Talk:Antioch International Movement of Churches

Mental Blockage on top editor's perspective on Conversion Therapy

A previous top editor seems to have a lack of basic understanding that "sexual orientation change efforts" (in doubtful quotations) is the literal equivalent of Conversion therapy, which is currently defined in wikipedia as "the pseudoscientific practice of attempting to change an individual's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to align with heterosexual and cisgender norms." I don't know if there is some type of mental denial or cognitive dissonance, but there should be no apprehension or doubt as defining it so. I would suspect anti-LGBTQ bias plays into this suspicion about the definition of conversion therapy. There also shouldn't be any doubt that Living Hope Ministries practices conversion therapy. The cited source, literally states in the headline about "a network of churches embracing conversion therapy." Antioch Community Church, the headquarters of the movement is stated in the article, as well as Living Hope Ministries. It's also astoundingly clear by reading Antioch Waco's statement of beliefs and every church offshoot in the Antioch International Movement of Churches (Antioch Churches, All People's Church, Epicentre Church, Hope Community Church, Paradox Church, Waypoint Church, Crossbridge Community Church, Mosaic Community Church) support conversion therapy and are against homosexuality; holding controversially dangerous beliefs as the cause, such as Jimmy Seibert's double downing on his belief that homosexuality is caused by abuse. Strangely there seems to be a distrustful tone in saying Living Hope ministries being "accused" of engaging in conversion therapy. Using the word "accused" also suggests this editor believes the jury is still out on that. Currently I'm not advocating an edit on those because there appears to be some type of WP:OWN obsessive compulsive pro-Antioch page edit war going on but it exposes this editor's (and perhaps another master editor) censorship values, possible edit bullying, and stubborn anti-lgbtq bias by questioning the definition, criticism, and existence of conversion therapy. There shouldn't be any bigotry or doubt. Thank you. Pride2bme (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Sloppy edit deletions

@shinealittlelight Your previous edit appears to have undone my edits in response to edits preformed by 2600:1011:b068:385c:ca3:e51f:4ef1:9a53. Your reason being "Unsourced or poorly sourced material, most of which is crammed into the lead against WP policy (see WP:LEAD for example)" Now I can find this agreeable to the edits from 2600:1011:b068:385c:ca3:e51f:4ef1:9a53. But this does not apply to the edits I made. The edits I made were already properly sourced, were old citations, and for whatever reason you decided to undo everything I worked on, including tidy section reordering which have nothing to do with content. This type of edit is sloppy and disrespectful. I would like you to restore the edits I made and in the future please be more diligent to not attribute multiple past edits to the latest editor especially if they are two different people. Pride2bme (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Erasure of Robert Callahan

Robert Callahan, an African American attorney and a Antioch member (at the time of the article's release) was present at and listened to Jimmy Seibert's 2016 presidential election sermon. Please explain the decision to include Grecita Cantu's reaction (why omit her name) yet deny the inclusion of Robert Callahan's "hurt" and "resentful", yet "forgiving" reaction to Jimmy Seibert's sermon. The article mentions after Seibert's sermon, Callahan expressed concerns in regards to evangelical endorsements for Trump. Callahan's African American identity among White evangelicals was one of the concerns Callahan mentioned for his reaction and was the core individual account of the cited article. The article suggests his fellow Antioch believers reached out to him for reconciliation after the election. All this considered, this a valid inclusion. Pride2bme (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Antioch's Entrepreneurial Evangelism

I do not agree with the removal of "Turning away from initial efforts to evangelize the Waco community by door-to-door preaching, Antioch's evangelism eventually found success through entrepreneurial strategies; by developing an Antioch "monopoly" on upward mobility in Waco. Creating successful 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." Although the statement is from a somewhat anonymous former member, Buzzfeed News is considered a reliable source. I do not regard this as a personal opinion; it is more a matter of fact claim about what happened. I think it should be added to either origins or impact on community. I think it also corroborates with Gentrification reports and Seibert's Business degree education knowhow and is probably another key aspect in the Antioch Movement's church planting. Pride2bme (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Removed Libelous & Off Topic Section

I also removed a section that references a church staff member for a few reasons: - paragraph is mainly about the business owned by that church staff member - accusation of racism is only from one person's personal blog, and the person is an ex employee of the business. News article linked to campus newspaper doesn't reference any of the racism accusations in the section. - accusation is against one individual of questionable importance to the organization (Antioch Org > Antioch Waco > College Pastor > College Pastor's side hustle) I don't necessarily disbelieve the content but I don't know that it's relevant to the topic nor is it well sourced enough to stay up, IMO. There are a few other of these in the article but this one stood out as particularly egregious) If anyone disagrees or has other sources here's the edit. However my guess is this is probably libel and should be permanently removed. ~ Gargarlinks (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It would be incorrect to label the section as libel since a libel is a statement that is untrue. The section is comprised of true statements and even you say you don't necessarily disbelieve the content, so it's not a fair reason to use for its removal.

You view it as "off topic." Megan Peck, an employee of Waco Tours, says she experienced racism from Antioch Waco's college pastor Luke Whyte, who co-owns Waco Tours. It's relevant when an Antioch pastor is noted to be a racist, even when it's outside of a "workplace." For example if Luke Whyte made a racist tweet, (not saying he has) even if it's on his personal time (or during a second job), it's not uncommon for people to call for him to get fired from his primary workplace. People easily get fired for bad activities conducted elsewhere because society agrees their job and personal time are still responsible and interlinked anyway. Therefore, it's reasonable to note Luke, an Antioch pastor, for their racist character as support to an integration of systemic racism in Antioch Community Church. Austin613 (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, not a tabloid. A former employee at a different business accusing her former boss of being a racist does not belong in an encyclopedia. If there were indeed better or more sources, or if the incidents occurred at Antioch, it would perhaps be worth more consideration, but as is there is no serious reason for inclusion on wikipedia. ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Describing Ms. Peck's account as "tabloid" material is a quality I disagree with. It is not false, it is not sensationalist, is it not an account that seeks to profit off of wild publicity. Antioch employs Mr. Whyte, Ms. Peck has attested that Luke has exhibited racism, so I am not in consensus with your opinion. Austin613 (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not relevant enough to the topic for inclusion for the reasons previously mentioned. The content may be valid but it belongs on the blog it's already on and maybe Google Reviews, not Wikipedia. ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for Merging Jimmy Seibert and Origins Sections Together

Given that much of the founding of Antioch International intertwines with the young adulthood of its founder Seibert, I believe that it is redundant to have both a section on the founder and origins. I propose merging the two together.

This can be addressed in another post, but what is the difference between controversies and incidents? Whats the point of these being two different sections?

Wdonghan (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the necessity of it, removing the "Jimmy Seibert" subheading complicates things more. How would the "politics" of subsection Seibert fit in "Origins"? It's probably better to refocus the content. I'm not sure I agree with all your edits, you've done quite a lot of trimming, and your style of "merging" has been more drastic removal than combining/reorganizing. All of them have been reductive edits, not generative. One section about a pastor's resignation was eliminated completely. Why? Are you also deleting extra sources too?

It appears the difference between controversies and incidents are controversies suggest broader general ongoing topical issues, and incidents are more specific events in timed order. Two sections makes an easier to delineate than one massive group merging. Austin613 (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the "Politics" subsection under Jimmy Seibert could be moved into Positions, beliefs, and practices, as Positions, beliefs, and practices also covers instances of Seibert individually expressing his beliefs, such as him and his wife advocating for the corporal punishment of children, even though there is nothing written about the wider Antioch Movement's stance on this issue, or how Seibert's stance influences his congregation. We could move Seibert's advocacy of Trump there.

To preface this: I have no interest in defending an evangelical and conservative Christian church or its reputation. However, I believe that much of the article, especially before I made my edits, was unwieldy and redundant, and describes incidents that aren't relevant enough to be detailed in a Wikipedia article, which is meant to provide a high level summary of an organization and it's most significant and notable attributes and incidents. This is a Wikipedia article, not a Youtube video summarizing every little drama or controversy or interesting event a group has gotten into.

Huey's resignation as a pastor and his later attempt at wiping away his history of involvement with Antioch is frankly not notable enough to be mentioned here, especially because we don't know the actual motivations behind Huey's decision and can only speculate. If we detailed every negative experience an individual former employee has had with this or any organization, this would turn the website into a Glassdoor copycat. What we should be putting is noteworthy incidents or allegations/evidence of systemic, widespread issues at Antioch.

Wdonghan (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps politics could just move to the Trump entry under controversies? Agreed on too many random little complaints that belong on Yelp not Wikipedia though I believe most are cleaned up now. ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think merging is necessary. ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

You guys have been busy. I concur with not really seeing a merger as necessary. The Origins section should focus on the Church's beginnings and Seibert's section should be more biographically based. Although they intersect, we can try to differentiate. Politics can combine with the entry under controversies, if you don't mind a larger section but again I don't think it's needed. I believe it's better for Seibert's Trump endorsement to be defined as his own position as not everyone in the congregation agrees. It is difficult to know for sure how positions differ considering Seibert is the founder and still in charge at the highest level. I suppose another way to think about a difference is what's Seibert's position and what's Church policy. Austin613 (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Removing YWAM section

YWAM is widely liked and not particularly controversial among Christians. It's a very large org with its own controversies, but I would argue Baylor University has had as many or more controversies than YWAM and we're not listing affiliation with Baylor in the controversies section... ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts on this User:Wdonghan? Gargarlinks (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the YWAM section; it could be replaced with a brief one sentence mention elsewhere.

