to revert to pre-distruptive editing. @Jadbaz: Baz, did you know that if a wiki editor uses their real name in their username, different rules apply regarding outing? Do you wish to declare a COI? Perhaps expand on the fact that you have gone from claiming no connection to claiming 'familiarity'... Linn C Doyle (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC) If you follow the history and see who has contributed the current content, you'll see that pretty much the whole page was written singlehandedly by Linn C Doyle. This does not seem to be an article written by the community but rather by one user, who many have thought has a COI, or at least a very biased POV. And she's been editing disruptively for a long time. @Jadbaz: Why would you categorise my edits as disruptive? It is in fact yourself who has been removing content, and myself who has been restoring this. I am not the only editor to be doing so either. Again this is not singlehandedly my page, though I have contributed much too it. Other editors can be viewed on the history page and include ip users, usernames, and some admins. Indeed many of these users have been reverting the exact edits you have been trying to push through also, and admins have even previously protected this page against such edits. Again no COI for me. Absolutely nothing to do with the organisation other than access to referenceable sources and knowledge. Again there is no biased POV all content accurately reflects the content of reliable publishing on this group. If you think there is a lack of 'positive review' content then I have repeatedly encouraged you to bring forth reliable sources for inclusion. It is simply unfortunate that this group has little relevence in texts other than with reference to the investigations by the vatican through the 80s and 90s. In news this group has seen little reliable reporting other than to once again report on the major schism in catholic charismatic communities and associated reasons, or for other scandals. I cannot emphasise enough that I am not a biased editor, I have actively encouraged editors to bring forth material they feel is lacking in this article, it is simply an unfortunate fact that reliable material on this group may be percieved by yourself as unsavoury. I have even included Steve Clark's own views on gender, homosexuality etc as published in his own self-published books. If you find this negative, I can wholeheartedly empathise. This is, however, accurate and stated neutrally with no value statement in text.Linn C Doyle (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Linn C Doyle: I believe your editing is disrtuptive because I do not perceive your ability to see and discuss an issue objectively. I pointed you to WP:LISTEN - I think you're just not getting the point and not even able to say: I understand how it might be seen differently. Also you've repeatedly said that your edits are neutral and that they might even be positive. I perceive this as an inability to see where you might be wrong. Anyway, please read Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing and you might see what I mean Jadbaz (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC) @Jadbaz: Well that is nonsense. You have been invited to discuss, invited to contribute, and invited to change wording as you see fit. You have had edits reverted by myself and other editors of this page, who also raised the same issue as me regarding your distruptive editing. It has been made clear that the issue is that you are intentionally blanking and altering references and content such that it no longer accurately reflects the content of the source. You have even been actively encouraged to change the wording as you see fit provided the content and references are not distruptively altered as per your previous edits which have been repeatedly reverted by myself and other users on this page. If at this point you still believe the issue is that everybody else needs to listen and that distruption is only when people distrupt what you want to do, then I am afraid there is little I may be able to help you with.Linn C Doyle (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Finally, again, just to respond thoroughly, I'm not sure what you mean by "related pages". I've edited many pages to do with Christianity - especially Eastern Christianity, because this is what I think I have to contribute to Wikipedia and this is where my interests lie. The other articles I've edited and this article don't share anything in common with this article beyond being related to Christianity. Anyway, again, thanks for giving us your opinion here. Very helpful! Jadbaz (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Jadbaz: I believe the user is referring to your extensive SoS relevant edits circa 2008. Baz if you do have a conflict of interest here it is better to declare it than to get involved in sockpuppetry. It is more than obvious that several declared and undeclared SoS and Servants of the Word affiliates have been vandalising this pageLinn C Doyle (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Linn C Doyle: Are you sure you don't have a WP:COI to disclose? Your contributions seem to be almost completely focused around Sword of the Spirit and related communities, generally in ways that portray them negatively, and looking at the history of this talk page, this isn't the first time you've gotten into a dispute like this over this page. Sudonymous (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: First of all thanks for the third opinion, always welcome, particularly here as this page has seemed to attract a fair degree of vandalism and COI types.

Secondly I can absolutely assure you I have nothing to do with this organisation. So yes I actually was motivated to start contributing when I noticed that much of the information I have on this topic was not present on wiki articles, and in some cases had been removed by undeclared COI users whom I recognize by username. Particularly I have some knowledge regarding the Shepherding Movement, Word of God (community), Charismatic Movement and some other related organisations. When I started contributing to wikipedia I definitely encountered a few learning curves regarding form, but have made great efforts to learn the ropes with respect to source reliability and neutral content.

