Talk:Sword of the Spirit: Difference between revisions
→Inaccurate merge: new section Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Arbitrarily0 (talk | contribs) →2023 overhaul: new section |
||
Line 500: | Line 500: | ||
This link used to refer to the popular Kairos retreat based in the Cursillo movement. Those retreats have been incorrectly associated with this different retreat history. Is there a way the editors can create two separate branches and reclaim the old retreat version in the edit history as a separate program? Thanks. [[User:Aipacetti|Aipacetti]] ([[User talk:Aipacetti|talk]]) 14:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
This link used to refer to the popular Kairos retreat based in the Cursillo movement. Those retreats have been incorrectly associated with this different retreat history. Is there a way the editors can create two separate branches and reclaim the old retreat version in the edit history as a separate program? Thanks. [[User:Aipacetti|Aipacetti]] ([[User talk:Aipacetti|talk]]) 14:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
||
== 2023 overhaul == |
|||
I have finally gotten around to a complete overhaul of this page, in order to fix the neutrality issues. Here is an explanation of some of the bigger changes: |
|||
* '''Lede''': I have removed the reference to "sheperding"—I cannot confirm the relationship between SOS and the [[shepherding movement]] in the cited material; seems to be speculation |
|||
* '''History''': I have greatly expanded this section, incorporating some of the neutral content from the section on "Notable member communities" |
|||
* '''Notable member communities''': I have removed this section, either by transferring the material into the history section, or (in the cases of People of Praise and Servants of Christ the King) by deleting it. There is just too much information here. An article on a religious order should not go into the details of all the provinces/households. The section on "In Popular Culture" seemed totally out of place, as well as speculative. |
|||
** '''Servants of the Word''': I have added this community to the history section. I have left out the allegations of child abuse, for the following reasons: (1) the accused individual is not notable; (2) articles on religious orders (e.g., the Dominicans) do not include such accusations/convictions, unless the abuse was committed by a notable member, or in reference to a widespread issue across the organization. |
|||
* '''Youth outreach''': I have removed this section, for lack of good sources; but if there are better sources, it should be included under the "mission" subsection I added near the bottom |
|||
* '''Description''' |
|||
** '''Religious practices''': I removed this section; all this information belongs at [[Charismatic Christianity]] |
|||
** '''Finances''': I removed this short section; I cannot find the stated claim in the cited book |
|||
** '''Gender roles''': I simplified this section, and moved it under the subsection on doctrine; the line about “seize the territory” was stripped from its original context |
|||
** '''Islam, feminism, homosexuality and communism''': removed as off-topic; this is much too detailed for a general description, not to mention a commonplace element of conservative Christian groups |
|||
* '''Reception''': I transferred this source to the history, which includes criticism in the 1990s subsection. I removed the line citing [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/08/us/people-of-praise-amy-coney-barrett.html NYTimes]; this is an article about the People of Praise, and moreover, does not seem to contain the information claimed in the article. |
|||
* '''Academic study''': this section is also off-topic, although I have made use of [https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1548-1352.2009.01067.x this source] elsewhere. But [https://www.spiritualabuseresources.com/articles/more-than-the-devils-due this source], which deals with shepherding groups in general, is off-topic. |
|||
* '''Notable members''': updated and cited, including only members with a Wikipedia article |
|||
Thanks to Linn C Doyle for the variety of sources you discovered here; I have retained almost all of them. [[User:Arbitrarily0|<span style='color:black'><b><u><i>Arbitrarily0</i></u></b></span>]] <sup><b>([[User talk:Arbitrarily0|<span style="font-variant: small-caps; color:#FF4500;">talk</span>]])</b></sup> 04:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:58, 30 March 2023
Kairos (retreat) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 24 March 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Sword of the Spirit. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sword of the Spirit article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Christianity: Charismatic Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on August 15, 2008. The result of the discussion was move to user sandbox. |
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
More Distuptive Editing
@Jadbaz: Hi your edits have been reverted as you have again blanked several references and some content over multiple edits. The page has been restored to pre-destructive editing. Can I please clarify several things:
- Shepherding movement ref is that the 'covenant community' design used in SoS is devolved from Mumford Prince and Co. Deleting this and cherry picking only to include statement on leadership is disruptive.