Wdonghan (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

If it's true, I think it should stay. Integration is also okay but sounds difficult to do, categorically. YWAM is a widely recognized Christian missionary organization, but it has been associated with some controversial theological teachings. It's not a matter of scale for inclusion. Other pages have their own characteristics, let's just focus on this one rather than make popularity criteria comparisons. Austin613 (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Just want to cite ministrywatch as the contrary to YWAM being widely liked and not controversial among Christians https://ministrywatch.com/spiritual-abuse-a-common-complaint-for-ywam-students/ Unfortunately Antioch SLC's connection with YWAM as documented on church checker Sarah Leann Young's site has been removed from wikipedia due to blog source https://www.checkmychurch.org/post/church-check-antioch-community-church-in-salt-lake-city

From these podcasts conversations Jimmy Seibert has with a YWAM representative, we can see they seem to have common interests, if not a partnership https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/100-cities-training-a-conversation-with-francis/id1448604303?i=1000565897913 https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/passion-amp/special-guest-sunawh-park-mL4UoE_HgRu/ Also invited a YWAM speaker to Antioch Waco https://antiochwaco.churchcenter.com/episodes/287172

Floyd McClung jr, a YWAM associate https://www.ywamassociates.com/memorial/floyd-mcclung/ also was also on the Antioch board of advisors https://www.facebook.com/jimmytseibert/videos/floyd-mcclung-he-was-a-father-friend-and-leader-to-both-laura-i-and-the-whole-an/1007454110062446/ Austin613 (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Balancing article with some positives

Would be great to balance the article out a bit. Some ideas: - Antioch's focus on the poor; modest staff salaries; poverty programs like the Feast in Waco - Volunteers in disaster relief; obviously proselytization must be referenced here but a lot of time and money is spent caring for those in natural disasters Gargarlinks (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article is not a lists of pros and cons. Also, while I appreciate your contributions, your edits and remarks lead me to believe you are a member of Antioch's congregation, and I am concerned this close relationship would impair your ability to write about the organization objectively, as evidenced by you wanting "more positives" in this article.

Wdonghan (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bisexual atheist but your concern is well noted :) Wikpedia is indeed not a pros/cons list but it does require balance and all this article does is list the issues. It's a network with probably 100k~ involved or impacted individuals; they do things besides cause problems and those things should be noted here as well for balance. Not in equal measure, but as appropriate. ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

? I don’t think you being a bisexual would make you any less of a Christian but okay. I’m not opposed to coming up with a summary of the church activities, not because I want to show a positive perspective on the church (because a Wikipedia article is not obligated to do that) but rather, for the article to better serve as a comprehensive summary of the church.

Wdonghan (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

"I don’t think you being a bisexual would make you any less of a Christian"

That's why I clarified I'm also atheist :) Gargarlinks (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Weird for you to mention your bisexuality alongside your atheism too, then. I also have doubts why an atheist unaffiliated with the church would have such familiarity with Antioch's activities and be so invested in giving more of the organization's positives. At the very least, the fact that you were able to take a picture of a Antioch Waco's Sunday Service and upload it as your own work indicates some ability to directly access Antioch. But whatever, our primary goal remains to be writing a neutral and comprehensive summary of the church and its most notable events and attributes.

Wdonghan (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Sad you think it's weird but certainly your prerogative to think what you want. There is no grand conspiracy here. ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Church 'planting' location controversy

User:Wdonghan There is already a section around proselytization so references to evangelism being outlawed belong in the section immediately prior. Church planting is not really a neutral phrase widely known either so not ideal to use here. Issue is not just around legality but also places where it's not illegal but still dangerous. Honestly I think this section should just be removed as I don't think it's particularly relevant to most visitors other than for a passing mention; perhaps adding a sentence or two relaying that some locations are not disclosed and why in the list of locations. ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Further, use of word 'deceptive' is inappropriate. Is in 'deceptive' for a gay person to tell people they're straight in a place that it is dangerous to be gay? Sincerely held belief endangering the members causing the org not to disclose specific cities doesn't seem to justify calling the practice 'deceptive'

Illegal and/or dangerous, sure. Gargarlinks (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of merging the proselytization and the church planting together, as they largely cover the same territory, mainly, sending missionaries where it's illegal. I disagree with you that an evangelical Christian organization hiding its locations to escape legal scrutiny is equivalent to a gay person hiding their sexuality, but that's neither here nor there.

One more note. I have changed your edit concerning the "... an effort to hide their locations in regions where running a Christian organization or church is not well received." to "where evangelism is banned." This is much more specific and accurate to the scenario we are describing here, as there are cases of countries with active and thriving minority Christian communities where evangelism is also banned. The language also comes across as trying "soften" the Church's activities, changing it from evangelism to merely "setting up Christian organizations."

Wdonghan (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

re: Where evangelism is banned -- Evangelism is covered in prior section. To your point I think if you merge the sections it resolves my concerns. I think the locations being obscured is not evangelism specific but both that and church / christian specific in those regions. I'm certainly ok with not softening the language but wanted to be clear the reason for obscuring the location is not necessarily specific to proselytization but also places where Christianity in general isn't welcome / any sort of Christian activities and organizing face state and local pushback and risk. In any case merging the sections sounds appropriate. ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I think merging in the Sri Lanka section would also make sense. ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I would argue against merging in the Sri Lanka section, because it describes a specific, one-off incident. It would be an example of the Church's proselytization, similarly to the incident with the missionaries in Taliban run Afghanistan. I have already merged the two relevant sections together,

Wdonghan (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Antioch's policies and practices on evangelism display inconsistency and a lack transparency. Former members have spoken about their secretive practices. This is a form of dishonesty. If a gay person lies to others that he's straight in a place that's anti-gay, yes, that's dishonest. It doesn't matter if the truth endangers him, it's still deceptive. Austin613 (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Though I'm unsure of the popularity of the term, there seems to be an entry on "chruch planting." Sounds neutral to me. Although redundancies can be sorted out, I wouldn't merge Sri Lanka either. I already find the evangelism and planting merger questionable. Side note, Wdonghan's merges seem to trim out a lot of information, including relevant citations. You need to be more careful and composing those. I can't quite keep up with all the edits lately however. So, I preferred earlier separate versions differentiating aggressive proselytization and unethical church franchising actually; a difference between the topics of controversial evangelism and "planting" churches. One deals with the way they train their people to evangelize, disrupt communities and the other deals with the way they target locations and perhaps displace communities. They're not always transparent or honest about either of their practices but evangelism is a step below church "planting." It seems the end goal of their evangelism is making a church there or gaining followers. Austin613 (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that the evangelism and church-planting are ultimately only different stages of the same process of training missionaries, targeting vulnerable individuals, disrupting local communities, and creating a foothold in the region. It's actually for that reason I merged them together.

Wdonghan (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Cult and Abuse Section

@Austin613: Please explain your reversion. No RS I can find supports the current text, which is sourced in blogs that violate WP:UGC. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Austin613: Seeing no response here, I'm going to revert. The sources used in the current version are non-RS or do not support the statements in the current text. The source "newreligiousmovements.com" appears to be WP:UGC, and is also the same renamed source as "cultdatabase.com" which you seem to present as a seperate source. The Buzzfeed News source does not support any of the allegations in the second paragraph. And the third paragraph is entirely unsourced in the current version, with no source cited at all. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding within 18 hrs, I'm not on here all the time. You shouldn't have gone for a WP:SPEEDY deletion/revision before discussing it first. Give a user a few more days for a response. You don't seem to be an admin, the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. Because deletion is reversible only by administrators, other deletions occur only after discussion, unless they are proposed deletions. If you have any affiliation with this church or are being paid to delete entire sections, you are required to disclose that now.

It's not a reversion. I didn't undo your WP:SPEEDY deletion. It's an addition with new content. "newreligiousmovements.com" nor "cultdatabase.com" is not a WP:UGC. There is no evidence to support that at all. There is no user submission form on that site. There is no user registration. There is no user authorship. Even though cultdatabase and newreligiousmovements appear to be from the same site team, I think it's notable to also cite "cultdatabase.com" as well as it's replacement "newreligiousmovements.com" because they both contain vastly different content and cultdatabase.com further supports the status of Antioch Movement being an obvious cult. Even though new religious movement is synonymous with cult, cultdatabase is more evident for readers.

The Buzzfeed News article definitely quotes ex-member's experience of the Antioch Movement's cult status and spiritual abuse. Doesn't sound like you read the article at all. Please do your research. Do a search of "cult" and "abuse" and read it more carefully. To grab a few quotes from the article:

"Within Waco, Antioch has taken on a position that, depending on who you talk to, is either life-centering or psychologically destructive."

“There’s some abuse of the culture of authority,” the wife of a former Antioch member told me."

"Ultimately, however, she came to see it as “a harmful place, with cultic tendencies, that doesn’t put the interest of the individuals who attend church there first.”"

"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) while always recruiting more members to “disciple.”"

"There’s a narrative about Waco that I heard and read several times: that for hundreds of years, the town has been flat-out unlucky. The natural springs ran dry. Cotton was king, then the entire industry dried up. A widely publicized lynching gave it a bad name. The plans to become the state capital went awry. The tornado decimated the downtown. A cult set up shop 10 miles out of town."

This should be added too:

"A psychologist in town meets regularly with a group of self-described “Antioch survivors.” Former members told me stories of crises of faith after being made to feel unwelcome by the church, either for life decisions (declining to go on a mission) or for their identity (coming out as gay)."

"...with the Antioch attitude of “coming into a community and ministering to them and loving on them”? “You know what that language is code for?” one resident asked me. “They want to come in and fix me. Fix us. But you know what? We’re not broken."

Austin613 (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a paid editor and have no COI. If you think I shouldn't have reverted, then go ahead and reinstate it while we talk.

"Cultdatabase.com" redirects to the site "newreligiousmovements.com" which suggests they are not indpendent of one another; it's misleading to present them as independent sources. I think these sources are clearly not RS for this content and also fail to show that the content is WP:DUE. But if you disagree, we can take it to the RS noticeboard and get some other opinions.