Though I can completely understand that it seems like there is a negative bias here I can assure you that this accurately and neutrally reflects the content of reliable publishing on the topic. Now this can be problematic given that the only times this group is mentioned in reliable publishing is to discuss the topics detailed in the article. The references are there to inspect yourself, and if you give them a google you will see this is pretty much the body of reliable publishing. I have considered giving some counterpoint from less reliable sources but tbh this is a can of worms. If self-publishing and web blogs on this topic are opened up then there is potential for the article devolving into contrasting personal arguments. I would also say that there is some content that may be viewed negatively here but I have taken care not to include any value statement in the article this is just simply information.Linn C Doyle (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have nothing to do with SoS, I must ask why is your editing history almost singularly focused on SoS and related groups? It appears that you have very strong negative opinions on SoS, and while it is fine to have those opinions, we can't let the articles portray our opinions. With regards to whether this article has a negative bias or not, I appreciate that you gave a detailed breakdown of why you think it is not (your comment below this). I cannot respond to that at this moment but I will be responding soon. Sudonymous (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: So I am editing pages related to the Charismatic Renewal, covenant community groups etc. as I have a wealth of information accessible which I have studied in some depth. Primarily my motivation for doing this was that the bulk of wiki articles on this subject are plagued with misinformation, self-published sourcing and self promotion. I have reliable sources and information so... The motivation is the improvement of knowledge. Again the content here may be perceived negatively, but the fact is that this is a neutral representation of the content of reliable publishing on this group. My editing does not focus on scandals, there is inclusion of history regarding the group (shepherding, member communities and historic relevance, academic study, finance, practices) all of which I have contributed with reference. Again some of this may be perceived negatively, but again it is simply factual.Linn C Doyle (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: So looking through the article again and I must say I really dont think there is a negative bias.

Intro and History I am sure there are no issues with.

Member communities I can see how this may come across negative. It is however just the extent of the reliably published material. It accurately reflects content and is presented neutrally.

The break from the word of god community is generally the extent to which this group is mentioned in books, and resulted in some academic journal publishing and coverage in realiable news. This was a relatively major event in the history of the charismatic renewal, and is the main relevance of the group in notable history. The information that many communties left during this period and the reasons why are well worth noting in the article, and are presented neutrally.

Regarding sexual abuse this is once again one of the few times this group is reliably reported on. As sexual abuse in any other religious organisation is included on the wiki article it makes sense for this to be included, especially as it relates to notable leaders in the organisation who were influencial leaders in the wider charismatic renewal. Again the content of the article is a neutral representation of the content of publishing on the topic.

RE margaret atwood. Again unfortunate but this is a hugely influencial author, the source is good and neutrally portrayed, and it is one of the few times anything to do with the SoS is reliably published.

So Sword of the Spirit practices. Here I have actually attempted to start an avenue to balance out the way the article reads even though the content is neutral. Here we have even included some self-publishing from this group to try and show their angle, though I think doing this with anything other than dry info is again going to be opening a can of worms. This section content is again neutral. You personally might think 'hey these are negative things' and hey I could definitely sympathise, however this is what this organisation has said is good things, and hey people out there might agree. In content I just try to phrase the content neutrally and not make any judgement while on wiki.

Reception So yes, I dont think unreliable source opinion pieces is a good road to go down for this group.

The most significant point of reception, and often the only reason this group is mentioned in text, is the investigation by bishops through the 80s and 90s. I dont think the place for this here is really disputable it is almost the sole relevance of this group.

Adrian Reimers was a prof, and that was a journal article. This is the only journal article that exists which provides an in depth discussion of reception to these groups. I dont see why this is a problem? Again the portrayal actually goes to lengths to attempt neutrality.

Finance. Again no value statements here.

Academix Study again this is all academic study of this group there really is not much out there.

So I hear what you are saying I definitely have a moral reaction to reading some of this stuff, but that is in my interpretation, and the content is as far as I can tell neutral representation of the published material.

It would be great if there was some content you think would be good to include. Tbh I have been hunting for positive reviews of this group to balance the article out but there is just nothing reliable. Mostly just their own self publishing saying 'we think we are great'and I have been assured by several editors that is not a reliable source, and a bad road to go down with an article besides.

Let me know what you think :)

Linn C Doyle (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Kairos

@Linn C Doyle: The consensus from the Kairos AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kairos (retreat)) is that the Kairos page should be merged into Sword of the Spirit, not deleted. The paragraphs you are deleting are all that is left from the Kairos page, so by deleting them you are effectively deleting the page, violating the consensus of merging the two pages. The information contains citation from educational institutions, which seems like a reliable source to me. The information is also certainly coherent. Can you explain why you are insistent on deleting it? It does not help that most of your edits deleting it do not even have summaries. Sudonymous (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: No PA attack on talk page or in edit comments please. Prior to claiming vandalism, please review wiki guidelines, and ensure that you are using this term accurately. If you believe vandalism is taking place, please deal with this correctly rather than simply throwing around accusations.

By item: - Greek origin of the word is irrelevant. There is in fact already an entire article on this word https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kairos - "a Roman Catholic retreat program for high school and college. Kairos is part of the larger three-day movement in America, ultimately derived from the Cursillo movement founded in Spain in 1944." is completely unreferenced. - "As such, the retreat is a four-day, three-night retreat,[24] with the aim of providing participants the chance to "contemplate God's role in their lives".[25]"

This relies on high school blog posts. A better source of information is Karios own website, which does not say this, but instead more succinctly states religious doctrine education and evangelism purposes, as referenced in the content deleted by yourself.

- "It was first held in 1965 by the Diocese of Brooklyn, in the United States, and has operated under its current name since 1979." Again is unreferenced. It also seems highly unlikely that this refers to the same Kairos discussed on this page, as Sword of the Spirit did not exist at this point in time. - "It is conceptually based in Ignatian spirituality as put forth in the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola.[26]"

This is tangential, not notable, and again relies on high school blog references. It is not consistent with information on Kairos own website.

- "A team of priests, brothers, and lay people under the direction of Fr. Douglas L. Brown of the Brooklyn Diocese made use of the Cursillo retreat format, which has its roots in Ignatian spirituality, but adapted it for older teenagers.[27] Within three years, the retreat was adopted nation-wide.[28]"

This clearly does not refer to the Kairos organisation run by Sword of the Spirit again, with the reference dates predating the organisation.