- You deleted a referenced journal article and content due to the website which hosted a version of this journal article in text. The fact that this is available in text via an independent website does not affect the reliability of Journal Publishing. This is disruptive editing.Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
@Jadbaz: you had raised a couple of points which I would really like to work together on. The edit to the Shepherding info seems to me like you want to discuss headship within this group. It would be fantastic if you have content on this that you would like to contribute :D I think the clarification of 'throughout history' to 'throughout the 80s and 90s' is great too. It would be awesome if you had content you wished to contribute regarding the investigation of SoS communities by bishops. Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Linn C Doyle. So you seem to agree that adding information concerning the timing of these incidents is helpful? I can make some of these changes - I just want to check that you won't undo my edits. Jadbaz (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
Responding to each part of the dispute separately:
1. George Bacouni has his own article, so he is WP:NOTABLE by Wikipedia's definition (unless you think that article should be deleted, which is another question). He is also the archbishop of Beirut and The Sword of the Spirit has a location in Beirut, so his view seems like it could be relevant for a reception section. Finally, the reception section is currently entirely negative, which suggests the article may be giving WP:UNDUE influence to one side. Actually the entire article is pretty negative, I question the POV of it. That being said, Jadbaz|'s inclusion needs serious work. The citation style doesn't work well with the rest of the article or Wikipedia's usual style of citation, and I don't think you need to provide the full quote, just like the previous quote on "concerns" regarding Sword of the Spirit is not a full quote. @Sudonymous: So one thing I would clarify is that the article does not have a negative bias, simply the article reflects the content of reliable publishing regarding this organisation in a neutral manner. I would definitely agree that much of this could very much be perceived as negative, but there is no negative bias in the article itself. Regarding the Bacouni quote the main issue I have with this is it is from some pamphlet published in a remote corner of the vatican website. Though the individual may be considered notable, the source is definitely not on any list of reliable publishers. Tbh I fear that opening up the article to such unreliable opinion pieces is a bit of a can of worms and will be detrimental to the article overall.Linn C Doyle (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Jadbaz: Do you have any connection to the Sword of the Spirit affiliate community 'People of God' in Beruit? 2. While the sexual abuse scandals of individuals like Scanlan should definitely be mentioned in their articles (and his does), but I'm not sure if it makes sense to mention on this page, especially since none of the articles cited in Sword of the Spirit#Servants of Christ the King mention Sword of the Spirit or Servants of Christ the King. Given the current state of the article (relatively short on information), I don't see the need to dedicate two paragraphs to a sexual abuse scandal that Sword of the Spirit is not directly tied to. @Sudonymous: So you will find mention of Scanlan, Bertollucci and Sword of the Spirit in this article Bellant, Russ (November 18, 1988). "When Right Goes Wrong". 25 (5). National Catholic Reporter. You will find discussion of Scanlan and Sword of the Spirit here too. http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2000a/021100/021100o.htm Again I am a bit baffled as to the pushback on this one. Both were promininent and influencial leaders in this organisation. Abuse allegation are very notable. The Catholic Church article has a dedicated section, and a wiki page dedicated to Catholic Church sexual abuse cases I do not see any reason why this isnt just as noteworthy in the [[Charismatic Movement}}. So again yes I would love for more contributors and more reliable sources. There could definitely be more information included. I dont see this as reason to remove information however.Linn C Doyle (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Sudonymous: So yes no problem with some rephrasing, simply any edits to this have either altered the meaning so that it does not accurately reflect the source, and mostly been mingled in amongst disruptive edits. But yes if someone wants to retain the meaning and clarify the phrasing that sounds great to meLinn C Doyle (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC) @Sudonymous: So also to clarify here the source states that the leaders from the Shepherding Movement taught the 'community building' style that the Sword of the Spirit is based upon. New Wine isn not a great source but reliably we can say that Derek Prince published a fair few articles detailing this community building style, the partiarchal pyramid leadership structure, focus on submissiveness, the 'handmaiden', tithing etc, and many of the unique pentacostal variants. In the early 1970s Ralph Martin and Steve Clark (SoS founders) worked under the Fort Lauderdale Five (Prince, Mumford etc) with a group called 'the council' (sometimes the ecumenical council, other variants depending on text) - see David Moore the Shepherding Movement. I think there is a good photo of them all in Ch5 or 6 from that time. During this time Prince, Mumford etc were running an association of Shepherding communities. 1975 Clarke and Martin start the association of catholic covenant communities with True House, People of Praise etc. This runs 1975-1981 where it collapses, People of Praise and many other major groups and many other groups leave the association and Sword of the Spirit begins, becoming the new governing body of the remaining communities. So all this is covered in most reliable textbooks which discuss the Shepherding Movement in any great depth. In literature on the charismatic movement SoS is generally a bit of a footnote to Word of God but some texts (Csordas for example) go into more detail. Tbh I am a bit baffled as to the pushback on this one. This is pretty common info for anyone who studies the Shepherding movement or charismatic christian communities, that the sword of the spirit community structure is based upon Derek Princes publishing in New Wine and Ralph Martin and Steve Clarkes experience on 'the council' working with an association of shepherding communities then went off to start their own catholic variant. Everyone who I can identify as belonging to SoS seems to have been told a different story. Linn C Doyle (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Pg 114 More Direct Roots "between 1970 and 1972, a group of older, established charismatic Bible teachers saw the need to provide guidance and teaching the younger, new converts. Bob Mumford, Charles Simpson, Derek Prince, Em Baxter and Don Basham, each with their own careers in various parts of the country, formalized among themselves a "covenant relationship" and merged their respectively ministries"