As for the Buzzfeed article, that article is about the specific location in Waco. Is it your view that statements of some of the former members of one of the dozens of Antioch churches are relevant to an encyclopedia article about the whole movement? I guess I'm not following the logic there. Maybe you can explain. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

We can certainly cite both cultdatabase.com and newreligiousmovements.com and clarify the connection in the section. I'm not sure why you don't think their database is reliable. If you think it's WP:DUE, remember controversies regarding aspects even of the "minority view" should still be clearly identified and explained. If you want balance, I actually think cultdatabase's entry is more favorable than newreligiousmovements you can say one compliments the other. But I'd say newreligiousmovement is the definitive active one. Sure you can bring it to RS, but I often prefer to just find a mutually agreeable rewrite, repost, and rewrite if you ask me.

I do think the statements from former members of their main church headquarters location in Waco is indicative of a larger standard of the whole movement. If you read one of the member's description of an MLM structure, why wouldn't you believe this is how they operate throughout the Antioch network? “Life Groups,” discipleship schools, focus on overseas missions all seem to be in line with this church network's ideological operations as far as I can tell. For it to be as large as it is, it seems credible for them to put extreme pressures on young people for their time and money. The context of the MLM structure was to note the Waco church as “a harmful place, with cultic tendencies, that doesn’t put the interest of the individuals who attend church there first.” I hope we can at least take that as a spiritually abusive cult system.

If you imagine an organization, and it's headquarters has a noted reputation, this is the top level management that sets the standard. If a bottom level branch is functions differently, the top keeps them uniform. If a top level branch and leaders function in an abusive way (even if they don't see it as abusive), the bottom branches follow, and in cults, they follow even harder while silencing members.

There isn't any evidence Antioch has changed it's theology or policy operations in response to the Buzzfeed News articles. As a matter of fact, the previous Buzzfeed News article on homosexuality, Jimmy Seibert, their lead pastor, double downed on their stance against homosexuality. They haven't stopped offering conversion therapy. So that's how they reacted to the controversy. They're like yeah that's how we do it. I think conversion therapy is generally considered an abusive practice. Besides there are other reports of cult and spiritual abuse, just ones Wikipedia does not accept.

If this was an isolated incident, there'd normally be 1 person who is named as abusive. For example, their pastor Edward Ignacio Espinosa who had sex with trafficked prostitutes, is just one incident (that we know of). Okay, there's just that. But if you get a controversy of multiple reports from other places, different people, it's reasonable to call that systemic.

The difference between a user generated content and a quote in a reliable article is a thin line of the same information. I know user generated sites/blogs aren't traditionally accepted as wikipedia level citation but having read those, any sensible person can see it's clearly systemic and not just contained to one location.

There's a general sense that shouldn't be overlooked. Even if you don't want to acknowledge the other sites and associate it with all the churches in the network, it's at least worth noting about statements of cult tactics and spiritual abuse from Waco on the page. If you don't want to cite some non-qualifier sites that wikipedia doesn't allow, okay we can specify these are instances that happened with Waco members, but I'd say its just as misleading to say it only got voiced in one location. Austin613 (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's start with taking the sources to RS noticeboard. I just put it up there. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I see the board has come to consensus newreligiousmovement.org and cultdatabase is generally unreliable.

As for the rest of the section, the Buzzfeed News article still holds generally reliable support for cultic tendencies and spiritual abuse from former members of the Waco headquarters branch. Would you agree to this inclusion and primary source for adding back to a "Cult tactics and spiritual abuse" section? Austin613 (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't support that. I think the Buzzfeed article is RS for the attributed claim that, according to Buzzfeed, a few anonymous former members and family members of former members of the Waco church said some negative things about it. But I think that piece of information is WP:UNDUE in an article about the international movement.

One thing we can do to improve the article is look for a wider vareity of reliable secondary sources and start replacing the primary sources (the church website, the founder's book) with proper sourcing. I'm going to do that when I get a chance. I also think that some of the summaries of existing sources are just inaccurate, and I'm going to try to fix that too. Let's try to follow BRD. I'm not bothered if you disagree with a change I make and choose to revert and discuss. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't have consensus on the omission of the section's deletion then. If we have a reliable source reporting that a few (understandably and likely for safety) anonymous former members and family members of former members of the Waco church mentioning cult tactics and spiritual abuse, it's still worth noting. It's already clearly identified as sub section of a controversial topic. If you want to nitpick further explanation, including a note about anonymity can be fair. Even if it's undue minority views are still important, it deserves representation since there is a credible source that reports it. I haven't seen any reliable sources to counter cult and abuse claims or even that it's a minority viewpoint.

I personally don't like BRD style edits. I find bold edits callous and disrespectful. A bold edit is especially detrimental when a reliable source gets deleted and there's nobody to oversee or defend it. I'm not sure I have the energy or desire to go through every edit on whole article. Austin613 (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You say "Even if it's undue minority views are still important." I believe this shows a misunderstanding of WP:UNDUE. If the information is undue then we don't include it by wikipedia policy. Minority opinions are important, but the policy says that if it's a minority opinion that is DUE it should be easy to name prominent adherants. Here we have a single anonymously sourced report.

We can take the question to the neutrality noticeboard if you like, but like with our last trip to the RS noticeboard, I suspect this is not a difficult case and it's really overkill in my opinion. But if that's what you want to do, we can do it.

I'd also recommend looking at WP:CHOICE and WP:OWN. This is not your page, and you are not required to review all the edits. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a credibly sourced report of accounts from unnamed individuals who were personally interviewed to have had involvement in the church. Their names are unimportant. What's important is a credible journalist investigated, found, personally interviewed, and reported credible accounts of several former members. The journalist also noted a local psychologist regularly met with these members to deal with ongoing trauma. It's absolutely fair to protect victims by withholding their names. And the article and reports were verified by their editor. These aren't just random voices that came from nowhere, out of thin air.

I agree it is overkill but overkill is how wikipedia likes to do things, the next step is to take it to the board. I hope you can see the irony of two anonymous individuals taking such a matter to an anonymous board about the credibility of anonymity. That's wikipedia for you. I concur, it is not my page, I was just responding to your seeming suggestion I follow and respond to your planned BRD edits. Austin613 (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I posted over there. Do you really think it's UNDUE or did you misspeak? Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

If we acknowledge the accounts in the Buzzfeed News article have been presented and deemed reliable, it's worth mentioning. Issues of UNDUE can be managed editorially by identifying them and composing sufficient explanation within the article. Just depends on how you write it I suppose. Though we seem to carry different sensibilities. I'd rather see an article edit work to include reliable sources than work to delete them. Austin613 (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I would like to post a rewritten revert of the section back in while we wait for the noticeboard to respond. Austin613 (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Based on these citations, I am 100% in agreement and am in full support for a Cult and Spiritual abuse section. I see non issues with it. Pride2bme (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

What content are you proposing to add on the basis of what citations? Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Something based off of the Buzzfeed News article excerpts

"Within Waco, Antioch has taken on a position that, depending on who you talk to, is either life-centering or psychologically destructive."

“There’s some abuse of the culture of authority,” the wife of a former Antioch member told me."

"Ultimately, however, she came to see it as “a harmful place, with cultic tendencies, that doesn’t put the interest of the individuals who attend church there first.”"

"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) while always recruiting more members to “disciple.”"

and those other quotes, etc... Pride2bme (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Primary Source Issues

We should try to avoid using Seibert's book *Passion and Purpose* since this is a primary source. See WP:PRIMARY. Wikipedia policy is to depend on secondary sources to establish the facts indepentently of his own perspective, and also to establish WP:DUE weight. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

You're butchering way too much. Primary sources may be accepted and are not justification for automatic deletion. Secondary sources are what articles should be based on, AND to a lesser extent, tertiary and primary sources. These are "general" rules, not strict ones. Austin613 (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Removing stuff that is poorly sourced is not "butchering" and the deletion was not "automatic" but after trying to find independent sourcing, which I could not do. Please WP:AGF. When some claim about the movement only occurs in the primary source written by the movement founder, this fails to establish that it is WP:DUE. If you want to put this material back in, find someone other than Seibert who talks about it, because that's how you show that anyone besides him regards it as important enough to be in an encyclopedia article. The alternative would be to decide for ourselves what in his book belongs in the article, but that's obviously not how WP works. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for the butcher remark since you seem offended by it. Wikipedia allows primary sources, tertiary sources, allows minority viewpoints, even allows controversial/unbalanced viewpoints with contextual inclusion, explanation. That's all. Austin613 (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not offended. What you said just wasn't accurate and it was improtant to clarify. In this case, the primary source is being misused. Again, how are we to decide what material from his book to include in our article? He's got a whole chapter on "Trusting God More". Should I summarize that in a new section? No. that would be a misuse of the primary source. Our policy, as I understand it, is to depend on seconary sources to show that the material is DUE for inclusion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."

"A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."

"In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed. By parity of sources, critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer-reviewed."

With this in mind, you should take a double look at the deletions you made and undo the damage. Primary sources can be cited to for adding in straightforward information as truths but any interpretive additions cite a secondary source. You also need to keep in mind, this is not a scientific topic, it's religion, you can't expect to "fact check" incidents, it doesn't require the same level of scrutiny. Austin613 (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

We have good secondary sources on the founding of the Antioch movement. Cherrypicking information from Seibert's book is unnecessary and contrary to WP policy in my opinion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

So far consensus hasn't aligned with your opinion.

There's also a value of WP:"Ignore all rules" and WP:COMMON sense, that literally says sometimes you don't have to follow Wikipedia rules so strictly. For example, we know Robert Ewing made a profound influence on Jimmy Seibert. But you won't even allow that influence to be included or even Ewing's last name without a secondary citation. Jimmy mentions Ewing directly in his book. Are we still in denial of Ewing being his mentor? There's nothing wrong with using that as a primary source of information. Same with the cult situation. You even reverted a double spacing fix I made. Reverting such a minor grammar edit suggests you aren't being astute in your edit deletions. Are you so legalistic on the rules of WP? Don't get so bent up on the rules.