- "The retreats are usually led mostly by the peers of the participants.[30] Each team is composed of student leaders who have already been on the retreat as well as a few faculty members from the school. Kairos retreats are often held at secluded retreat houses removed from mainstream society.[31][32]"

This does not seem noteworthy

Linn C Doyle (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate merge

This link used to refer to the popular Kairos retreat based in the Cursillo movement. Those retreats have been incorrectly associated with this different retreat history. Is there a way the editors can create two separate branches and reclaim the old retreat version in the edit history as a separate program? Thanks. Aipacetti (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

rfc Membership Numbers

One user finds it odd that an organisation which claims 14,000 members has only 133 twitter followers, and feels the membership quote needs the source specified in text in the lead. WP:EXCEPTIONAL

One user argues that the membership numbers can go RAW in the infobox WP:ABOUTSELF

Both users have agreed to respect the recommendations of WP:RSN as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#swordofthespirit.net_for_basic_information_about_Sword_of_the_Spirit. There still seems to be disagreement and it would be helpful to have further input in order to reach a consensus.Linn C Doyle (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I noticed the membership estimate had been put back up again. Several users have been removing and reinserting this number.

As far as I understand the consensus is that this should not be there.

I believe the argument for including this number is that it is WP:ABOUTSELF.

I understand the argument against including this number is that it is WP:ABOUTSELF, and falls under:;

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

The definition of exceptional claim in this case revolves around WP:EXCEPTIONAL, namely:

• Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;

Where membership is an apparently important claim not covered in multiple mainstream sources.

For now I have reverted the page to its previous state prior to any disagreement in content.

I would suggest that rather than butting heads here the clear solution is for whomever may be claiming this source is reliable, to demonstrate this by submitting it to the RS Noticeboard, with specific statement that the query is specific to the membership claim, and outlining the arguments for and against the sources reliability as above.

I am sure all editors will be capable of respecting the outcome of RS ruling in this case, and that this approach is perhaps more efficient than previous methods attempted in editing this page.

Thank you. Linn C Doyle (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything WP:EXCEPTIONAL about the claim, there is nothing surprising about them having 90 communities and a few thousand members. The website even lists all of their communities and places them on a map, and while I guess it's conceivable that it's all an elaborate hoax that seems unlikely. Either way, I am opening a discussion on WP:RSN. Sudonymous (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

So I do not think the issue is concern of hoax, I believe the issue is in interpreting WP:SELFSOURCE.

Namely Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves.

So Sword of the Spirit may say 'sword of the spirit does x', however it may be inappropriate as a RS if one were to say 'sword of the spirit says 14,000 third parties do x'.

In either outcome I think we can all agree editing as per the recommendations of the RS noticeboard will be fine :)

Thank youLinn C Doyle (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

So the RS reply gives a go ahead, but suggests caveat that this is reported by the SoS. Given that the SoS facebook has around 1500 'likes' and twitter has only 130 follower, however, I would be very surprised if there were 14, 000 members (though that is my personal reaction to the discrepancy in numbers there), and the declared COI does state a different figure above as well. Perhaps its best placed in the lead? 'The Sword of the Spirit reports x members across y communities internationally' is something I would find completely agreeable. If this or similar suits you I would call that some very constructive editing efficiently achieved :) Thank you. Linn C Doyle (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

As recorded in the finance section, SoS has a yearly revenue of about a million dollars, which comes from tithes, so 14,000 seems reasonable. I don't really think Facebook likes or Twitter followers is a reasonable member of members, how many people follow their local church on twitter? Plus SoS is a global organization, and I don't think twitter is that popular in say Bangalore. You've failed to really show that 14,000 is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL amount, and honestly I think claiming they are inflating numbers based on Twitter followers seems like WP:OR. Either way the citation is provided right next to the number in the infobox, so it is clear that they are the ones who are claiming it. Sudonymous (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: You had agreed to follow the recommendations of the RSN comments which specifically recommend this figure is included with specific statement as to the source to indicate there is no third party verification. Despite agreeing to follow this advice you have failed to do so, so I have made this edit.

Actually the ~$1m is just for North American Region Sword of the Spirit I dont know how they fare the other side of the pond. In either case tithing in covcoms is universally 10% and a conservative average household income is $50,000, so the average member household is expected to contribute ~$5000 per year. This accounts for 200 households. The average US household is 3 persons. This income therefore acounts for an estimate of 600 members, not 14,000, and that is if we count the children as included in membership.

In either eventuality the RSN consensus is clear and the edit is now made.

Are you happy to close this issue?Linn C Doyle (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: they said the caveat was an option, they did not say it was strictly required. I don't think it helps at all. They agreed it was reliable, so I kept it. The 14,000 number is worldwide, while the 600 number you calculated is only for the US. Looking at the map it seems most members are outside of the US. Also I do not believe a 3 person household is a reasonable estimate for the size of the average SoS household, as highly religious families tend to have more kids. This claim that they are inflating their numbers is pure WP:OR. Sudonymous (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: From the RSN post, the recommendations of which you have agreed to respect:

Attributing the claim to the site is reasonable "states its membership as"

Please be reasonable.

