Talk:Antioch International Movement of Churches

"Antioch Community Church baptizes members in a horse trough during a service at Melody Ranch" reliable source

The source: "Piersont, Marla (January 23, 2000). "Antioch Community Church baptizes members in a horse trough during a service at Melody Ranch". Waco Tribune-Herald." appears to be unavailable online. Please quote the material on the talk page, briefly and in context. Pride2bme (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure here you go: ...the core of the church is cell or life groups that meet weekly in homes — a model members say harkens back to small gatherings of the New Testament church. "Our Sundays are just times of celebration or vision but not really the make or break of everything," Seibert said. "We really emphasize what's happening in the small groups as the core of our church." Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Anonymous former members describe intense lifegroups as addictive, cultic, MLM structured. Collaborates with Doughtery source

The deletion of this content: "But members from inside the church view such fanaticism as the norm. One former member described Antioch as an "addictive" experience that has it's pros and cons. In the end however, this same former member found Antioch's putting the interest of the church first over the individual as "cultic" and "harmful." A wife of a former member also found the groups to be problematic and susceptible to a culture of authority abuse. Others have compared Antioch's cell group operations as structured similar to "Multi-Level Marketing," a system that carries "spiritual incentives" and pressures to invest more time and more money in Antioch ministries. Members would increasingly benefit from recruiting new followers to "disciple." In response, Jimmy Seibert described Antioch's discipleship process as a historically accurate Christian model to "multiply" and grow a church; through encouragement and investing in people." was given the explanation "This piece makes almost no statements directly about life groups. It mentions them as part of a range of activities that anonymous fourmer members reportedly compared to MLMs. Undue." Life group is directly mentioned. The source says "Like many religious organizations, there’s a spectrum of involvement; several former members described it to me as similar, in structure, to an MLM, with spiritual incentives and social pressure to invest more time and money (in “Life Groups,” in discipleship school, and, eventually, on overseas missions)" In terms of being undue, there's collaboration of "cult-like" life groups from the previous article by the sociologist, Doughtery. The deleted content also is descriptive on former members. I've been trying to be careful not to violate any copyrighting style so it's not a word for word copy from the source, but I think content is faithful and connects the insights well. MLM is treated neutrally. Also Jimmy Seibert's response quote gives a balanced addition to finish out the Life Group content. So the content should be reverted.Pride2bme (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Again I think the opinion of an anonymous former member quoted in buzzfeed news is undue. Unlike the named expert from the local Waco paper (which unlike BFN has no reputation of publishing hit pieces about Antioch) that we have already quoted. See the difference? Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

It becomes less due with attribution and collaboration and fits. Be aware that Buzzfeed and Buzzfeed News are two different sources. Pride2bme (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The author of the relevant BFN piece worked across both BF and BFN, writing a lot of celebrity-focused columns. So the line between the two is blurred in this instance. And I agree that (i) the proposed content would need to be attributed, and (ii) it becomes even clearer that the content is UNDUE when it is attributed. We already found an appropriate source for the claim in the vicinity of this content, and notice that when the source is an expert in a reputable outlet commenting under his actual name, he is far more moderate in his expression of this general point of view. That's exactly why that source does belong in the piece, while this BFN anonymous opinion does not. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Buzzfeed and Buzzfeed News, it's best to focus on specific articles rather than generalizing a crossover link and their journalists. What do you think about compromise trimming out some of the cultic descriptions since Doughtery covered it and using the MLM, discipleship, and Seibert quote? Pride2bme (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Reputation matters. I continue to think that an opinion from an anonymous source is not due. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The rewrite contained fact claims, fact claims are not opinions. What parts of the rewrite do you find opinioned? It's a double standard to cite an opinion piece from the Washington post anyway. Pride2bme (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The Washington Post is far more prominent as an opinion outlet than Buzzfeed. Additionally, the WaPo piece is not anonymous. That's not a double standard, then; there is a clear distinction between the two sources. And yes, the anonymous former member is sharing opinions about the history of Antioch, and how in his or her opinion the church monopolized the local economy and took control of an alleged social hierarchy, etc. These are (seemingly hyperbolic) opinions, not facts, and they are undue. By the way, if some prominent writer makes these claims under his own name in the Washington Post, we should definitely include them. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Statements on historical events that have happened or informational assertions are not opinions. Opinions are either value based or subjective. What statements in the proposed content do you find subjective? Events claims are informational. Do you know of any articles that contest these claims?