"Being too wrapped up in rules can cause a loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution." Austin613 (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree that consensus hasn't aligned with my opinion. You and I are arguing and there's no consensus. There is a mixed verdict on the second source I brought to RSN. It might be good to try to get more editors involved here. I've made policy-based arguments and dismissing them with an appeal to your common sense is not persuasive. Please help me to improve the article by continuing to find secondary sourcing. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Have you ever even found and contributed a secondary source? I think you're discounting primary sources way too arbitrarily, primary sources may be used for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. And I think it should also be in your interest to offer compromises. What compromises can you offer? Austin613 (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I added an excellent profile of the Antioch movement in the Waco Tribune-Herald that I replaced some primary sourcing with. I'm happy to compromise. Not sure what you're proposing. I'm trying to improve the article by removing claims that can't be reliably sourced and replacing unreliable sourcing with reliable secondary sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Your rewrite of preexisting content replaced primary sources with secondary sources and removed content about discipleship, cell groups, proselytization, and Charismatic Christianity, etc... That edit did not add any new information nor strengthen the Origins section. A majority of your edits have been bold deletions. One edit you made undid a double spacing grammar fix I did. There's no reason to undo something like that if your edits are being astute.

Can you state the reason this citation {cite news|last=Ryan|first=Terri Jo|title=Building a Kingdom – Fast-growing Waco church has designs on the world|newspaper=Waco Tribune-Herald|date=October 7, 2001}} is unavailable for viewing?

My reading of Wikipedia's rules don't devalue of primary sources to the extent you do. Primary sources can be included with secondary sources and used to assert matter of fact information. Allow for some WP:COMMON sense and embrace a few primary sources.

How about using Seibert's books? If an author said something in his book, it's fair to cite that as something he said. If their main website states something, that's what they said. You also have to separate checking the facts of what happened vs checking the claim was made. Since this is religion based content, some stories do not require no fact checking what happened, we're only checking if the claim was made and describing it so. Parenting without regrets, Passion and Purpose, 3 Loves to cite as support for stating, matter of facts of Seibert and Antioch's beliefs. Austin613 (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean to undo a grammar fix; that was an error if that's what I did and I apologize. That Ryan piece does not appear to be available online; I accessed it at the library. It is very easy to misuse primary sources; based on my understanding of policy on primary sources, I'm generally inclined to be very restrictive about sourcing anything--especially anything controversial--to Seibert's book. Otherwise how do we decide what to include from his book? Seems to me that we can only use his book for stuff that is obviously DUE, and much of what was sourced from there is not obviously DUE. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

If you and I can't reach a compromise or find consensus from the board, should we just call it a stalemate and move on and away from this article? Should also be reverted.

We're not making interpretive statements from the primary sources, we're taking verified statements and attributing to the source. There's a difference between verifying an incident that took place vs verifying a statement about an incident. Most of what gets sourced should be focused on whether statements are true to the movement and founder's beliefs. It's fair to cite a controversial topic if it's noted to be controversial. It's unnecessary, when including a controversial topic, to prove or unprove that controversy. That's not the point.

Primary sources such as an authored book quote are solid ways to verify a statement, especially from a book that got published by another agency.

Your issue of DUE seems like a rather general subjective thing. If you can be more specific on what's DUE, that needs to be elaborated on, worked out and discussed specifically and separately. Austin613 (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It's fair to use Seibert's own books as a primary source to add to the "Jimmy Seibert" section:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Use_of_primary_sources_in_Wikipedia#Sources_in_articles_about_themselves

It's also fair to cite primary sources from a business organization's website if the article is about a business/organization. The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#%22Primary%22_does_not_mean_%22bad%22

Based on this I must contest your removal of the part that describes Antioch's stance on abortion, which directly cites their website's position paper as the primary source. Austin613 (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Should we include sections sourced from Seibert's book about Antioch's views about "trusting God more" or "transformation in spheres of society" or "revival" or "the passion and purpose of Jesus" or ...? You say that my approach is subjective, but to me it looks like your selections from his book are subjective. Correct me if this is not true, but it sort of appears that you are choosing stuff from his book that is relevant to the culture war (abortion, lgbt issues) and ignoring all the other stuff in his book. My approach is meant to make the selection objective: we depend on it minimally, only to fill in details that are clearly relevant to material covered by secondary sources. That way the article ends up summarizing reliable secondary sources, rather than based on subjective cherry-picking from primary sources, per basic WP policy (see e.g. WP:PSTS). Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't author to include their position on abortion in the article. It was there previously. In a way, everything is subjective. I see there was a bit of talk earlier about "balancing the article with positives" not a great way to approach an article. You can look at their positions on abortion or "trusting God" to be a positive or a negative position depending on your pov.

Ask a Christian, does Antioch "transform society"? That's good! Ask a Atheist does Antioch "transform society"? That's bad! If we want to be objective we have to overlook that.

We're being objective if we don't affix those subjective connotations or don't make subjective statements about those positions. What isn't subjective is stating straightforwardly what they believe in. Keep what is true and add whatever you think is relevant. Austin613 (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Let me try asking again, because I feel like this is getting to the heart of our disagreement, but I can't tell what your answer is: do you think we should include all those subjects I mentioned in the article? Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a subjective question. Ha. My answer is I don't know. But I wouldn't object to anything that is true. Austin613 (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This is the central issue we're disagreeing about. Let's see where exactly you disagree with my line of reasoning. Step one: WP policy says the article should be based primarily on reliable secondary sources. Do we agree about that? Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

From what I read, Wikipedia's policy recommends secondary sources, primary sources, and tertiary sources, somewhat in that order. Wikipedia acknowledges this is a complex process and is a generally recommended rule, not a hard fast rule. There are also detailed exceptions to rules, sections that recommend primary sources, and a common sense policy about not being too overly adherent to rules. Rules can also be changed but I'm sure that's a difficult process. Austin613 (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, can we at least agree that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources"? That's a direct quote from WP:OR, a fundamental content policy at WP. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

That's basically what I gathered from but there's more. Our difference seems to lie on interpreting those recommended rules as rigid or flexible. Clearly wikipedia allows for appropriate use and flexibility, especially justifiable flexibility.

Is there even room for interpretation of the rules? Absolutely. I could even argue the use of the word "should" makes the statement more arbitrary than "has to." We could theoretically even have an article composed primarily of primary sources and that'd still be in line with policy. It may not be ideal with wikipedia's wording of current rules, if that's what it's suggesting, but it's not to discount content. Austin613 (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so we agree that the policy is that we should base the article on secondary RS with a lesser focus on primary and tertiary sources. Next point: we have a massive quantity of primary source material, and a much smaller quantity of secondary source material. If we incorporate all information from primary sources, then, the article will not be based on secondary sourcing, since primary sources include thousands and thousands of pages. Per policy, then, we should not do that. The question is thus: how to we decide what to include from the primary sources? I have proposed an objective answer: we use them to fill in details covered by secondary sources, letting secondary sources (written by journalists and experts) guide us as to what is notable. If you don't like that, then please propose an alternative--one that is consistent with the WP policy that the article should be based more on secondary RS than primary sources. "It's subjective" isn't really an actionable proposal. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I get the impression you're ignoring a significant part of my argument. You're adhering to a limited view on wikipedia policy and am being rigid about it. If you can "fill in details covered by secondary sources" great do that. However so far your values have proved more reductive than enriching. If there are details in primary sources that cannot be covered by secondary sources, we can indeed only use primary sources. WP policy says we don't have to be so rigid, we have more allowance. Austin613 (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I really think we should take these issues to the boards again, I still don't think we got consensus on it. I also still think it's justifiable to add back the cult tactics and spiritual abuse section using the buzzfeed news article. Austin613 (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

When you said "great do that" I thought you were saying to go ahead with my view on use of primary sources. Please feel free to articulate an alternative approach that is consistent with WP policy that the article should be based more on secondary RS than primary sources. So far I'm not getting any proposal from you but "it's subjective" which is not something I can act on, and is in my view inconsistent with fundamental WP policy. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It's almost like you're not reading what I wrote. I've repeated myself many times. No, "it's subjective" does not sufficiently encompass the points in my argument. Okay, I'll be specific on the article. Revert your editing out Robert Ewing and Jimmy. Use his book as the primary source. No secondary source needed. Act on it. It's on line with WP policy. Add this back in: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antioch_International_Movement_of_Churches&diff=prev&oldid=1216560462 Austin613 (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

No, you are not articulating an alternative approach to primary sourcing. A specific edit request is not an alternative approach. I literally don’t know how you propose to decide what to include from primary sources other than your personal opinion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

This is why I suggested taking the issue to the board again, we are not in agreement. I've articulated myself well enough. You're just ignoring everything I've said. Austin613 (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Not ignoring. Trying to understand. I asked about some examples of primary source info from his book and you said you didn’t know whether we could include them and it is a subjective question. That’s not going to work. I have heard no other proposal from you but “throw out the policy and use common sense”. Also not going to work. My own approach is to look to secondary sources to establish what is notable. I think that’s standard WP policy. You’re welcome to involve other editors. I have tried to do so myself. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

When I said I don't know, it's subjective, you were asking me if those topics should be included, sounds like a different issue, had nothing to do with the validity of using the book as a primary source. You were just asking if it's valid, should a topic be included? My response is basically it's up to you, who am I to say, I don't know. If it's true go ahead and add it. I wouldn't object. I mean this is a general question too. Did you want a detailed reasoning of specifically of why "transformation" should or shouldn't be included? We're digressing. My point was to say YES GO AND USE A PRIMARY SOURCE ONLY TO SUPPORT CONTENT. Policy allows it! But you're like "I don't believe in primary only sources, must delete those. How can I use a secondary source with that?" You're not getting it.