Than youLinn C Doyle (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: Websites do not make claims, organizations do. Saying "SoS reports X" is not anymore authoritative than "SoS's website says X", it's just less redundant and smoother. Furthermore, you're going off of a possible suggestion by a single responder, and I highly doubt that responder would object to "SoS reports X" since it means the same as "SoS's website reports". You are the one being unreasonable, trying to sow doubt about a simple claim due to your WP:OR Sudonymous (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: Websites do however report figures. I see no harm in reporting the source clearly in text. There is no WP:OR here. Thank you.Linn C Doyle (talk) 04:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: What is the point of stating the source "clearly in text" if we already made clear that the source is SoS? Should we do this with all of our source? "Csordas claims X in book Y" every time we cite him? It's redundant and messy and I don't know why you're insistent on using it. Your usage of twitter followers to try to bring the 14,000 number into dispute is WP:OR. Sudonymous (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: lets see what rfc has to sayLinn C Doyle (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Use WP:INTEXT attribution in text. Exclude the figure from the infobox. We need a WP:RS to state the membership in WP:WIKIVOICE. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Edit: see below – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Do not include this figure if our only source is SoS themselves, even attributed to SoS. In-text attribution can't entirely make up for poor sourcing and there's no worse sourcing than a flattering claim about an organization that can only be sourced to that organization. Loki (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: yes I had raised so undue weight concern here. Will remove again.Linn C Doyle (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: We've already reached out to RSN and found that SoS's website is reliable for this under WP:ABOUTSELF, the only question was how to word it, whether specifying that it is a claim from their website is necessary. I don't understand why you decided to remove it again based on a single response to an RFC, when RSN already agreed that is was ok to include. Sudonymous (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: No more WP:PA in edit notes please. In RSN post advice say undue weight may be an issue. Just because a source can be considered reliable does not necessarily mean it should be considered reliable. As @LokiTheLiar: has indicated there is reason to believe this source may not be accurate, and therefore the membership should not be included if this is the only source, as it serves to flatter the subject of this article with zero verifiability. As another RFC expert has raised the same concerns as myself the membership number has been removed until either:

• a clear consensus for it's inclusion can be achieved.
• another source is presented which corroborates the quoted membership.

Perhaps it is best to await these conditions or further RFC comments prior to making any further reversion.

Thank you.Linn C Doyle (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You are deleting sourced information that RSN has confirmed is reliable under WP:ABOUTSELF, this is disruptive editing and I will call it out as such. You have provided no reason to doubt the number other than their social media following, which doesn't prove anything. We already reached a consensus that it is acceptable under WP:ABOUTSELF, you cannot just decide which guidelines apply unilaterally like this. Sudonymous (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: No WP:PA on the talk page either please.

Clearly myself and other editors believe keeping the SOS own quote of membership from the page is constructive.

No, I identified several sources which could potentially be used to estimate the accuracy of the quoted 14,000 membership but did not appear to corroborate this estimate.

This was done in order to demonstrate that SOS own word is the only point of validation for this membership estimate, and an attempt has been made to try and validate this membership estimate.

No ,we did not reach a consensus that this was reliable, in fact we disagreed on this.

The source was then submitted to the RSN noticeboard at which point other editors confirmed that this can be considered a reliable source for aboutself, however the commenting authors stated they did not have enough relevant expertise to identify any undue weight issues.

As there was still disagreement RFC was raised to gain the advice of relevant editors.

My editing since has been to follow the advice of this RFC.

The initial comment advises that this content should be moved from the infobox as it is not reliable enough for voice of wiki.

The second comment raises undue weight issues (is 'SoS has 14k members' a majority viewpoint, or a fringe theory which is only apparent in SoS self-publishing).

Following the RFC advice seems the best course of action to me, and as you should be able to observe my editing has simply been to update the article following RFC advice.

If you think there is more discussion to be had here, perhaps you could query the statements with the RFC editors to clarify advice, rather than reverting edits which follow this advice.

Alternatively you could provide a source outside of SoS self-publishing which corroborates the 14, 000 membership quote. It would be fantastic if other editors wished to bring new sources to the page :)

Thank you. Linn C Doyle (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Deleting reliably sourced information is not constructive. You have not found any sources that 14,000 is an inaccurate number, you are doing rough estimates based on Twitter followers (which is not the same as members). This is WP:OR, and just as original research is not suitable for inclusion on a page, it's not ok to use original research to delete sourced information. RSN confirmed that it is reliable under WP:ABOUTSELF, the only question is how to word it, which is what the RFC is for.

Two users responded to the RFC, one said to keep it with in-text attribution (which we currently have), another says to delete it. You are treating the response of a single user as consensus, which is ridiculous.

I have already provided a source for the 14,000 number, which has been confirmed by RSN as reliable under WP:ABOUTSELF. If you continue to think it is inaccurate, then it is your responsibility to find a source to back up your claim. Otherwise please cease deleting cited information. Sudonymous (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: Yes the issue raised in RFC comment is that as the only source for this number is the subjects own website, even though self-publishing can be taken as reliable, in this instance it is likely that the 14k membership estimate gives undue weight to a minority viewpoint or fringe theory. Now there is of course disagreement on whether or not that is the case, this is why RFC advice was sought. The RFC comment above clearly states that the membership estimate should not be included if the only source is the subject of this articles own website. I noticed you have made 3 reversions in little over 24 hours. Perhaps rather than getting into edit warring and content dispute it would be better to yield to RFC advice? Linn C Doyle (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: If you think the 14,000 number is a minority viewpoint or fringe theory, it should be easy to find a majority viewpoint that conflicts with it, and evidence that it is a majority viewpoint. If you find such a source feel free to add it.