"Beginning at least as early as 1974 Bob Mumford, Charles Simpson, Derek Prince, Don Basham and Ern Baxter had entered into a "covenant relationship" with Ralph Martin and Steve Clark...Their alliance was called "the Council" and its purpose was to strengthen the shepherding system across denominational lines. By the mid-1970s, the Council had expanded to include Catholic shepherding stalwarts Paul DeCelles and Kevin Ranaghan, as well as Larry Christenson, a leader in the Lutheran charismatic renewal". Sword of the Spirit, via founders Ralph Martin and Steve Clark, and Covenant Communities, indeed Covenant Relationships of any kind, take roots in the Shepherding Movement.Linn C Doyle (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC) As stated from the get go, I invite all to reword this as long as meaning is retained. COI sockpuppets attempting to disrupt, alter or blank historical fact which is supported by various high quality sources will of course be reverted.Linn C Doyle (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Jadbaz: You should read WP:BRD. Since you are the one trying to change the consensus, when someone reverts your changes the proper response is to go to the talk page and discuss, not to repeatedly undo those reverts in an attempt to force your version through. I wouldn't say this is an WP:Edit War yet, but it's getting close. I also noticed your contributions are centered around Sword of the Spirit and related pages, do you have a WP:COI to disclose?
@Linn C Doyle: Are you sure you don't have a WP:COI to disclose? Your contributions seem to be almost completely focused around Sword of the Spirit and related communities, generally in ways that portray them negatively, and looking at the history of this talk page, this isn't the first time you've gotten into a dispute like this over this page. Sudonymous (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC) |
@Sudonymous: First of all thanks for the third opinion, always welcome, particularly here as this page has seemed to attract a fair degree of vandalism and COI types.
Secondly I can absolutely assure you I have nothing to do with this organisation. So yes I actually was motivated to start contributing when I noticed that much of the information I have on this topic was not present on wiki articles, and in some cases had been removed by undeclared COI users whom I recognize by username. Particularly I have some knowledge regarding the Shepherding Movement, Word of God (community), Charismatic Movement and some other related organisations. When I started contributing to wikipedia I definitely encountered a few learning curves regarding form, but have made great efforts to learn the ropes with respect to source reliability and neutral content.
Though I can completely understand that it seems like there is a negative bias here I can assure you that this accurately and neutrally reflects the content of reliable publishing on the topic. Now this can be problematic given that the only times this group is mentioned in reliable publishing is to discuss the topics detailed in the article. The references are there to inspect yourself, and if you give them a google you will see this is pretty much the body of reliable publishing. I have considered giving some counterpoint from less reliable sources but tbh this is a can of worms. If self-publishing and web blogs on this topic are opened up then there is potential for the article devolving into contrasting personal arguments. I would also say that there is some content that may be viewed negatively here but I have taken care not to include any value statement in the article this is just simply information.Linn C Doyle (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- If you have nothing to do with SoS, I must ask why is your editing history almost singularly focused on SoS and related groups? It appears that you have very strong negative opinions on SoS, and while it is fine to have those opinions, we can't let the articles portray our opinions. With regards to whether this article has a negative bias or not, I appreciate that you gave a detailed breakdown of why you think it is not (your comment below this). I cannot respond to that at this moment but I will be responding soon. Sudonymous (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Sudonymous: So I am editing pages related to the Charismatic Renewal, covenant community groups etc. as I have a wealth of information accessible which I have studied in some depth. Primarily my motivation for doing this was that the bulk of wiki articles on this subject are plagued with misinformation, self-published sourcing and self promotion. I have reliable sources and information so... The motivation is the improvement of knowledge. Again the content here may be perceived negatively, but the fact is that this is a neutral representation of the content of reliable publishing on this group. My editing does not focus on scandals, there is inclusion of history regarding the group (shepherding, member communities and historic relevance, academic study, finance, practices) all of which I have contributed with reference. Again some of this may be perceived negatively, but again it is simply factual.Linn C Doyle (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Sudonymous: So looking through the article again and I must say I really dont think there is a negative bias.
Intro and History I am sure there are no issues with.
Member communities I can see how this may come across negative. It is however just the extent of the reliably published material. It accurately reflects content and is presented neutrally.
The break from the word of god community is generally the extent to which this group is mentioned in books, and resulted in some academic journal publishing and coverage in realiable news. This was a relatively major event in the history of the charismatic renewal, and is the main relevance of the group in notable history. The information that many communties left during this period and the reasons why are well worth noting in the article, and are presented neutrally.