When you say "that won't work" why not? Policy also says with common sense, YES, you can throw out other rules. Why do you have a problem with that or understanding or acknowledging that policy? Like I said, I'm just repeating myself here. Austin613 (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Please do not yell. I understand and acknowledge that there are exceptions to policies. I understand snd acknowledge that primary sources can be used (with caution, as policy says). If we follow these points alone, with no further constraint, which is what I understand you to be suggesting, then I can (and I guess on your view I should?) flood the article with material from Seibert’s four books and the hundreds of church webpages. That seems to me like an obvious defect in what you are suggesting. I have been unable to identify a reply to this argument in what you’ve said to me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

This flood of information you're suggesting is a big theoretical and I am not even proposing a flood of information. The primary instance that came up was using Seibert's book to cite Ewing's influence on him and the church and Ewing's authorship of a NAR periodical.

According to Wikipedia's policies, it's entirely possible and acceptable for an article to include a wealth of information. Unless you can cite a policy that states to the counter, it's up to the editors to decide what to include/exclude. Most of us have a measured sensibility, we're not bots. It's not a concern and it hasn't happened. It's not a legitimate argument for your stance. Austin613 (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You're not responding to my argument. Yes, the flood of information is hypothetical, and nobody is proposing it. What I'm saying is that, if we go your way on primary sourcing, we will have to incorporate a flood of information, because there are so very many primary sources. You're not addressing the fact that this is a problem in need of some method of selecting appropriate material from primary sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it's not against policy. Not my problem, not your problem, not a problem, since it's not happening. Still not legitimate reason to enforce your non policy values on an article. We're not deciding the fate of Wikipedia here. If you want to change the rules, you can do that too, but this article and discussion is not the place for that. Can we just get over ourselves I've already shown and you should acknowledge what I've proposed is allowable under wikipedia policy. As I said earlier, the only imminent usage I have in mind right now is citing Ewing, Seibert. I believe it was this edit that sparked our discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antioch_International_Movement_of_Churches&diff=prev&oldid=1216560462Austin613 (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You're not being responsive. I conclude that you wish to ignore the fundamental policy that articles should be based on secondary RS, and only to a lesser extent on primary sources, on the grounds that WP policy also allows us to follow common sense in some cases. That's a misapplication of policy. I have nothing else to say on the matter, and will continue to follow WP policy to the best of my ability. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Non responsive? Are you serious? You are the one ignoring policy, refusing to compromise, and applying values based on non policy hypotheticals. You're rigid on one policy and blind to another. What you have is policy bias. Austin613 (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, non-responsive. Yes I'm serious. I've made a proposal about how to understand WP policy and invited an alternative. You've declined, insisting that we can do whatever we want and follow a "subjective" and "common sense" approach. I don't think that's in line with policy, and it sounds like you disagree. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You have a severe perspective about that. I've responded many times. No we do not agree and there are policies that you are consistently disregarding. Austin613 (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

No, you have not responded to my question beyond saying that the decision what to include from primary sources is subjective and up to common sense, and that we can disregard the clear policy that we should favor secondary RS. If this continues to be a problem, I'll look for admin guidance. Feel free to do likewise. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

And guess what, I'm 100% correct to say that about wikipedia policy. Please do find an admin guidance. Austin613 (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

India/bullet story

@Austin613:If you feel strongly about including this, I can live with it, but I removed it because I don't understand what it has to do with Antioch besides involving an Antioch member, and I didn't see it as useful information for someone who comes to the page looking to learn about the Antioch movement. I also don't really see why it's a "controversy". What is the controversy? Is there some implicit allegation here about Antioch? Controversy usually involves disagreement. What's the disagreement here? Relatedly, have a look at WP:CRITS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

What it has to do with Antioch, you answered your own question, it involved an Antioch member who was on an Antioch mission. A member's arrest and detention in another country sounds like a significant story to me, made the news you know. The bullet discovery and denial would be a disagreement between the member and Indian authorities. It would be more appropriate to revert the Incidents category like it was prior to your collapsing edit, separating it from Controversies. It seems you created your own problem by combining incidents and controversies. Incidents is more neutral and describe timed events. Controversies is more general and ongoing. Austin613 (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

What you've said here makes no sense to me. What do we learn about Antioch from this? One doesn't learn anything about the Antioch movement from this story. "Made the news" and "significant story" does not mean the same thing as "relevant to our topic, the Antioch Movement". Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

So you're telling me this has absolutely nothing to do with the Antioch Movement? The Antioch Movement is a multipying missional movement. One member, who was carrying this movement out, was detained for carrying a bullet in India. It's an incident involving a member who was carrying the movement out. We learned it happened, it's a footnote in history. Are you saying there has to be some greater learned moral to the stories in Wikipedia articles? Austin613 (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying it has nothing to do with Antioch. I'm saying it has nothing interesting or notable to do with it. Sounds like you disagree. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you asking me to throw my biased opinion in about the incident? Austin613 (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm obviously not asking that. I'm asking that we accurately summarize the notable information in the source about Antioch movement. I find no such information, so I'm inclined to drop the story from the article. But it sounds like you're saying you find it notable because you have a theory about it? Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why you can't put together that an Antioch member's mission effort is part of the Antioch Movement. Do I really have to explain that to you. You don't find information about the incident... So what do you consider those citations from the waco tribune to be? You don't consider that information about the incident? "Noteworthyness" isn't that a biased question? You should be the one explaining why you don't find it "notable" What is your qualifier for "notable"? Who's standards are you requiring? It's an incident, the news picked it up and reported it. We don't have to question the Waco Tribune why they decided to write and publish the story. It's a story that appears to fit controversy. Even more appropriate, an incident category, a category that you should revert to reinstating before you created your own dilemma. If you want to be super anal about Controversy vs Incidents, Controversy requiring a disagreement and Incidents perhaps being news-timed event stories you should have kept it separate the way it was.Austin613 (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Please strike your personal attacks. I disagree with your view that we should include every news story in which Antioch is mentioned. I think we should include those pieces of information that inform the reader about the Antioch Movement, which is our subject here. I disagree with you that this story merits inclusion, but as I have said, I can live with including it even though I disagree with you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

While you may take issue with my line of questioning on the topics at hand, I wasn't personally attacking you. Sorry if I came across that way. You're posing questions to me, it's fair I pose some relevant questions back to you. What you're asking seems to be subjective. Because no, I don't agree with deleting these types of stories. The story about the Antioch missionary is factually information about the Antioch Movement. It was part of the Movement. If you can live with it, let's leave it and and close this argument. Austin613 (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, you won't strike your attacks, and I won't mention them again. Let's move on. I would suggest reviewing WP:ONUS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Claim about implicit support for Trump

@Austin613: Can you provide a quote from the source supporting the claim that the woman inverviewed "believed Seibert's sermon gave implicit support for Donald Trump"? I do not see such a quote in the source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you seeking to disprove Cantu's reaction? What are you trying to achieve? She felt attacked, she walked out Seibert's sermon three times. Why do you think she felt that way? Attacked on the immigration issue that Trump supported is what the article says. The Waco Herald Tribune reported:

"In an interview, Seibert said the sermon is similar to the one he gives in every presidential election year and was not intended to push people toward voting for Trump.

But Grecia Cantu, an Antioch member who was in the audience that morning, couldn’t help reading something different between the lines."

To summize, Seibert said it's not my intention to push people to vote Trump. Cantu responded I felt attacked and heard something different.

Cantu went on to express fear over the immigration issue because of Trump's position on immmigration. She was got the feeling Trump was being supported.

On the noticeboard, you seemed to have difficulty understanding quotes and context attributions, not understanding that a statement in an article, followed by a quote should relate to each other and are interconnected as a whole. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1216926324 Do you see this is a recurring difficulty? Austin613 (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's stay focused on content please. I'm trying to accurately summarize the source. I think the text you quoted is consistent with her thinking that he had said things that would lead people to vote for Trump, even if unintentionally. Or that he had said things that were offensive because they were inadequately sensitive to the needs of immigrants. Or perhaps there are other possibilities. The article doesn't explicitly say "implicit support for Donald Trump" so I would propose that we stick closer to the source. As a compromise, how about: "She believed that Seibert's sermon made Donald Trump's election more likely, and she expressed fears over immigration issues." I think that's closer. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Not necessary. It's more straightforward to say "She believed Seibert's sermon gave implicit support for Donald Trump and expressed fears over immigration issues.". I don't think it runs counter to the essence of Cantu's thoughts. "Sermon made Donald Trump's election more likely," doesn't quite reflect the article's wording either. Again, this is unnecessary, though some drafts:

"Between the lines, she believed Seibert's sermon suggested Antioch vote Donald Trump. Cantu also expressed fears over Trump's immigration issues."

"She read between the lines that Seibert's sermon intended to push people towards voting for Donald Trump. Cantu also expressed fears over Trump's immigration issues." Austin613 (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The article does not say what she saw between the lines. It says she saw something else, and then goes on to describe her fears about immigration. Anything more than that is interpretation. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Once again, if there is a sentence with content and then there's another sentence that refers to the previous sentence, that means they've connected together in context. Seems like you do have difficulty with this read. Seibert said he didn't intent to push Trump, Cantu saw something different between the lines. That something is to mean pushing people towards Trump. If that still doesn't connect, just leave it as is like I said. Editing it further is unnecessary. Austin613 (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I think she may have simply been upset that he didn't encourage people not to vote for Trump, and I think she may have thought that he said things that would push people to vote for Trump without meaning to do so, which is inaccurately summarized by "implicitly endorsed" especially given the context that he said Trump was immoral. I'm not saying I know what she meant; I think the source leaves all these possibilities open. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

From the Waco Tribune interview, Seibert said it wasn't his intent to push people toward voting for Trump. I think it's fair to gather from this alone that there was some confusion over the intent of Seibert's sermon, specifically over encouraging people to vote Trump.

Besides this, we have to clear up that regardless of what Seibert said, what we can make matter more about what Cantu perceived about the sermon. She believed Seibert implicitly endorsed Trump between the lines. She believed is already written out. This is saying less about what Seibert said and more about Cantu's interpretation.

She hoped to hear more about immigration and was afraid of how immigration policies would fare under a Trump Presidency. Cantu left Antioch after this sermon.