Two users responded to the RFC. One agreed with you to delete the information, while the other said to keep it with in-text attribution, which is its current form. You seem to think we should only consider the former, ignoring both the other response and the RSN consensus, but I'm not sure why. The RFC advice has been inconclusive so I'm not sure how we would yield to it.

I have not made 3 reversions in a little over 24 hours. I think you misread the timestamps, or maybe you mistook my most recent edit for a reversion, which it wasn't. Sudonymous (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: Once again, please avoid WP:PA and accusations. As I read it one comment provides a decision between infobox and in text for presentation of the estimate, the second comment makes the explicit point that this is likely a flattering figure and should not be included.

Well absence of evidence otherwise hardly validates factoids which do not exist outside self-publishing. I am not sure that is how 'facts' should be established. In general if reasonable doubt or poor control is identified one is generally required to provide corroborative evidence, which I have attempted to locate, but cannot find. I do not know if you perhaps have some corroborative sources you could provide to clarify the figure? That said it is not difficult to observe inconsistencies even in self-publishing.

• Community websites currently quote 12000 (current) http://communityofnazareth.org/?page_id=87
• Other parts of the SoS website quote 9000 (2015) https://www.swordofthespirit.net/bulwark/december2015p6.htm
• While Jan the same year (2015) kairos (SoS youth outreach) quotes 10,000 https://www.facebook.com/KairosEuropeAndTheMiddleEast/photos/a.395011363912456.95243.367198746693718/790978267649095/
• SoS own website also reports 10000 (2009) https://www.swordofthespirit.net/bulwark/october09p5.htm

Similar inconsistencies can be observed with respect to the estimate of member communities across these links.

In either eventuality this is not really the issue raised by RFC. It appears the figure only exists in self-publishing, and the concern raised is that this figure may be inflated for corporate vanity purposes, and as the advice given is that the figure should not be included if no estimates are available outwith self-publishing.

You have indeed reverted 3 times in not long over 24 hours. In case this was perhaps something you were unaware of here are the links:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1008227351&oldid=1007891392
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1008544373&oldid=1008410353
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1008741389&oldid=1008738391

If you think this is still ambiguous at all perhaps you should seek further RFC or request clarification from the authors of RFC comments as a method of resolving content dispute?

Thank you. Linn C Doyle (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: WP:ORGSOURCE perhaps best explains this issue. Linn C Doyle (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: Membership numbers fluctuate over time. The fact that SoS reported 10,000 members in 2009 and 2015 does not contradict them having 14,000 in 2021. The SoS website previously said 12,000 before being updated to 14,000, so it is reasonable to assume that the Community of Nazareth website simply hasn't been updated recently. You have not provided any evidence that these numbers are falsified.

Those 3 edits were each on separate days. 60+ hours between the first and the third.

If you think we need more responses feel free to do another RFC. I will work off of the RSN conclusion.

WP:ORGSOURCE is an essay by an individual describing their opinion. WP:ABOUTSELF is a policy. This source is acceptable under WP:ABOUTSELF. Sudonymous (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: Well actually you did not follow RSN, which suggested in-text but gave no conclusion on weighting issues. I see no reason to ignore RFC I do not understand why you think RSN makes these comments negligible.

Yes I noticed you waited till just over the 24 hour period, as indicated above.

That is interesting that the previous quote is 12000. I was not aware the SoS website quoted this prior to updating to 14000. Perhaps you could provide this source?

I am also surprised by your knowledge of what the SoS website has looked like in the past, as you have claimed that prior to recent editing you had no knowledge of the organisation. Linn C Doyle (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: So I found a peer reviewed membership estimate in a journal article. This has been included in the article, so hopefully this clears the issue up :) It is a journal article so this info is more than suitable for infobox inclusion which you seemed eager to do :) Linn C Doyle (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: If you look at the edit history of this page, it previously mentioned 12,000 members with the SoS website cited as a source. I assume this means the website used to state 12,000 members. I see you're once again trying to accuse me of a COI, it's getting annoying so please stop. — Sudonymous 21:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

@Sudonymous: Again, please no WP:PA. Nobody accused you of having a COI there. I said I was surprised about your factual statement regarding a source which you claim to have no knowledge of. Thank you for explaining this was in fact an assumption based on previous versions of this page :) Linn C Doyle (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

If you read the journal article, it actually cites the SoS website as the source for the 10,000 number. If a peer-reviewed academic paper considers the SoS website reliable for membership data, I think it's reasonable that we also consider it reliable. Seeing as this paper is relatively old, I think it would make sense to cite the SoS website for the up to date number. For the moment though I'm just adding the 10,000 number to the infobox and rewording the sentence slightly. Sudonymous (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: I am not sure that is how academic publishing works. Further clarification from RFC editors or the RSN noticeboard may be able to provide you further insight into whether or not it is appropriate to replace figures sourced from journal publishing with self-published sources. Thank you for adding the source to the infobox :) Linn C Doyle (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: Academic publishing uses reliable sources. If a source is reliable enough for a published paper, it should be reliable enough for Wikipedia. We also know the page is reliable under WP:ABOUTSELF. The point is not replacing journal-published sources with self-published sources, but 7 year old sources with recent sources. Up to date information is useful.