Regarding sexual abuse this is once again one of the few times this group is reliably reported on. As sexual abuse in any other religious organisation is included on the wiki article it makes sense for this to be included, especially as it relates to notable leaders in the organisation who were influencial leaders in the wider charismatic renewal. Again the content of the article is a neutral representation of the content of publishing on the topic.
RE margaret atwood. Again unfortunate but this is a hugely influencial author, the source is good and neutrally portrayed, and it is one of the few times anything to do with the SoS is reliably published.
So Sword of the Spirit practices. Here I have actually attempted to start an avenue to balance out the way the article reads even though the content is neutral. Here we have even included some self-publishing from this group to try and show their angle, though I think doing this with anything other than dry info is again going to be opening a can of worms. This section content is again neutral. You personally might think 'hey these are negative things' and hey I could definitely sympathise, however this is what this organisation has said is good things, and hey people out there might agree. In content I just try to phrase the content neutrally and not make any judgement while on wiki.
Reception So yes, I dont think unreliable source opinion pieces is a good road to go down for this group.
The most significant point of reception, and often the only reason this group is mentioned in text, is the investigation by bishops through the 80s and 90s. I dont think the place for this here is really disputable it is almost the sole relevance of this group.
Adrian Reimers was a prof, and that was a journal article. This is the only journal article that exists which provides an in depth discussion of reception to these groups. I dont see why this is a problem? Again the portrayal actually goes to lengths to attempt neutrality.
Finance. Again no value statements here.
Academix Study again this is all academic study of this group there really is not much out there.
So I hear what you are saying I definitely have a moral reaction to reading some of this stuff, but that is in my interpretation, and the content is as far as I can tell neutral representation of the published material.
It would be great if there was some content you think would be good to include. Tbh I have been hunting for positive reviews of this group to balance the article out but there is just nothing reliable. Mostly just their own self publishing saying 'we think we are great'and I have been assured by several editors that is not a reliable source, and a bad road to go down with an article besides.
Let me know what you think :)
Linn C Doyle (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
rfc Membership Numbers
One user finds it odd that an organisation which claims 14,000 members has only 133 twitter followers, and feels the membership quote needs the source specified in text in the lead. WP:EXCEPTIONAL
One user argues that the membership numbers can go RAW in the infobox WP:ABOUTSELF
Both users have agreed to respect the recommendations of WP:RSN as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#swordofthespirit.net_for_basic_information_about_Sword_of_the_Spirit. There still seems to be disagreement and it would be helpful to have further input in order to reach a consensus.Linn C Doyle (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I noticed the membership estimate had been put back up again. Several users have been removing and reinserting this number.
As far as I understand the consensus is that this should not be there.
I believe the argument for including this number is that it is WP:ABOUTSELF.
I understand the argument against including this number is that it is WP:ABOUTSELF, and falls under:;
- 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
The definition of exceptional claim in this case revolves around WP:EXCEPTIONAL, namely:
- Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
Where membership is an apparently important claim not covered in multiple mainstream sources.
For now I have reverted the page to its previous state prior to any disagreement in content.
I would suggest that rather than butting heads here the clear solution is for whomever may be claiming this source is reliable, to demonstrate this by submitting it to the RS Noticeboard, with specific statement that the query is specific to the membership claim, and outlining the arguments for and against the sources reliability as above.
I am sure all editors will be capable of respecting the outcome of RS ruling in this case, and that this approach is perhaps more efficient than previous methods attempted in editing this page.
Thank you. Linn C Doyle (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think there's anything WP:EXCEPTIONAL about the claim, there is nothing surprising about them having 90 communities and a few thousand members. The website even lists all of their communities and places them on a map, and while I guess it's conceivable that it's all an elaborate hoax that seems unlikely. Either way, I am opening a discussion on WP:RSN. Sudonymous (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- So I do not think the issue is concern of hoax, I believe the issue is in interpreting WP:SELFSOURCE.
- Namely Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves.
- So Sword of the Spirit may say 'sword of the spirit does x', however it may be inappropriate as a RS if one were to say 'sword of the spirit says 14,000 third parties do x'.
- In either outcome I think we can all agree editing as per the recommendations of the RS noticeboard will be fine :)
- Thank youLinn C Doyle (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
So the RS reply gives a go ahead, but suggests caveat that this is reported by the SoS. Given that the SoS facebook has around 1500 'likes' and twitter has only 130 follower, however, I would be very surprised if there were 14, 000 members (though that is my personal reaction to the discrepancy in numbers there), and the declared COI does state a different figure above as well. Perhaps its best placed in the lead? 'The Sword of the Spirit reports x members across y communities internationally' is something I would find completely agreeable. If this or similar suits you I would call that some very constructive editing efficiently achieved :) Thank you. Linn C Doyle (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- As recorded in the finance section, SoS has a yearly revenue of about a million dollars, which comes from tithes, so 14,000 seems reasonable. I don't really think Facebook likes or Twitter followers is a reasonable member of members, how many people follow their local church on twitter? Plus SoS is a global organization, and I don't think twitter is that popular in say Bangalore. You've failed to really show that 14,000 is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL amount, and honestly I think claiming they are inflating numbers based on Twitter followers seems like WP:OR. Either way the citation is provided right next to the number in the infobox, so it is clear that they are the ones who are claiming it. Sudonymous (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Sudonymous: You had agreed to follow the recommendations of the RSN comments which specifically recommend this figure is included with specific statement as to the source to indicate there is no third party verification. Despite agreeing to follow this advice you have failed to do so, so I have made this edit.