Boiled down, Seibert's sermon deeply disturbed her, she left and never came back. She referenced both a Trump administration and immigration as topics she felt "betrayed" and "attacked" on. These were the main things mentioned in the article. This is why I think it's reasonable to state Cantu "believed Seibert's sermon gave implicit support for Donald Trump and expressed fears over immigration issues."

So if you really want another draft, I'll also suggest:

"Cantu felt heartbroken and "betrayed" over Seibert's message, fearing a Trump administration would overturn immigration protections. Feeling unsafe, Cantu said she hasn’t spoken to Antioch or been back since the election." Austin613 (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with little of what you said above, but I do accept your proposal as reflecting the source. Hey, look, we agree for once. Small steps. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

"required" and promotional language

@Austin613: Can you provide a quote from the (primary) source you used to support "Antioch members are required to pay for enrollment and training in "Antioch Discipleship School" programs."? I see no such information in the source. I see that some fees are listed, but nothing about "required". The current phrasing also makes it sound like all members are required, which I doubt you meant. Additionally, I think "radical change" sounds promotional (WP:SOAP). Do you disagree? Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Go to the source page. Scroll down. Under the "Frequently Asked Questions" section there is a question. "What is the cost?" click on that and it shows you what their tuition is. A tuition is understood as something you are required to pay in order to attend. If a tuition price is listed, it usually means a person is expected to pay that. Do you go to a restaurant, look at their menu prices and wonder, is it "required" for us to pay this? Tell the waiter, I do not see "required" therefore, I am in doubt this is the price I have to pay. Go to a college office, say, "I see that you have tuition prices... Does that mean I am actually "required" to pay this????? But where does it say that this is "required"????" See how that goes. Anywhere there is a price that is listed, it is assumed that is what is someone must pay for. It doesn't say "Optional." This is how the world works. Scroll down some more. Click on "When are fees due"? It reads "Tuition is due prior to the start of the school. Fundraising for the outreach will begin once the school term starts."

"Radical" is what the source describes. How is it promotional? Do you consider "radical" a common sales term? Well, if it bothers you so deeply, we can be more objective by saying "Antioch's website describes such programs as promising a return to radical transformation." I'd rather save myself the time than an unnecessary edit but is this version more preferable to you?Austin613 (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, please stop with personal commentary. So you think that listing costs on the webpage entails that they require their members to pay. Sounds like an interpretation to me that is not in the source. I understand you disagree. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't have to think. It says it in plain English that anybody with a grade level common sense education would understand. It's not an interpretation. Seriously, I believe you must be trolling me. It literally says tuition is due before school starts. Do you know what that means?Austin613 (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, the source does not say that everyone is required to pay. For all we know, they waive the fee if you can't afford it. And again, your wording makes it sound like all members have to pay this. How about we simply say that the website lists tuition costs for the program? Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

If there's a cost, it's understood payment is a requirement. I don't know of any scenario or culture on Earth, that lists a tuition fee and paying that is not expected. The notion of waiving a fee is your speculation. Speculation shouldn't be considered. Plus, if there's a tuition fee deadline, that's two indicators it's not optional.

To me this is a completely absurd thing to discuss but since you suggested an alternative, I'll suggest this one: replace "Antioch members are required to pay for enrollment and training in "Antioch Discipleship School" programs." with the straightforward "The cost of Discipleship School is broken down into three categories: Tuition: $1,500 (not tax-deductible), Outreach: ~$5,000 (tax-deductible, fundraising allowed), Living Expenses: $3,000-$4,500 while in Waco for 3 months — varies widely depending on housing; living expenses are not paid to Antioch." Austin613 (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Further review suggests that the website lists thirty three different churches that offer programs like this. Some mention no tuition cost, others mention varying tuition costs. You can verify this by looking at the variosu program websites here: [1]. For example, the Waltham location charges $2850 for an individual, while the Washington DC location charges $2000 ($1700 for "early bird"). And so on. This is obviously not the right approach. And the line about "radical transformation" is specific to the Waco program as far as I can tell. I'll try a new approach in the article that's less focused on Waco. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Founding Date

@Austin613: I'm a little unclear on what we should list as the founding date of the Antioch Movement of Churches. Since this is our title for the article, it seems to me that an obvious date would be the date of the first Antioch Church founding, which was in 1999. But currently in the lede we have 1987, which I believe to be the date at which Seibert and his wife started the first Antioch discipleship program. Given our title for the article, I lean toward 1999, but I don't have a strong opinion; what do you think? I think we should just be consistent (which the current version is not). Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

We can always explain it like so. It began as discipleship program in 1987, etc.. or just put "officially" founded in 1999. I don't feel strongly about it either, my feeling is since it's at the start, it should be more simple and concise but up to you. Austin613 (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

All People's Church

All People's Church is part of the Antioch Movement. https://allpeopleschurch.org/new/ "In 2022, our parent organization, the Antioch Movement of Churches, officially birthed and blessed All Peoples to be its own distinct church-planting movement." Take that for what you will I am not convinced this sentence means they are no longer affiliated with Antioch. Besides, the Save Del Cerro Controversy occurred in at least around 2020, prior to 2022. Antioch "birthed" them too. It's still their "parent". All people's pastor, Robert was a pastor in Waco, TX for almost ten years as the college pastor and then US Church Planting Director for Antioch Community Church. In late 2007, Robert, Stef and a small team of friends moved to San Diego to plant All Peoples Church. All People's Church was planted because of Antioch. Based on this, it's totally relevant to revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin613 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree. It's a seperate movement per the source. It was started by Antioch, but it is not the same movement, and we have to be careful about attributing actions of one movement to another. I don't see that just because they founded a seperate movement, everything about that seperate movement is relevant to our topic. Were they ever listed as an Antioch church on Antioch's website? Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes it was listed. Why do you always have to delete entire sections seemingly on a whim with minimal research. To me this 2022 footnote's not even a relevant issue. If you want to prove it's relevance, cite an article saying their new movement significantly changed course. If it's so important to you, you could've just made an effort to include a note that "as of 2022, All People's website officially birthed and blessed All Peoples to be its own distinct church-planting movement."

The internet archive shows the earliest capture of Antioch Locations shows All People's Church in Jan 3 2019 https://web.archive.org/web/20190103060029/https://antioch.org/locations/ The last time All People's was listed on Antioch's locations was Dec 1, 2022. https://web.archive.org/web/20221201171550/https://antioch.org/locations/

Okay, let's interpret that they got unlisted from Antioch locations. It's not like they sharply disagreed on theology, they say they were birthed and blessed by Antioch. Based on Pastor Robert's bio, https://allpeopleschurch.org/about/ from 2007-2022 All People's Church was officially part of the Antioch Movement, Herber was an Antioch Church Planting Director. The earliest news article we've found on the Del Cerro Controversy is 2020. It's not like the Save Del Cerro situation suddenly vanished. To the best of our knowledge, from around 2020-2022, the Antioch Movement was still involved with two years of the Del Cerro situation. That's how it got started, they're involved in a majority of story. That's more than enough evidence to include it. Austin613 (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

We have two usable secondary sources: the SDT story and the NBC story. Neither one mentions Antioch. So your position is that we should connect this story to Antioch even though our secondary sources don't mention Antioch, even though the movement in question is a seperate movement, and even though this church is not listed on Antioch's website. I obviously disagree with this. We need to allow secondary sources to connect things for us, otherwise we are contrary to policy WP:SYNTH. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Why is this a problem? Sorry I don't see WP SYNTH as an issue here. I fail to find a sensible reason why you are so hung up. Just because "Antioch" isn't literally in the "All People's Church" name we don't have to play dumb and act like we haven't seen Antioch and All People's Church's affiliation with the Antioch movement as location evidence clearly shows. I know this goes against your subjective hypothetical non-wikipedia based values, but use a primary source if it'll clear your blockage. If the site says they were part of the Antioch Movement and their lead Pastor, an Antioch employee, it's affiliated with Antioch. It's an Antioch church from 2007-2022. This is why you need better WP:COMMON sense when writing these articles, there's some really obvious aspects you're in denial of that prevent us from making a better article.

To say Del Cerro's controversy is a different movement, and All People's isn't listed on Antioch's website is ignoring the contrary evidence. If you want to be correct, write out the timeline of events. 2007-Dec 2022 for certain, Antioch was an affiliate of All People's. The site claims after 2022 this other movement "birthed" from Antioch's movement.

What's wrong with the KFMB San Diego source?

We should take this to the board again because we're not going to agree on this one. Austin613 (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, the CBS source is fine, I didn't mean to leave that out. But it too doesn't mention Antioch. Your proposal is SYNTH because it involves stating a conclusion not in the source. Pretty straightforward really. Feel free to bring others in. That would be great on all our disagreements in fact. Want to pursue the "third opinion" board? Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not agree with your issues I have none with you taking it to the board. But how about if we rework the section to exclude the word "Antioch" would that be acceptable? Austin613 (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it would be off topic in this article to talk about a differnet movement without connecting it to Antioch, and it would be SYNTH to connect it because no RS connects it. I have no issue with you taking it to the board either. Thanks. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes please do take it to the board. Austin613 (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Well there you have it. All People's Church is an Antioch Church and it's not quite synth. The section about Del Cerro can be included. I'll begin with a revert and we can try editing to make suitable. Austin613 (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

That's obviously not justified by the remarks at RSN. I'm going to see if I can get other editors involved. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The edit presented at RSN was junk full of primary sources and blatant BLP violations (now removed[2]). As I said at RSN although opposed to the edit as it stood, it was possible that a rewritten section could be included and I'm not opposed to the section as it currently stands.[3] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

By the way, when you add references, please don't just dump a URL into the reference; use a reference template and take the time to properly cite the source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Why, is it policy to have to do that in a casual talk? Austin613 (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's policy to use a uniform citation style. The citations in this article--like so much else--are a huge mess, which is exacerbated by dropping plain URLs everywhere. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide the link to that? Austin613 (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:CS. It's also common sense. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Where does it say it is required in the talk page? Austin613 (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. I was asking you to properly format your citations in the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me as well, I'm not familiar with anything beyond formatting. Haven't received complaints from anyone else. Anyway, I notice sometimes bots clean things up. Austin613 (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