btw, I've a separate topic of Antioch's Entrepreneurial Evangelism that I was referring to. This topic is about Lifegroups addictive, cultic, MLM structure. Please discuss Antioch's Entrepreneurial Evangelism there. The newest proposed rewrite was "An anonymous former member has recounted early in Antioch's history, initial efforts to evangelize the Waco community included door-to-door preaching. The former member went on to state Antioch's evangelism eventually changing course to entrepreneurial strategies and developing an Antioch "monopoly" on upward mobility in Waco. The former member claimed creating businesses owned by Antioch members, who only employed Antioch church members, allowed members to exclusively rise socially and economically in Waco and impact the community through the church." Claims yes, opinion, no. Pride2bme (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think this is obviously an opinion from an anonymous former member and it is undue. No there are no sources I'm aware of that contest or discuss the claims made by an anonymous former member of Antioch church in this minor Buzzfeed article, which is further evidence that the opinion is undue. I think the claims are opinions because they involve contentious interpretations of the facts. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

If there isn't any source contending them there isn't a contention. Pride2bme (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

You think we should include anonymous former members quoted in Buzzfeed for our encyclopedia's understanding of the church's strategy. I think this is UNDUE, as I've explained. You might also have a look at WP:REDFLAG. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

We seem to be at an impasse. They're not opinions. I don't consider the claims as exceptional nor surprising. The claims have no contentions. The mother Buzzfeed News source is reliable. It collaborates with Doughtery's analysis. Pride2bme (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

If you're unpersuaded by the policy-based arguments I've made, then I agree that we're at an impasse. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

"Lifegroup" vs "Life Group" spelling

On the spelling of "Life Group" vs "Lifegroup" every Antioch site I've checked spells it "Lifegroup." Articles sources that spelled it "Life Group" misspelled it. There's no need to be so beholden to sources with inaccurate misspellings. Lets be sensible and spell it the way Antioch spells it. Pride2bme (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree. We should follow reliable sources, not primary self-published sources. "Life group" is the standard spelling, even if Antioch brands their groups differently. A quick google search of each spelling shows that there are 4.5 million hits for "life group" and only 284k for "lifegroup" which appears to be how some churches stylize the term. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Although "Life Group" is standardized, it may be useful to note Antioch spells it differently. We can keep the subsection title as "Life Group" but would be good to note Antioch consistently spells it "Lifegroup." Pride2bme (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Why is that important? What source are you using to come to that conclusion? Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It's what Antioch calls them. Pride2bme (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't dispute that this is Antioch's branding. That doesn't demonstrate that it belongs in an encyclopedia article about Antioch. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not initially seeking to add on a larger in depth description on Antioch's "Lifegroup" brand, or how they compare with standardized church "Life Groups" (though I'm not objecting to it) I just think it makes sense to put in an Antioch article the spelling, according to Antioch's use. I don't even regard it as major content, it's just how they decided to spell it and using their spelling is consistent with Antioch Lifegroups. Pride2bme (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Antioch also brands their mission as the "five circles of church" (as discussed on their website and as far as I can tell no secondary reliable source). When we are talking about their mission, should we note that this is how they brand it? I think clearly not. This is just one example of a similar issue and I'm sure there are others as well. Once we start including this kind of information in the article, it's going to seem more and more promotional, and also it's going to have a weird, non-encyclopedic tone. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to some information or description on what they call "5 Circles of Church." It's not their mission but seems to be part of how they intend to view church. It's just like you say, no secondary sources have mentioned it. But that doesn't make it invalid. It's quite matter of fact. But this is a different topic. Pride2bme (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I removed some other primary sourcing (and what seems to me promotional material) from the article. Secondary sources are what we want. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what this has to do with the spelling of Lifegroup and Life Group, but okay. Pride2bme (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm pointing out that including their branding is promotional, and we shouldn't do that, and so I'm taking steps to remove other promotional stuff too. This is all the same general question: what do we include from their website? Answer according to WP policy: almost nothing. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm just focused on spelling. Besides the spelling, sounds like you believe Antioch's "Lifegroups" are much different from standardized "Life Groups," how so? Pride2bme (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that. I think that including branding information from Antioch's website is promotional and contrary to WP policy. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:OWN concern

Shinealittlelight, I notice your authorship consists of a vast majority, over 52% of page edits on the Antioch International Movement of Churches. Be that as it may I will assume these edits were made in good faith. However, the average editor to this page ranges between 3-5% of authorship, 5% being the second highest authorship. With such a high degree of contributions to this page, it's not unreasonable to respectively raise the WP:OWN issue. Shinealittlelight, do you have any possessive feelings over the Antioch movement page? Pride2bme (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Recent Edit

@CFA: and @Pride2beme:. CFA reverted P2BM's edit and P2BM decided to reinstate the edit without discussing here. I would prefer we follow WP:BRD to avoid an edit war, and I'd ask P2BM to revert while we discuss here. Meanwhile, CFA, can you explain your revert?