- Actually the ~$1m is just for North American Region Sword of the Spirit I dont know how they fare the other side of the pond. In either case tithing in covcoms is universally 10% and a conservative average household income is $50,000, so the average member household is expected to contribute ~$5000 per year. This accounts for 200 households. The average US household is 3 persons. This income therefore acounts for an estimate of 600 members, not 14,000, and that is if we count the children as included in membership.
- In either eventuality the RSN consensus is clear and the edit is now made.
- Are you happy to close this issue?Linn C Doyle (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Linn C Doyle: they said the caveat was an option, they did not say it was strictly required. I don't think it helps at all. They agreed it was reliable, so I kept it. The 14,000 number is worldwide, while the 600 number you calculated is only for the US. Looking at the map it seems most members are outside of the US. Also I do not believe a 3 person household is a reasonable estimate for the size of the average SoS household, as highly religious families tend to have more kids. This claim that they are inflating their numbers is pure WP:OR. Sudonymous (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Sudonymous: From the RSN post, the recommendations of which you have agreed to respect:
- Attributing the claim to the site is reasonable "states its membership as"
- Please be reasonable.
- Than youLinn C Doyle (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Linn C Doyle: Websites do not make claims, organizations do. Saying "SoS reports X" is not anymore authoritative than "SoS's website says X", it's just less redundant and smoother. Furthermore, you're going off of a possible suggestion by a single responder, and I highly doubt that responder would object to "SoS reports X" since it means the same as "SoS's website reports". You are the one being unreasonable, trying to sow doubt about a simple claim due to your WP:OR Sudonymous (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Sudonymous: Websites do however report figures. I see no harm in reporting the source clearly in text. There is no WP:OR here. Thank you.Linn C Doyle (talk) 04:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Linn C Doyle: What is the point of stating the source "clearly in text" if we already made clear that the source is SoS? Should we do this with all of our source? "Csordas claims X in book Y" every time we cite him? It's redundant and messy and I don't know why you're insistent on using it. Your usage of twitter followers to try to bring the 14,000 number into dispute is WP:OR. Sudonymous (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Sudonymous: lets see what rfc has to sayLinn C Doyle (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Use WP:INTEXT attribution in text. Exclude the figure from the infobox. We need a WP:RS to state the membership in WP:WIKIVOICE.– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Edit: see below – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)- Do not include this figure if our only source is SoS themselves, even attributed to SoS. In-text attribution can't entirely make up for poor sourcing and there's no worse sourcing than a flattering claim about an organization that can only be sourced to that organization. Loki (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- @LokiTheLiar: yes I had raised so undue weight concern here. Will remove again.Linn C Doyle (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Linn C Doyle: We've already reached out to RSN and found that SoS's website is reliable for this under WP:ABOUTSELF, the only question was how to word it, whether specifying that it is a claim from their website is necessary. I don't understand why you decided to remove it again based on a single response to an RFC, when RSN already agreed that is was ok to include. Sudonymous (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Sudonymous: No more WP:PA in edit notes please. In RSN post advice say undue weight may be an issue. Just because a source can be considered reliable does not necessarily mean it should be considered reliable. As @LokiTheLiar: has indicated there is reason to believe this source may not be accurate, and therefore the membership should not be included if this is the only source, as it serves to flatter the subject of this article with zero verifiability. As another RFC expert has raised the same concerns as myself the membership number has been removed until either:
- a clear consensus for it's inclusion can be achieved.
- another source is presented which corroborates the quoted membership.
- Perhaps it is best to await these conditions or further RFC comments prior to making any further reversion.
- Thank you.Linn C Doyle (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Sudonymous: No more WP:PA in edit notes please. In RSN post advice say undue weight may be an issue. Just because a source can be considered reliable does not necessarily mean it should be considered reliable. As @LokiTheLiar: has indicated there is reason to believe this source may not be accurate, and therefore the membership should not be included if this is the only source, as it serves to flatter the subject of this article with zero verifiability. As another RFC expert has raised the same concerns as myself the membership number has been removed until either:
- You are deleting sourced information that RSN has confirmed is reliable under WP:ABOUTSELF, this is disruptive editing and I will call it out as such. You have provided no reason to doubt the number other than their social media following, which doesn't prove anything. We already reached a consensus that it is acceptable under WP:ABOUTSELF, you cannot just decide which guidelines apply unilaterally like this. Sudonymous (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Sudonymous: No WP:PA on the talk page either please.