No big deal. You can copy templates from citations elsewhere in the article. Tedious but necessary. For example, here's a template:

Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC) Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks but I waste enough of my time in here as is. I can't say I'm motivated to this standard, as I can imagine going through the tedious care to properly source an article only for an editor like yourself to deny it's reliability and delete my work. Austin613 (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

So you’re going to continue to violate policy on this?Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry. It's not a big deal as you say. Austin613 (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

References

"Taliban Law"

I didn't understand the addition of this point from the LAT source. The women were evidently held for much longer, so the subsequent statement of the alleged "taliban law" of 10 days is pretty confusing in the context. Do you mean something like "They were held for several months despite the fact that this was their law"? I guess my tendency is to drop this sentence, since by itself it is confusing, and with additional analysis we will violate WP:SYNTH. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't bother me but I know you get more easily more troubled over what I see as non issues. The point is to specify the actual laws that were cited that were broken. For me that would qualify us to use the descriptor "illegal missionary work" but since that offends your extreme sensibilities without a literal word usage source I avoided using it. I didn't go that route. If the sentencing bothers you so much remove it to: "Taliban law forbids foreigners from propagating a religion other than Islam. The penalty for an Afghan who converts to Christianity is death." The penalty can inform readers of the consequences of converting local Afghans adding to the dubious legality of their work and the danger it brings to local non-Christian Afghans. Austin613 (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I see, you're trying to push a line that isn't in the source. That's against policy, so I will go ahead and remove it. The fact that the Taliban regime arrested them and held them for 104 days is sufficient to indicate that the Taliban regarded their behavior as forbidden. I don't see how a seperate source stating a law the Taliban evidently weren't following adds anything but confusion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't push a line that isn't in the source. What are you referring to? Austin613 (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

You’re adding this confusing claim to the article in the hope of implying, as you put it, the “dubious legality of their work and the danger it brings to local non-Christian Afghans.” That is not in the source. So it’s not an appropriate rationale. And the language is very confusing as it stands. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

You're the only one confused here. Stop trying to add in your speculations. This article isn't to rely on your speculations. I didn't clearly put in "dubious legality..." You also seem confused on the difference between what's discussed on the talk page and what's published in the article. So that debunks your continued speculative theories. These women were charged, the LAT mentioned it because they saw it relevant. I think also it's relevant for readers to know what the Taliban's law was.Austin613 (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm was quoting the reason you yourself stated for putting it in the text. If you agree it was not a good reason, then say that. If you want to keep it in text, provide a good reason. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You really don't have to change anything. The fact that you didn't know why the law was edited in meant I did a good job of objectively including a fact without telegraphing any intent. But I would recommend you go back and read the LA Times article and find out why they quoted this Taliban Law full in verbatum. That way you won't have to take my reasoning for it's inclusion. Once you've figured it out, and if you think it's still doesn't reflect the LAT source, go the extra mile find the appropriate way to include the full law in this wikipedia article because clearly the LA Times saw it as a relevant fact to point out. Austin613 (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

No, the WP:ONUS is on you to justify inclusion. So far, what you wrote was confusing so I took it out, then you gave a rationale that was contrary to policy. Feel free to meet the WP:ONUS burden by providing another reason. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:ONUS does not refer to an editor's "confusion" and is non applicable. Austin613 (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not confused. I'm happy to hear an appropriate basis for including this. So far you haven't offered one. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

If you're not confused and I'm not confused, the entry isn't confusing and we have nothing to take issue with. Austin613 (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not confused in claiming that the WP:ONUS is on you for inclusion, and you have not articulated a basis for including this. The text actually is currently confusing. We currently say they were held for 104 days, then say, without any explanation, that the Taliban has a 10 day law. A normal reader is going to be confused. At the very least, if you want to include this, more is going to need to be said so that it isn't confusing in this way. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You just said you found the text confusing. I suggested a compromise edit earlier to make it less confusing, for you.

"Taliban law forbids foreigners from propagating a religion other than Islam. The penalty for an Afghan who converts to Christianity is death."

Would this be less confusing for you? Austin613 (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

"sexual orientation change efforts"/ conversion therapy

I request you please revert a few of your recent edits/deletions regarding conversion therapy and "sexual orientation change efforts." In the context of being explicit of how Living Hope describes it, okay to leave, but clearly "sexual orientation change" is synonymous with conversion therapy or "attempting to change an individual's sexual orientation, gender identity". The "See Also" link of Conversion therapy is relevant. It was better using the term "conversion therapy" as it's a more commonly understood term that used to describe "sexual orientation change." Here's an article that regarded Living Hope Ministries' app as conversion therapy, that also quoted a Google spokesperson referring to Living Hope Ministry's app as "Conversion therapy": https://www.businessinsider.com/google-deletes-living-hope-ministries-conversion-therapy-app-2019-3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin613 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree that "clearly "sexual orientation change" is synonymous with conversion therapy". But if that were true, then either term should be equivalent, so I wouldn't see your problem with what I did. Because the ministry disputes that they do "conversion therapy" I think it's better in terms of NPOV to use the undisputed description, which you regard as equivalent. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give this one to you. Austin613 (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Mental health and demon possessions/In Touch Weekly

It appears the Atlantic gauged In Touch Weekly's reliability on certain articles that reported rumors and thus did not fairly represent the reliability of this periodical. Although not the best source, I think it's fair to use. In Touch weekly has a "fair" rating on reliability biasly and a "mixed" rating on factuality from ad fontes media. The article contains quoted interviews from former members and Jimmy Seibert himself. No anonymous members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin613 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

So you think it has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Even your own “ad fortes” source says “ These publications do not always use proper sourcing or may get their information from other mixed factuality sources. They may use loaded language that alters the context of facts and fail to correct false or misleading information.” This is ridiculous. A gossip tabloid is not RS. Take it to RSN if you want. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

We should do that to be sure. Austin613 (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

There’s consensus in this very discussion that they repost rumors so I see RSN as unnecessary. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstood. I meant do that as in take it to RSN. Austin613 (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't misunderstand. You said above that ITW "reported rumors". I inferred a consensus that they do not have a reputation for accuracy. Do you think they have a reputation for accuracy even though they "reported rumors"? I won't be taking it to RSN as I regard that as unnecessary. You are free to do so if you like; in the meantime we should not base content on this clealry unreliable source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Let's take the matter to the board. Austin613 (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

As I said, I will not be doing that, but you are welcome to do so, and in the meantime we should not rely on this source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You don't want to take it to the board, I'm not either. We don't have consensus, let's leave it alone. Austin613 (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, WP:SELFSOURCE says self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves. Oberg's blog source on her battle with mental illness is valid. Austin613 (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

What source are you referring to? It can be a source for facts about what she says about herself, but not about Antioch. So it isn't relevant. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

We could use her healthyplace blogs, daily kos as confirmation sources for her past suffering from mental illness while attending Antioch, how her mental well being was further traumatized by her alleged experience of being "pinned down" Antioch's attempted exorcism. It's nice to find complementary sources makes Oberg's account less likely a rumor. Imagine all the damage you've done by automatically deleting blog sources, it'd be great if you repair or find some to use.Austin613 (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Blogs violate wp:ugc. That kos blog says she violated journalistic ethical standards in going after Antioch! Not RS obv. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

You: Can't cite her blog source!

Also you: Cites her blog source.

Shiny, make up your mind, if you don't think it's an RS, then maybe you shouldn't believe her own account about violating her own journalist ethics, unless you think what she said in daily kos is a reliable source. You're missing the wp:selfsource details and getting caught up in non wikipedia values: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves. If Oberg says something about herself, it's ok to publish in wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper

If I may be casual with you, you've been spending too much time in here, explore new hobbies. Get outdoors, breath some fresh air! :) Austin613 (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Went ahead and removed the section based on the gossip tabloid with a reputation for unreliability. Please take to RSN prior to reinstating. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure you appreciated the driveby edits by your friend, starship. It's also nice to know you like fixer upper. And are a Christian. Please redeclare your COI at the top of this page. I'll keep the talks open.Austin613 (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Starship.paint I looked for you in the talks and did not see you engaging so I assumed you did not want to discuss it. I introduced new edits and was not warring. My latest section on Becky Oberg addresses the concerns you raised, while maintaining WP:SELFSOURCE. Austin613 (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Austin613: - I am not seeing any verification of Becky Oberg's story. No reliable source, no fact-checking. It's exactly the sort of content we do not want at Wikipedia. starship.paint (RUN) 06:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Verification isn't necessary, questionable sources may be used as sources, according to self source. Austin613 (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves (bolding in original) Your edit makes claims about other people so secondary sourcing is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

You need to be aware that if you are making claims, especially negative claims, about individuals or groups then you need good secondary sources that speak specifically to the claims you are alleging. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Separating/revert Pastor Edward Esponisa arrest to controversies

Esponisa's arrest story has less to do with Anti-sex trafficking work and should be separated again to under Controversies. Esponisa was not involved in Unbound. Unbound's later involvement after Esponisa's arrest was a minor footnote.