You were clearing implying that I did have prior knowledge about SoS and was lying previously. That is WP:PA. Myself pointing out your WP:PA is not a personal attack. Sudonymous (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Use the journal source and include both in body and infobox. Does not need WP:INTEXT attribution. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we have a clarification on this RfC? I'm asking for a third opinion, e.g., by Finnusertop (talk · contribs), Seraphimblade (talk · contribs), or others. I think it's fine and well to use the journal source for the official numbers for the organization. But it should also be fine to report that the organization self-reports a different and more recent number, as long as it's clear that that number is self-reported. LinnCDoyle2 (talk · contribs) is opposed to that, however, so I'm asking for a third opinion: is it okay to retain this line which LinnCDoyle2 removed? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Also @LokiTheLiar who recommends journal source and no self report.

If this third 3rd opinion (6th opinion?) also agrees that we should use secondary sources rather than self-published primary sources by the subject of the wiki, maybe a pinned comment on the verdict in the talk would be helpful? LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I have removed this dispute from WP:3O, as it involves more than 2 editors. However, as a means of hopefully triggering some consensus, I thought I'd include my (insignificant!) opinion. I've reviewed this discussion and the RS discussion. The key lingering debate seems to concern WP:ABOUTSELF and, specifically, whether SoS's self-reported membership is exceptional or fringe. If the self-reported membership is "exceptional", then inclusion is not warranted.

1. Observations of debate so far: Here, User:Sudonymous supported inclusion; User:Linn C Doyle opposed inclusion. By my reading, it appears these users have switched off on whether or not to include in-text attribution based on a subsequent RFC. User:LokiTheLiar opposed inclusion, and, upon discovery of a journal article estimating membership, User:Finnusertop switched from supporting inclusion with in-text attribution to using the journal article alone. On the RS discussion, which I believe predated the journal's discovery, it appears User:David Gerard and User:Emir of Wikipedia supported inclusion with in-text attribution. User:Slatersteven seemed skeptical of inclusion.
2. For context, I'm a little concerned about the early methodology used to make exceptional determination—comparing a membership numbers to Facebook likes or Twitter followers strikes me as a little WP:SYNTHy, though I recognize that sometimes OR is required in background investigations.
3. I'm not sure I see the "undue weight" concern a few editors have discussed. According to WP:DUE: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." But it's not actually clear to me that the membership estimate is a "minority" view. What's the majority view, and where are the sources supporting that view? One journal article providing membership as of 15 years ago doesn't indicate a majority / minority view.
4. That said, the journal article does, by my view, create an interesting issue. Frankly, as the journal article relies on SoS's self-reported membership, I partially agree with Sudonymous that the distinction between the journal and SoS's modern website seems ... thin. However, regardless of methodology, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. As such, when it comes to the infobox, I do think only the journal article should be used.
5. However, as to the article text, I would suggest including the journal article and the SoS self-report, with in-text attribution for the self report. That conclusion is based on two points:
   1. First, of some but not dispositive note, per the WP:RS discussion, there appears to have been a consensus that the self report was worthy of inclusion. On the RS discussion, it appears User:David Gerard and User:Emir of Wikipedia supported inclusion with in-text attribution. Only User:Slatersteven seemed skeptical of inclusion, writing, "[D]o we rely on the Democratic Party of the US for [a] claim [about its membership], or do we use third party sources?" But, I'm not sure how on-point that analogy is—there are plenty of third-party and contemporaneous sources discussing Dem. party membership. That's not the case here.
   2. Regardless, I think the ultimate question is whether the journal article affects the WP:ABOUTSELF analysis and cautions omission. I do not think it does. It's not accurate to suggest that the membership report of the journal conflicts with the modern membership report—there's a 15-year gap between those estimates. To the contrary, I actually think the journal article lends support for inclusion: if we are to say that the journal article is an acceptable source for the 10,000 members statistic (and on that point I think there's no debate), then I think it's even harder to argue that the 14,000 number is "exceptional" or "fringe"—there's no verifiable reason to think that an organization couldn't have gained 4000 members between 2008 and 2023.

Hope this is marginally helpful.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Jerome Frank Disciple. This seems fair to me. LinnCDoyle2, if you have further concerns, we'll need to open up another RfC. (Keep in mind: it doesn't necessarily make the organization look trustworthy that there was a 4,000-person increase in membership; but that is what the organization presently reports.) Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I want to second that great point by Arbitrarily0. That's precisely why I agree with the users who suggested that in-text attribution should be used.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Well I would disagree with both of you. We should use information from a peer-reviewed secondary source, not self-report primary source.

But I will accept the majority consensus here. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Atwood

LinnCDoyle2 (talk · contribs) insists on including this material about Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. I have argued above that the inclusion of such information is an example of "excessive detail" that the third-opinion editor above was referring to. Perhaps more importantly, the source in question merely claims that the author of the Handmaid’s Tale possessed a newspaper clipping about the People of Hope community (and other organizations), with no clarity on to the extent of which this served as "background material," if at all. (Note: the People of Hope community is one of over 50 member communities the Sword of the Spirit). If there is a definite and notable connection between the Sword of the Spirit and Atwood's novel, I also think we should expect to find it in other sources. I have suggested that if LinnCDoyle2 wants to synthesize a theory about the relationship between the Handmaid’s Tale and the Sword of the Spirit, they may do so, but not on Wikipedia. We agree on the need to include disparaging information in this article, but I think this is a step too far. LinnCDoyle2 has disagreed my reasoning, so we are seeking a third opinion: does this material on Atwood belong in the article? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Sword of the Spirit and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

Upon observing the section in question (which I only arrived to after seeing this dispute listed on WP:3O, I did make a non-controversial edit which addressed a grammar issue and clarified that the newspaper clipping was the background material. Just for some context, that newspaper clipping is an Associated Press article, which I searched for and discovered (link). Based on my independent inquiry, I think a single sentence—for example, what's now the first sentence—would be appropriate for inclusion in the article, but I'd oppose including the full quotation.