- Clearly myself and other editors believe keeping the SOS own quote of membership from the page is constructive.
- No, I identified several sources which could potentially be used to estimate the accuracy of the quoted 14,000 membership but did not appear to corroborate this estimate.
- This was done in order to demonstrate that SOS own word is the only point of validation for this membership estimate, and an attempt has been made to try and validate this membership estimate.
- No ,we did not reach a consensus that this was reliable, in fact we disagreed on this.
- The source was then submitted to the RSN noticeboard at which point other editors confirmed that this can be considered a reliable source for aboutself, however the commenting authors stated they did not have enough relevant expertise to identify any undue weight issues.
- As there was still disagreement RFC was raised to gain the advice of relevant editors.
- My editing since has been to follow the advice of this RFC.
- The initial comment advises that this content should be moved from the infobox as it is not reliable enough for voice of wiki.
- The second comment raises undue weight issues (is 'SoS has 14k members' a majority viewpoint, or a fringe theory which is only apparent in SoS self-publishing).
- Following the RFC advice seems the best course of action to me, and as you should be able to observe my editing has simply been to update the article following RFC advice.
- If you think there is more discussion to be had here, perhaps you could query the statements with the RFC editors to clarify advice, rather than reverting edits which follow this advice.
- Alternatively you could provide a source outside of SoS self-publishing which corroborates the 14, 000 membership quote. It would be fantastic if other editors wished to bring new sources to the page :)
- Thank you. Linn C Doyle (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Deleting reliably sourced information is not constructive. You have not found any sources that 14,000 is an inaccurate number, you are doing rough estimates based on Twitter followers (which is not the same as members). This is WP:OR, and just as original research is not suitable for inclusion on a page, it's not ok to use original research to delete sourced information. RSN confirmed that it is reliable under WP:ABOUTSELF, the only question is how to word it, which is what the RFC is for.
- Two users responded to the RFC, one said to keep it with in-text attribution (which we currently have), another says to delete it. You are treating the response of a single user as consensus, which is ridiculous.
- I have already provided a source for the 14,000 number, which has been confirmed by RSN as reliable under WP:ABOUTSELF. If you continue to think it is inaccurate, then it is your responsibility to find a source to back up your claim. Otherwise please cease deleting cited information. Sudonymous (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Sudonymous: Yes the issue raised in RFC comment is that as the only source for this number is the subjects own website, even though self-publishing can be taken as reliable, in this instance it is likely that the 14k membership estimate gives undue weight to a minority viewpoint or fringe theory. Now there is of course disagreement on whether or not that is the case, this is why RFC advice was sought. The RFC comment above clearly states that the membership estimate should not be included if the only source is the subject of this articles own website. I noticed you have made 3 reversions in little over 24 hours. Perhaps rather than getting into edit warring and content dispute it would be better to yield to RFC advice? Linn C Doyle (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Linn C Doyle: If you think the 14,000 number is a minority viewpoint or fringe theory, it should be easy to find a majority viewpoint that conflicts with it, and evidence that it is a majority viewpoint. If you find such a source feel free to add it.
- Two users responded to the RFC. One agreed with you to delete the information, while the other said to keep it with in-text attribution, which is its current form. You seem to think we should only consider the former, ignoring both the other response and the RSN consensus, but I'm not sure why. The RFC advice has been inconclusive so I'm not sure how we would yield to it.
- I have not made 3 reversions in a little over 24 hours. I think you misread the timestamps, or maybe you mistook my most recent edit for a reversion, which it wasn't. Sudonymous (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Sudonymous: Once again, please avoid WP:PA and accusations. As I read it one comment provides a decision between infobox and in text for presentation of the estimate, the second comment makes the explicit point that this is likely a flattering figure and should not be included.
- Well absence of evidence otherwise hardly validates factoids which do not exist outside self-publishing. I am not sure that is how 'facts' should be established. In general if reasonable doubt or poor control is identified one is generally required to provide corroborative evidence, which I have attempted to locate, but cannot find. I do not know if you perhaps have some corroborative sources you could provide to clarify the figure? That said it is not difficult to observe inconsistencies even in self-publishing.
- Community websites currently quote 12000 (current) http://communityofnazareth.org/?page_id=87
- Other parts of the SoS website quote 9000 (2015) https://www.swordofthespirit.net/bulwark/december2015p6.htm
- While Jan the same year (2015) kairos (SoS youth outreach) quotes 10,000 https://www.facebook.com/KairosEuropeAndTheMiddleEast/photos/a.395011363912456.95243.367198746693718/790978267649095/
- SoS own website also reports 10000 (2009) https://www.swordofthespirit.net/bulwark/october09p5.htm
- Similar inconsistencies can be observed with respect to the estimate of member communities across these links.