Espinosa's arrest "has less to do with Anti-sex trafficking work" than it has to do with what? I don't understand the comparision you're making here. "less to do" is a comparison term but I don't see what you're comapring to. The sex trafficking section is the most natural place for this content, per WP:CRITS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

His arrest had less to do with UnBound. Austin613 (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Less to do with Unbound than what? You're making a comparison but giving only one term of the comparison. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Esponisa's arrest had less to do with UnBound. Austin613 (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, this is not responsive. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Define responsive. Austin613 (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

To be responsive, you need to explain coherently why you're not violating WP:CRITS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a WP:CRITS violation, it would be more useful for you to state and elaborate your position. Austin613 (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I am trying to follow WP:CRITS by incorporating. This is the most natural place to incorporate the content, as it relates to sex-trafficking. You seem to think this is not the best place to incorporate it, but make no alternative suggestion, preferring instead to keep the controversies section I'm trying to incorporate in keeping with WP:CRITS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Esponisa's arrest is about Esponisa, not Antioch's ministry to fight sex trafficking. If UnBound's story in Esponisa's arrest was stronger, integration would be preferable, but it's not strong enough. Austin613 (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The incident relates to their work in sex trafficking. It doesn't fit anywhere better in the article, and we should be trying to incorporate. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I still don't agree but I'll let this one sit for now. Austin613 (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok so no response. Seems like it belongs where I incorporated it then. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I still don't agree. I already said, Espinosa's arrest himself takes a prominent place in the reliable sources cited about his arrest, it's not about anti-sex trafficking, so it's more appropriate as a separate topic than making an anti-sex trafficking section a "mixed bag" topic.

Please relearn your definition of "response." Grammatically, you're incorrect. I made a response, it may not be the one you want to hear, but it is a response. The next time anyone responds to you, don't say they didn't respond just because you don't like their answer. I suggested keeping it in the controversies and you're claiming I made "no alternate suggestion". That is my suggestion. It's frustrating and to make proper statements and be made to feel disrespected as if I am not being heard.Austin613 (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Wife of a former member

You say you disagree with my claim that the allegations didn't all come from former members, but your edit summary does not explain why, but just baldly says "disagree". Let's not edit war. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

From my understanding your edit was not adequately explained. It's reasonable to believe a wife of a former member also attended with her husband. This is what I believe. All of the accounts are former members. Austin613 (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The source says she was the wife of a former member, not a member. Your beliefs are not RS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Still disagree, but changed the title to add wife as compromise. Austin613 (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable. Who's wife? The title is now confusing. What's the problem with my proposed "anonymous allegations of abuse" title? That's accurate to the source and not confusing. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Your titling makes it sound like the reports were from individuals that had nothing to do with the church. It's more relevant and precise to title reports from former members. Austin613 (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Still a bit clunky. Is it absolutely essential for you to include "anonymous" in the title?

Also consider removing "their" and/or family "members"

"Allegations of abuse from anonymous former members and their family"

"Allegations of abuse from anonymous former members and family"

"Allegations of abuse from former members and their family"

Or simply "Allegations of abuse" I think I'd prefer this simplicity, actually.Austin613 (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I think "anonymous" is important for NPOV. I guess you had second thoughts about your suggestion of

"Allegations of abuse from anonymous former members and family"? Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Now we're back where we started. I think it's more important to include former members and not anonymous alone for previously stated reasons. My value tries to steer more towards clarity and simplicity for these titles, but for now, maybe we can agree to we can leave it "Allegations of abuse from anonymous former members and family" unless we think up an alternative. Austin613 (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I can live with that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Separating Practices from Beliefs and positions

What do you think about separating "Positions, beliefs and practices" into two sections, "Positions and beliefs" and "Practices"

Sure, practices comes first. "Ministries" makes more sense to me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Ministries is too similar to Related ministries, unless you're open to consolidation like I had earlier. Practices can encompass lifegroups and missionary efforts. Austin613 (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

"Practices" sounds like stuff like baptism or confession or prayer or what not, at least to my ear in a religious context. What about changing the later section to "related organizations" since some of those listed aren't really ministries? Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if we're overthinking things but Beliefs and positions / Positions and beliefs would be how they think. Baptism, confession, prayer, lifegroups can be like general church "Practices" things they do. General church practices can also encompass the general topical names like international missionary efforts, addiction recovery programs, etc.. Related ministries can be like organizations with other topically specific work focus by organization name. Austin613 (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Er, so what about the suggestion I made? You didn’t reply to that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Which suggestion? The one about "related organizations"? I don't see it necessary. They all seem ministry-like except "World Mandate" which doesn't sound like an organization either. It's like an "event" or "conference." Maybe it could be deleted or moved elsewhere, or just left in "Related ministries" as is. I'm not so strict on that fit. Or you can retitle it "Related ministries/organizations" I was trying to suggest "Practices," "Related ministries" was encompassing enough, sorry I didn't make that more explicit.Austin613 (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem with controversies sections

(ping for editors already involved Austin613 / Shinealittlelight / Starship.paint)
As per Wikipedia:Criticism controversy sections can be a bad idea as they tend to become a grab bag of unrelated stuff. Several of the sections in the current section could be moved under other sections or merged into them.
For instance:
"Proselytization in Sri Lanka" would fit under "International missionary efforts"
"Sermon on 2016 election" already partially duplicates the "Politics" section.
"Chip and Joanna Gaines' relationship with Antioch" is related to "Position on homosexuality and marriage".
"Gentrification vs. restoration disgreement" and "All People's Church vs Del Cerro residents" could be merged into a section discussing the churches impact on the local communities.
That would leave "Allegations of abuse from anonymous former members and family" which could become a separate section (with a simpler title) and "Mosaic-Neumos dispute and fallout" which seems a minor incident and could be dropped per WP:BALASP.
I would also suggest dropping "Positions, beliefs, and practices" and promoting the subsections under it. Although I'm suggesting changes it's a bit of a cop out, as I doubt I'd be much use rewriting anything (it's why I usually stick to technical work). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Strongly support this and was already thinking along much the same lines. I'm willing to try a draft at some point (probably not today). Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead. You have my support. starship.paint (RUN) 00:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Made the edit. Feel free to make adjustments or propose changes; I tried to more or less follow something like what AD suggested above, but adjustments to detail that I made are surely debatable. I think the Del Cerro stuff seems a bit undue at this point, though I left it all in for now. I'd be in favor of dropping it altogether. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Starship.paint do you have any opinion on the All People's Church vs Del Cerro residents section? I can see the relation to Antioch but it does seem slim. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Note that no secondary source on this story mentions Antioch. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested and Shinealittlelight: - you can nuke it, it was used to host a BLP-violating attack that I already removed. That may have been the purpose of the section. starship.paint (RUN) 00:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Reaction to Buzzfeed piece

If we are going to talk about the Buzzfeed piece about the Gainses in the article, it seems highly relevant that the piece was panned as a "hit piece" across the political spectrum in highly-regarded outlets like Washington Post. I see two choices: recognize that the Buzzfeed piece itself is undue and arguably non-RS for this article, or include the context that it was widely regarded as a hit piece. I prefer the latter, but the former is fine too. But we can't just ignore the negative reaction to the piece if we're going to talk about the controversy that it stirred. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The reaction pieces are not about the Antioch Movement. We don't learn anything about the Antioch Movement by adding it. The Washington post piece is UNDUE. It's an opinion, it comes from the opinion section. The Washington post piece doesn't even seem to discredit the Buzzfeed article's reliability, the point it seems to be making is it's a "non-story." These "hit piece" themed articles seem to try and make Buzzfeed's article as a "who cares" story, haven't read anything to indicate non-RS. Are you trying to discredit the notion that Jimmy Seibert and Antioch does not approve of homosexuality and gay marriage?

And, there's already a refuting response from the Gaines that I left alone, that's sourced to a "hit piece" article. Adding more unnecessary detail about it would be diverting and undue weight. If you don't like the Buzzfeed article for some reason find another source that supports the existing content on Antioch's rejection of homosexuality. May I suggest this source: [4]https://www.ajc.com/entertainment/chip-and-joanna-gaines-pastor-responds-report-saying-church-has-anti-gay-stance/cf1WTQJAZpO7RsUaXFQTrK/ Pride2bme (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The reaction is about the controversy concerning Antioch and the Gaines. If discussing that controversy is due, then so is the negative reaction to the controversy. Esp in the WaPo. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's suitable to make note of Antioch and the Gaines, to learn and highlight about the Movement's public stance on Homosexuality and marriage. Unless you want to create a new section about Antioch and the Gaines, expanding further on that "controversy" stirred is more suitable for Chip and Joanna Gaines' page. Pride2bme (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I’ll try a shorter mention of the negative reaction as a compromise. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I still think it's more appropriate on Chip and Joanna Gaines page or a new section on Antioch and the Gaines than in Antioch's Homosexuality and marriage section and seems like an attempt to discredit reports on Antioch's stance. Pride2bme (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It's an important part of the Gaines controversy which we are covering, and giving top billing in the article including a mention in the article lede, that the controversy was started by a piece that was panned across the political spectrum from Fox News to WaPo. That's clearly DUE if the controversy itself is. If the controversy is not DUE, then I'm open to discussion of that. But this controversy was what mostly put the movement into the national news, so it seems DUE to me. And I'm not discrediting anything; I'm just reporting what's in reliable, prominent sourcing. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Ironically, The Washington Post's opinion article makes the argument there isn't a controversy, that it's a "non-story." It's still not so much about Antioch's stance on homosexuality and marriage as it is about the Gaines. Pride2bme (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

That is ironic, I agree. I agree it's about teh controversy with Antioch and the Gaines. The current orientation of the article is towards thinking that discussion of this controversy merits inclusion and indeed mention in the lede. If you don't agree, I'm all ears, but I don't quite hear you saying that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually what the Washington Post is really saying is to create controversy over the controversy. The original "controversy" is Gaines and Antioch. The Washington Post's casual opinion piece is "hit piece" controversy, or mainly about the article's reporting of the "Gaines and Anitoch" controversy. The Washington Post source is not about Antioch and barely about the Gaines. It's really about Buzzfeed's reporting (and Trump, among other rantings). Being off topic, it does not belong on the Antioch Movement's page.

Another viewpoint is The Homosexuality and marriage section's paragraph already starts with "Antioch's position on LGBT issues led to controversy in 2016, when Buzzfeed published an article on HGTV Stars Chip and Joanna Gaines" tacking on "The Buzzfeed article provoked a negative reaction from a variety of critics." is redundant and unnecessary, the paragraph already established a controversy. Pride2bme (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

"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)

"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)