First, I agree with User:Arbitrarily0 about excessive detail and the need for summary style and due weight. The fact that the source is a publisher's promotional interview with its author adds to that concern. That said, the relationship does seem to be suggested by other sources: Here's a Vox article that discusses the connection between People of Hope and Handmaid's Tale. The Vox article refers to a 1987 New York Times interview Atwood gave, though Atwood didn't identify People of Hope by name in that interview. And here's a NJ.com article that also says there is a connection; it refers to a New Yorker profile of Atwood, where the Associated Press article is mentioned (again, The New Yorker does not identify People of Hope by name, but NJ.com makes the connection).

As to the quotation, however, I'm further concerned that the text of the article seems to imply that Atwood was providing her own opinion on the People of Hope. But based on the source's use of single quotation marks (correctly transposed to the article as it stands), I suspected Atwood was merely reading from the newspaper. When I discovered the text of the article (Associated Press link), my suspicions were confirmed. So, the quotation here isn't Atwood's opinion of the People of Hope or even Atwood's opinion of the newspaper clipping; it's just Atwood reading the clipping.

Finally, while I realize no 3O was requested on this subject, if the text or any portion thereof is kept, I think it should be moved. To my mind, there's no reason for it to be included in the History section—there's no suggestion that the People of Hope's use as background material for the Handmaid's Tale was significant to the history of the People of Hope. Instead, I think the sentence belongs in either the "Reception" section or, perhaps, a cultural-references section. Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Jerome Frank Disciple (talk · contribs)! Can you just address the follow-up question? The Vox article you discovered says, "the story didn’t hit the AP until after The Handmaid’s Tale came out in 1985, meaning that Atwood couldn’t have pulled the word “handmaid” from that mythical news article after all." Doesn't this mean that the whole People-of-Hope-Atwood connection is just a rumor? (Or maybe I'm misunderstanding something.) Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Whoops! I addressed this point in a separate paragraph that I must have accidentally deleted when I was rearranging a few portions of my comment right before I hit save edit. Great catch, and sorry about that! I'll do my best to recall what I said:

Both the Vox and the NJ.com article (with the former relying on the latter as a source) say, however, that the timeline on the inspiration doesn't add up—according to those sources, the AP article came out after the book had been published. That said, the sources do note that Atwood has pretty consistently said that the People of Hope served as her inspiration. Even if the inspiration claim happens to be false, given the third-party coverage of both her comments and subsequent timeline issue, I think a second sentence noting the issue should be added.

To respond to your question of whether it's just a rumor—it seems like that's definitely possible ... although it's also, separately, possible, that Atwood had heard of the group before the 1985 event. I'd maintain that, even if a rumor, the rumor should be addressed in the article given the third-party coverage. Something like:

Margaret Atwood has said that her book, The Handmaid's Tale, was partially inspired by the People of Hope, pointing to an 'Associated Press' clipping from her archives that described the group.[penguin ref][vox ref] However, subsequent investigations revealed that the newspaper clipping Atwood said she relied on posted publication of the book, calling into doubt whether the group actually served as inspiration for Atwood.[Vox ref][NJ.com ref]

--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple: The issue is that, as far as I can tell, we can't even say, "Atwood has said that her book ... was partially inspired by the People of Hope". According to the Penguin sorce, all that Atwood said was, "They [these newspaper clippings] are Handmaid’s Tale background material". Writers often have way more background materials than they actually make use of. Atwood herself says, in that interview, "this is just stuff I came across when reading newspapers and magazines. I cut things out and put them in a box. I already knew what I was writing about and this was backup." This is why my recommendation is to leave this out entirely. There was a rumor, not said by Atwood herself, that was eventually disproved; run-of-the-mill stuff. If anything, it would be notable that People of Praise were (falsely) associated with Atwood, but not People of Hope. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Eh other secondary sources use the term inspired, and I think "partially inspired" sufficiently hedges there. Plus, the Penguin source can't be considered in isolation—the Vox and the NJ.com article both rely on a NYT interview and a New Yorker interview.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple: Can you clarify which secondary sources you have in mind? NJ.com, for example, says "Did a religious war in New Jersey actually inspire the title of Atwood's famous book? .... Still, if the Berkeley Heights conflict did not technically inspire Atwood's classic, it was one of the first real-life reflections of the kind of fundamentalism that fans of the book worry about." In other words, the verdict is that it did not inspire Atwood. But are there others I'm missing? We need to have good sources for disparaging material; that's why I'm pressing here. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

So there are 2 issues that I think we have to distinguish:

1. Are there reliable sources that say that Atwood did cite the People of Hope as inspiration?
2. Did the People of Hope serve as inspiration?

If the answer to item 1 is yes, and it meets notability standards, then it's worth including in the article—that's irrespective of whether the answer to item 2 is yes.