- In either eventuality this is not really the issue raised by RFC. It appears the figure only exists in self-publishing, and the concern raised is that this figure may be inflated for corporate vanity purposes, and as the advice given is that the figure should not be included if no estimates are available outwith self-publishing.
- You have indeed reverted 3 times in not long over 24 hours. In case this was perhaps something you were unaware of here are the links:
- If you think this is still ambiguous at all perhaps you should seek further RFC or request clarification from the authors of RFC comments as a method of resolving content dispute?
- Thank you. Linn C Doyle (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Sudonymous: WP:ORGSOURCE perhaps best explains this issue. Linn C Doyle (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Linn C Doyle: Membership numbers fluctuate over time. The fact that SoS reported 10,000 members in 2009 and 2015 does not contradict them having 14,000 in 2021. The SoS website previously said 12,000 before being updated to 14,000, so it is reasonable to assume that the Community of Nazareth website simply hasn't been updated recently. You have not provided any evidence that these numbers are falsified.
- Those 3 edits were each on separate days. 60+ hours between the first and the third.
- If you think we need more responses feel free to do another RFC. I will work off of the RSN conclusion.
- WP:ORGSOURCE is an essay by an individual describing their opinion. WP:ABOUTSELF is a policy. This source is acceptable under WP:ABOUTSELF. Sudonymous (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Sudonymous: Well actually you did not follow RSN, which suggested in-text but gave no conclusion on weighting issues. I see no reason to ignore RFC I do not understand why you think RSN makes these comments negligible.
- Yes I noticed you waited till just over the 24 hour period, as indicated above.
- That is interesting that the previous quote is 12000. I was not aware the SoS website quoted this prior to updating to 14000. Perhaps you could provide this source?
- I am also surprised by your knowledge of what the SoS website has looked like in the past, as you have claimed that prior to recent editing you had no knowledge of the organisation. Linn C Doyle (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Sudonymous: So I found a peer reviewed membership estimate in a journal article. This has been included in the article, so hopefully this clears the issue up :) It is a journal article so this info is more than suitable for infobox inclusion which you seemed eager to do :) Linn C Doyle (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Linn C Doyle: If you look at the edit history of this page, it previously mentioned 12,000 members with the SoS website cited as a source. I assume this means the website used to state 12,000 members. I see you're once again trying to accuse me of a COI, it's getting annoying so please stop. — Sudonymous 21:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC) — continues after insertion below
- @Sudonymous: Again, please no WP:PA. Nobody accused you of having a COI there. I said I was surprised about your factual statement regarding a source which you claim to have no knowledge of. Thank you for explaining this was in fact an assumption based on previous versions of this page :) Linn C Doyle (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- If you read the journal article, it actually cites the SoS website as the source for the 10,000 number. If a peer-reviewed academic paper considers the SoS website reliable for membership data, I think it's reasonable that we also consider it reliable. Seeing as this paper is relatively old, I think it would make sense to cite the SoS website for the up to date number. For the moment though I'm just adding the 10,000 number to the infobox and rewording the sentence slightly. Sudonymous (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Sudonymous: I am not sure that is how academic publishing works. Further clarification from RFC editors or the RSN noticeboard may be able to provide you further insight into whether or not it is appropriate to replace figures sourced from journal publishing with self-published sources. Thank you for adding the source to the infobox :) Linn C Doyle (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Linn C Doyle: Academic publishing uses reliable sources. If a source is reliable enough for a published paper, it should be reliable enough for Wikipedia. We also know the page is reliable under WP:ABOUTSELF. The point is not replacing journal-published sources with self-published sources, but 7 year old sources with recent sources. Up to date information is useful.
- You were clearing implying that I did have prior knowledge about SoS and was lying previously. That is WP:PA. Myself pointing out your WP:PA is not a personal attack. Sudonymous (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Use the journal source and include both in body and infobox. Does not need WP:INTEXT attribution. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
COI
@Linn C Doyle:, why did you add a COI tag for me? I told you I don't have a COI. User:Fences and windows above told you not to keep asserting that users have COI's without any basis for saying so. You would do well to heed their advice. I removed this tag. If Sudonymous or someone else wants to re-add it let them do it - I won't remove it until it's resolved. But please refrain from doing so, Linn until your COI status is resolved. Jadbaz (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Jadbaz, you may have missed my later comments at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1008504374#Sword_of_the_Spirit, where I pointed out that your first major edit in 2008 was to create a draft of an article on this topic. I believe you likely do have a COI, though of course I cannot prove so. Fences&Windows 18:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Jadbaz I do not understand why your willingness to be identified as a COI editor is dependant on what editor tags you as such?Linn C Doyle (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Kairos
@Linn C Doyle: The consensus from the Kairos AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kairos (retreat)) is that the Kairos page should be merged into Sword of the Spirit, not deleted. The paragraphs you are deleting are all that is left from the Kairos page, so by deleting them you are effectively deleting the page, violating the consensus of merging the two pages. The information contains citation from educational institutions, which seems like a reliable source to me. The information is also certainly coherent. Can you explain why you are insistent on deleting it? It does not help that most of your edits deleting it do not even have summaries. Sudonymous (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
@Sudonymous: No PA attack on talk page or in edit comments please. Prior to claiming vandalism, please review wiki guidelines, and ensure that you are using this term accurately. If you believe vandalism is taking place, please deal with this correctly rather than simply throwing around accusations.