I'm of the opinion that the section on homosexuality is a too long in the article to the point of being UNDUE. I'm also of the opinion that the Dayton source doesn't really add any information that wasn't already in the article, and the Dayton piece actually somewhat mischaracterizes what Seibert said. Additionally, the HGTV statement said "LGBT" not "LGBTQ" so we need to be accurate on what people actually said. There may be other issues with the proposed edit, but I think some of it can probably be retained. But obviously we need to reach consensus before reinstating it, so in my view P2BM should revert it while we discuss until we come to consensus. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no opinions towards this article, have never edited it before, and will certainly not start an edit war over it. I believe this was a vandalism false-positive — I was quickly skimming over the diff from RC and I saw [[conversion therapy]] + "as necessary for those who identify as LGBTQ" which looks like vandalism without closer inspection. This was not vandalism, it was a good-faith edit, and it has already been readded. If this topic is so contentious that even one revert looks like edit-warring, this page should probably be subject to WP:CTOPS. C F A 💬 14:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. The history of the page certainly has been pretty contentious; I don't know how to go about adding it to CTOPS and I'd welcome your help on that if you feel inclined. If you don't have further input then I'll just make a bold adjustment and P2BM can weigh in later. No need for P2BM to self-revert at this point, then, contrary to what I said above. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I made some changes to P2BM's edit. Happy to discuss. I still think the section is too long. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy to discuss as well, I reverted before checking the talk so I apologize if I was a bit hasty. The Dayton News reported Seibert said he considers homosexuality as a "lifestyle" choice. And adds the timeline of Antioch's stance. Shinealittlelight, you've made the argument to be strict with a source, you're beholden to the source even if incorrect, as exampled in our "Life Group" vs. "Lifegroup" spelling. This is your value now you're having a double standard. Additionally the content in the source does not have to be true or false. See WP:TRUTH.

The Vox citation used "LGBTQ," that's why I added the "Q" when the previous sentence was sourced by Vox.

""Supports conversion therapy" covers both Variety and Vox instead of being specific to Variety." So there wasn't anything wrong with my edit to that sentence which covered both Variety and Vox. Removing "as necessary for those who identify as LGBTQ" was unexplained. It is properly sourced, in good faith as CFA can concur. Sources say Jimmy Seibert believes that. Contentious topic perhaps, but neutrally included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pride2bme (talk • contribs) 16:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Also words that have a silent “h” begin with a vowel sound, so they use “an” HGTV. This is grammatically correct.

I changed "Antioch's position on LGBT issues led to controversy in 2016, when Buzzfeed published an article on HGTV Stars Chip and Joanna Gaines (hosts of the reality show Fixer Upper)." to "In 2016 HGTV stars Chip and Joanna Gaines (hosts of the reality show Fixer Upper) sat down with Jimmy Seibert for an interview on their story in front of an Antioch audience." because the previous version made it sound like Antioch's position on LGBT issues led to controversy. Actually the subsequent controversy appears to be more Buzzfeed's article's questioning the Gaines' relationship with Antioch. Sources that followed (such as you insisted inclusion of the Washington Post) appear to try to make that point. If it is bad to editorialize, it is a double standard to insist to include the Washington Post's opinion piece.

I also think you made a point of the issue being a more major story in Antioch's history due to the visibility and in lede. I don't mind the length of the edit and wasn't seeking to keep adding or drag this out.