The Vox link, in particular, says, "[W]hen Margaret Atwood explained her Handmaid's Tale inspirations to the New York Times in 1987, she described one of them as 'a Catholic charismatic spinoff sect. ... [D]uring ... interviews [with journalists], she's always cited People of Hope [as that sect]." It then goes on to clarify that People of Hope was probably not the sect she was thinking of. As such, again:

Margaret Atwood has said that her book, The Handmaid's Tale, was partially inspired by "a Catholic charismatic spinoff sect, which calls the women handmaids." In other interviews, pointing to an Associated Press clipping from her archives, she identified that sect as People of Hope. However, subsequent investigations revealed that the newspaper clipping Atwood said she relied on postdated publication of the book, calling into doubt whether the group actually served as inspiration for Atwood.

All of those sentences are adequately sourced, no?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple @Arbitrarily0

So a few things to point out.

The current statement in the wiki does not state to whether or note "inspiration" was taken for the novel.

Rather it states that Margaret Atwood includes the people of hope in the background material for the handmaids tale.

This at least is clearly the case.

I would support the additional inclusion proposed by @Jerome Frank Disciple

I would also like to afford both of you some context.

Please see Csordas book 'Language, Charisma, and Creativity' pg81

"Clark and Martin outlined their plan for restructuring the group to facilitate community growth. The Life in the Spirit Seminar was subsequently revised to emphasize community living, and members were required to take or retake an additional twelve-week Foundations in Christian Living course. Prospective members could make a preliminary or underway commitment, but only after completing all the courses and being invited by community leaders could they make a "full commitment" to the covenant. "Growth groups," small-scale spiritual development groups that were characteristic of Charismatic prayer groups from the movement's beginning, were reorganized on geographic lines within subcommunities.

The functions of community leaders were categorized by specialty, including charismatic gifts such as prophecy, services in support of the community, and offices such as elder. Those specializing in service received the title "Servant" if male or " Handmaid " if female."

I would not propose any synthesis of information into the article.

But it seems foolish to write off claims that Atwood took inspiration from the people of hope as a debunked rumor.

As @Jerome Frank Disciple points out Atwood may have previous familiarity prior to the publication of the news article in 1985 - and indeed those familiar with the topic will know that there was some news reporting on the people of hope particularly in the early 80s including a televised mini-documentary news segment.

So I would be careful with claims that the people of hope as inspiration is a debunked rumor.

Rather I would include the information very specifically - that the use of a specific news article as source material is not possible due to dates - though it is still clearly the case that the article exists in the background material, and that Atwood claims the group as inspiration. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Jerome Frank Disciple's version, and have added it to the article (adding "1985" and a correction to "posted publication"). It still seems a little strange to include this material, because I worry we're getting excessively detailed again. LinnCDoyle2, since Jerome Frank Disciple are in agreement on this, you'll need to go to WP:Dispute resolution, or a similar forum, to get this resolved. You above argument again seems to be synthesis (which doesn't mean it's false, just unfit for Wikipedia). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

As previously stated I support the additional inclusion proposed by @Jerome Frank Disciple

I do not understand what you wish me to do with dispute resolution - all editors have agreed on the version. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Arbitrarily0 @Jerome Frank Disciple

A minor edit here.

" the newspaper clipping Atwood said she relied on "

This is an error.

We do not know whether or not this clipping was relied on.

Rather it simply exists in the background material. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Another minor error.

The AP article is not the one used in Atwoods background material.

Rather the article in Atwoods background material is a reprinting in the Evening Telegram on Oct. 31, 1985.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/mandatory-voting-canada-s-weediversary-fighting-alongside-the-kurds-atwood-archives-dolly-parton-more-1.5324795/the-atwood-archives-reveal-what-the-author-was-thinking-about-while-writing-the-handmaid-s-tale-1.5324818 LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

De-indenting: This is getting slightly unwieldily. I think the text as is is perfect. I'd only point out that the Evening Telegram clipping is from the AP. That's why it says "(AP)". That said, I think labelling it as Evening Telegram is fine—but you need to properly cite Evening Telegram in the article. Right now, the only source next to that sentence is the Vox story, which says "Associated Press clipping".--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a good edit and I do appreciate the effort and additional sources.

Maybe I am misunderstanding something here - it was my impression that AP was a discrete business from the Evening Telegram.

If this is the case I would say the news article has made an error - Atwoods handwitten notes say Evening Telegram 31st October - so it seems to me the date and the publisher you have quoted is an error in your edit - so surely we should fix this? LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries! The Associated Press is a cooperative that distributes stories to its members, which have the option of building on or minority editing those stories. The AP has a website, but it doesn't publish its own newspaper or anything—instead, several newspapers are members of the AP. So, sometimes you might read an AP story in the Washington Post or the New York Times. You can typically identify AP stories because a byline will say "Associated Press" or the parenthetical "(A.P.)" will appear after the article location, as the Evening Telegram clipping does. Here, the Evening Telegram printed an AP story in its newspaper. (If you really want—you can double check this by zooming in on the clipping—notice how much it matches the story as it appears on the AP website.)

So the Vox story is not in error, but, if you really want, I have no problem with replacing AP with Evening Telegram in the article text—both are correct! However, if you want to say Evening Telegram, you have to properly cite the source you provided above in the article text.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

OK I understand now.

I will get round to including the Evening Telegram reference at some point.

Otherwise the current version seems fine to me. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

---