By item: - Greek origin of the word is irrelevant. There is in fact already an entire article on this word https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kairos - "a Roman Catholic retreat program for high school and college. Kairos is part of the larger three-day movement in America, ultimately derived from the Cursillo movement founded in Spain in 1944." is completely unreferenced. - "As such, the retreat is a four-day, three-night retreat,[24] with the aim of providing participants the chance to "contemplate God's role in their lives".[25]"
- This relies on high school blog posts. A better source of information is Karios own website, which does not say this, but instead more succinctly states religious doctrine education and evangelism purposes, as referenced in the content deleted by yourself.
- "It was first held in 1965 by the Diocese of Brooklyn, in the United States, and has operated under its current name since 1979." Again is unreferenced. It also seems highly unlikely that this refers to the same Kairos discussed on this page, as Sword of the Spirit did not exist at this point in time. - "It is conceptually based in Ignatian spirituality as put forth in the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola.[26]"
- This is tangential, not notable, and again relies on high school blog references. It is not consistent with information on Kairos own website.
- "A team of priests, brothers, and lay people under the direction of Fr. Douglas L. Brown of the Brooklyn Diocese made use of the Cursillo retreat format, which has its roots in Ignatian spirituality, but adapted it for older teenagers.[27] Within three years, the retreat was adopted nation-wide.[28]"
- This clearly does not refer to the Kairos organisation run by Sword of the Spirit again, with the reference dates predating the organisation.
- "The retreats are usually led mostly by the peers of the participants.[30] Each team is composed of student leaders who have already been on the retreat as well as a few faculty members from the school. Kairos retreats are often held at secluded retreat houses removed from mainstream society.[31][32]"
- This does not seem noteworthy
Linn C Doyle (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Inaccurate merge
This link used to refer to the popular Kairos retreat based in the Cursillo movement. Those retreats have been incorrectly associated with this different retreat history. Is there a way the editors can create two separate branches and reclaim the old retreat version in the edit history as a separate program? Thanks. Aipacetti (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
2023 overhaul
I have finally gotten around to a complete overhaul of this page, in order to fix the neutrality issues. Here is an explanation of some of the bigger changes:
- Lede: I have removed the reference to "sheperding"—I cannot confirm the relationship between SOS and the shepherding movement in the cited material; seems to be speculation
- History: I have greatly expanded this section, incorporating some of the neutral content from the section on "Notable member communities"
- Notable member communities: I have removed this section, either by transferring the material into the history section, or (in the cases of People of Praise and Servants of Christ the King) by deleting it. There is just too much information here. An article on a religious order should not go into the details of all the provinces/households. The section on "In Popular Culture" seemed totally out of place, as well as speculative.
- Servants of the Word: I have added this community to the history section. I have left out the allegations of child abuse, for the following reasons: (1) the accused individual is not notable; (2) articles on religious orders (e.g., the Dominicans) do not include such accusations/convictions, unless the abuse was committed by a notable member, or in reference to a widespread issue across the organization.
- Youth outreach: I have removed this section, for lack of good sources; but if there are better sources, it should be included under the "mission" subsection I added near the bottom
- Description
- Religious practices: I removed this section; all this information belongs at Charismatic Christianity
- Finances: I removed this short section; I cannot find the stated claim in the cited book
- Gender roles: I simplified this section, and moved it under the subsection on doctrine; the line about “seize the territory” was stripped from its original context
- Islam, feminism, homosexuality and communism: removed as off-topic; this is much too detailed for a general description, not to mention a commonplace element of conservative Christian groups
- Reception: I transferred this source to the history, which includes criticism in the 1990s subsection. I removed the line citing NYTimes; this is an article about the People of Praise, and moreover, does not seem to contain the information claimed in the article.
- Academic study: this section is also off-topic, although I have made use of this source elsewhere. But this source, which deals with shepherding groups in general, is off-topic.
- Notable members: updated and cited, including only members with a Wikipedia article
Thanks to Linn C Doyle for the variety of sources you discovered here; I have retained almost all of them. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)