Speaking of warring, I want to bring up the concern of Shinealittlelight and WP:OWN, if you are possessive of this page, you are overdoing it. Pride2bme (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I again propose we follow WP:BRD; accordingly I'm reverting to the version that prevailed before you added these changes (aside from the small grammatical point which I missed before in error). I propose that we come to consensus on talk before reinstating anything. Here are my replies to the content-focused statements you made above:

1. Dayton News appears to be expanding on the fact that Seibert used the word 'lifestyle'. But I don't see that he called homosexuality a "lifestyle choice". I admit that I'm a little confused on how verification policy applies in this case, but it seems to me that since we have his words, we can see that the source in this case is misreporting. If you disagree, I could go to RSN to get more experienced editors to help sort this out.
2. We have the HGTV statement and it uses "LGBT", not "LGBTQ" so the proposed version is inaccurate in this respect. I think it's important to accurately report their statement. The majority of sources (all but Vox, I think?) appear to use LGBT in this context, so I propose we stick with that for that reason.
3. What I meant about Vox and Variety is that they both say he supports conversion therapy, but only Variety says that he says it should be used "as necessary for...etc." So I'm suggesting that the text you proposed implies something that's not true about the Vox story. Instead, I propose we stick with the original wording since it doesn't imply that falsehood about Vox.
4. It's bad for WP editors to editorialize per WP:NPOV. That doesn't mean we can't include the editorial content of from writers in the WaPo.
5. There was controversy both about what Antioch's position was, whether it was anti-gay, whether the Gaines agreed with it, and so on and so forth. These issues are remarked upon across a lot of different sources, not just the original Buzzfeed piece. So I didn't understand your restrictive wording on this.
6. I do think that hte length of the section is too much already; I see you disagree. I don't have any real proposal about how to settle this, so maybe we can try to make progress on these other issues.

Maybe seperating these into numbers will help us keep track? Happy to hear your responses, you are obviously welcome to contribute here.

Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

1. The Dayton source is reliable and that's what it says. That's good enough. Not being able to locate a counter source doesn't invalidate it. "Choice" seems to be derived from Seibert's quotes "Truth No. 2: God is able to give us power over every sin, including homosexuality. Lie No. 2: I am a homosexual in thought and action, and I cannot change." also I don't know who added this but the pre-existing content stated "that God can give each person power to leave homosexuality." Variety also quotes Seibert saying “We can change, contrary to what you hear,” all this can support Seibert's belief that homosexuality is a "choice."

2. This isn't a big deal but as you often dictate, it's important to be true to the source. I learned this from you. I'm always anticipating your approval according to your standards, because you seem very possessive of this page, but it shouldn't be a double standard. When sourcing Vox, that's the article's usage. The issue is only important if we are to determine HGTV intended to exclude "Q" or queer people from the discussion. The usage of LGBT and LGBTQ are pretty much synonymous.

3. That's why I eliminated the word "both." Most people wouldn't think the way you do. They're not thinking both sources said that. The fact that Variety says Jimmy believes conversion therapy is necessary isn't a source falsehood, you just have a source attribution nitpick. Just to satisfy you, I can suggest "Writers in Variety and Vox subsequently said that Seibert supports and encourages conversion therapy, and Variety reports Seibert believes it as necessary for those who identify as LGBTQ."

4. Saying the Buzzfeed's question was controversial isn't editorializing it's reporting what sources are saying. I wasn't editorializing. It's what the topic is, and the Washington Post Opinion supports that. I also don't want to make any copyright vios, so an editor needs to make some faithfully interpreted sentences. That doesn't mean they aren't being faithful to the source or making false statements nor editorializing.

5. While contentious, I don't think there is any question about Seibert and Antioch's stance. Frankly, your insistence of the prominence of the Washington Post's Opinion piece that Antioch's stance was a "non-story" and Buzzfeed's questioning the Gaines' association was a "hit piece" controversy may have something to do with the direction of the content. Sources seem to focus more on the Gaines association with Antioch than they do taking issue with Seibert and Antioch church's stance. Just going by the sources. If you say Antioch's LGBT stance is controversial, that needs to be backed up with sources. Which source articles would you use to back up the notion that criticize Antioch and Seibert for their stance? Most responses I read are to paraphrase, Antioch is anti-gay? That's most churches, who cares.

6. I will still assume good faith on your edits, but why haven't you addressed WP:OWN concerns? No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it) nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say. I'm not a fan of WP:BRD, I think it's sloppy. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy. It makes you overlook nuanced edits like spelling and grammar corrections. Every time you revert or delete content that I spent careful time on quite frankly I feel discouraged, knowing every edit I contribute requires your guarded approval and quick deletion. Can you see how that can come across as possessive? Pride2bme (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

1. Seibert said that homosexuals have a choice about whether to change in certain respects. He goes on to say that "It doesn't mean they don't struggle with feelings." And he never clearly says that people choose to be homosexual in the first place. The proposed content attributes to Seibert the view that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice". That's not how he puts it. I think we should just accurately quote him.
2. We have the HGTV statement, and Vox misstates what they said. They did not say "LGBTQ" but rather they said "LGBT". We should be accurate to what they said, and if we are saying what Vox said, we should be accurate to how they put it. We currently have three occurrences of "LGBT" in the body. Despite the fact that LGBT and not LGBTQ is the dominant usage in sources, you awant to use LGBTQ. I can live with this, despite disagreeing with it, as long as we keep LGBT when we are reporting what HGTV said. This is not ideal, as it means we will shift from one to the other. But if you feel strongly about departing from the majority of sources in this way, I will live with it. But we can't misrepresent the HGTV statement.
3. If you want to include the additional content from Variety, then we need to make it clearer. We could say something like "A writer in Vox subsequently said that Seibert supports conversion therapy, and Variety concurred, adding that Seibert ..." The problem is that this seems to me to make a much bigger deal about the details of what these people said than is warranted. Can you explain why the additional detail is important?
4. Where does the source say the question was controversial? I think you're inferring that.
5. I think I got my impression mostly from the discussion in the WaPo piece and lots of other outlets, which expand the controversy to being about more than just the Gaines and the Buzzfeed piece to general culture war issues and issues about what's expected of public figures in general with respect to LGBT issues. But I can see that at least one source says the HGTV statement was specifically a response to the Buzzfeed piece, so that's fine, we can put it that way.
6. See your user talk page.

Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@CFA could also use your thoughts on these.

1. Reliable sources say Seibert believes in conversion therapy, and the choice content. That people can "change" you don't think that's a "choice"? Not struggling with feelings, that means he believes people are choosing how they feel. We can add in his quotes of "Truth" and "Lie" and "change." Adds more content though.

2. If want to you force a change on "LGBTQ," you have to force a change on "Lifegroups" because you can't double standard on accuracy. We're not misrepresenting HGTV because we use "LGBT" when citing them. Let's not misrepresent Vox.

3. Exactly if you want to be a stickler on attributions most readers don't care about, we'd have to extrapolate and make things longer. You either have shorter and less descriptive or longer and more precise. Absence of these details weakens the content. To my ear, homosexuality as a "choice" is a more common talking point than homosexuality "change" it's just a better way of putting it, that's not inaccurate to Seibert's quotes or beliefs.

4. It's a fair and faithful inferral to the "hit piece" sources. You don't think the Buzzfeed article's questioning is controversial? Let's establish what "controversies" you see present. Antioch's stance, Jimmy Seibert's quotes, Chip and Joanne Gaines, Buzzfeed. Four subjects, four controversies. Arguably the most prominent controversy is the Gaines relationship with Seibert highlighted by Buzzfeed. I suppose I can rewrite to distinguish multiple controversies but it just makes things longer. Would you prefer that?

5. I feel like 4. merged with 5. I'm not against touching on "culture war" issues but would have to find a source that says that and expands the article already. So what content are we fine with?

6. We can discuss WP:OWN issues here. Maybe this topic is more under @CFA:'s knowledge. I read if someone else is claiming "ownership" of a page, you can bring it up on the associated talk page... Pride2bme (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

1. I don't really understand your remarks here. What do you say about this proposal: ...that God can give each person "power over ... homosexuality", adding that he thinks that homosexuals have a choice about whehter to change, and that he has personally seen people "change their direction of same-sex attraction from a homosexual lifestyle to a heterosexual lifestyle." Would this cover what you're trying to include?
2. Your original edit included changing to "LGBTQ" in describing the HGTV statement, which was inaccurate. I'm insisting that we accurately summarize the HGTV statement by using "LGBT" there. It sounds like you now agree with that view? If so, that's great, we are in agreement on that. If you want to change one or the other of the other two occurrences to "LGBTQ" then I won't stop you, but I don't think it's ideal for the reasons I gave before.
3. Does the suggestion in 1 cover this concern about highlighting the word "choice"? "Choice" is included in the original Buzzfeed article, which seems to me more ideal as a source for this content if possible.
4. Your proposed content was its founding pastor Jimmy Seibert, and posed the controversial question whether the Gaines shared Antioch's position on same-sex marriage and related issues. I think "controversial" here is an opinion not in the source and I think it has an opinionated sound to it that seems non-encyclopedic. But whatever, put it back in if that's what you want.
5. Your proposed content was In response to the resulting Buzzfeed article, an HGTV spokesman stated that HGTV did not discriminate against members of the LGBTQ community. It used to say "in response to hte resulting controversy," but I'm ok with your proposed change.
6. Content, not contributor.

Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

1. Why don't we just simplify to this: "The Dayton Daily News also reported that Seibert believes homosexuality is a "lifestyle" choice that can change, and has held the same stance since it's founding." Do you want to add on more of Seibert's direct quoting? Variety reports Seibert does say "they have chosen to change. And there has always been grace there for those who choose that." Choose and choice are different tenses of the same word.

2. I think I see where the confusion lay, there was a sentence "In response to the resulting Buzzfeed article, an HGTV spokesman stated that HGTV did not discriminate against members of the LGBTQ community." that cited both Vox and Buzzfeed, Vox going with LGBTQ and Buzzfeed LGBT, you saw the conflict to be too great. Vox even states "HGTV What we’re left with is HGTV’s assurance that there’s no LGBTQ discrimination on any of its shows" because they're pretty much synonymous terms. Alright, we can let that part be LGBT. But I think this reinforces an own issue.

3. I may have misread and crossovered points, these are hard to keep track of! The issue was "Writers in Variety and Vox subsequently said that Seibert supports and encourages conversion therapy, and Variety reports Seibert believes it as necessary for those who identify as LGBTQ." an attribution of the fact that Variety says Jimmy believes conversion therapy is necessary. Sounds important.

4.-5. I'll put it back then. One of many controversies, if I have time to think of a better way of putting it or compromise with what you suggest I will test something different when I have the time.

6. Yes, this IS the content talk page here. You can bring it up on the associated talk page... "An editor who appears to assume ownership of an article should be approached on the article's talk page with a descriptive header informing readers about the topic." Pride2bme (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's really weird to source a summary of a quote from a pastor in Waco to a local Dayton newspaper, especially when (as I've pointed out) the Dayton summary isn't clearly accurate. I proposed a version I would be fine with. I'm also fine leaving it as-is. I've got nothing more to say on the other issues. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Numbered points are getting hard to follow, I realized for #2, both Variety and Vox use LGBTQ, not sure if they were intending to quote HGTV, just using the term LGBTQ because it's a popular acronym that generally referred to the same group.

I have no idea why you think it's weird for a newspaper to quote a pastor, or to source that.

Currently rewriting. Please don't WP:OWN the page. Please don't BRD, there is such a thing as WP:BRD Misuse.

Clearly we think differently, but I'm doing my best for the sake of the article and mindful of your points. Pride2bme (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a source for The Gaines' highlighted association with Antioch subsequently led to controversies... What's the basis for claiming that the interview they did led to the Buzzfeed piece? I'm inclined to trim this detail out in any case--whether their interview with Seibert led to the piece isn't all that to the point, is it? And the section is already pretty long. But it definitely should come out if there isn't a source for it.

Also, the new version you just wrote says Writers in Variety and Vox subsequently said that Seibert supports conversion therapy as a necessary change for those who identify as LGBT. Vox says Siebert supports conversion therapy. Variety but not Vox adds that he sees conversion therapy as "necessary for those who identify as LGBTQ". This seems to misconstrue Vox as saying what, it seems to me, only Variety said. Sorry to repeat myself; I thought we were in agreement about this. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Not even sure what point you're trying to make, you don't think the Gaines highlighted association led to controversies? Buzzfeed says "And their pastor, Jimmy Seibert, who described the Gaineses as "dear friends" in a recent video, takes a hard line against same-sex marriage and promotes converting LGBT people into being straight." Sounds like the interview video led to Aurthur's attention. That highlighted association led to controversies. That's why I made "controversy" plural. But didn't add the lengthy explanation to list out all the controversies. Like I said I can be very descriptive but it adds more, if you're worried about length. Delete more and you delete content. That's how it goes. I felt like the subsequent sentence listed the controversies anyway "the Gaines' close relationship with Antioch Waco, Seibert's stance on homosexuality, and posed the question whether the Gaines shared Antioch's position on same-sex marriage and related issues"

Sorry, these points get hard to keep track. For certain mentions of periodicals, Variety and Vox, I can just trim "Variety and Vox" and just use the citations. This way it an go either or rather than "both". Do we need to directly mention the periodicals when it's already cited? I feel like it can be redundant. "Seibert supports conversion therapy as a necessary change for those who identify as LGBT." I can also add in the Q, since Variety and Vox use the Q. or go "Seibert supports and encourages conversion therapy as necessary for those who identify as LGBTQ." Pride2bme (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

No problem, I'll take a shot at fixing it since it's not clear to you what I'm saying. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)