Talk:Sword of the Spirit

SOS

Hello Linn C Doyle. I have reverted your edit here, because it comprised original research. It is generally fine to post original research on the Internet, but it is not suitable for Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:No original research). That said, you introduced a legitimate topic to the page, but one that we can include only once a secondary source (e.g., a newspaper, journal) asserts these findings. You did, however, cite one post from Michigan Radio -- while it seems to be a reliable source, I decided to take it off, because it only references the Sword of the Spirit in passing (the article seems to be about an individual, not the organization he is/was connected to). Please let me know if you have any questions, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello.

Multiple new sources and web pages (from official organisation website as per rest of article) were referenced.

Multiple mainstream newspaper sources and magazine sources were included: Times Union [Albany, NY], The Troubadour, National Catholic Reporter, Michigan Radio.

This is therefore not original research as per the description of reliable sources to include "mainstream newspapers" and "magazines" in accordance with Wikipedia guidlines.

I have reverted your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linn C Doyle (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your reply. Let me try to clarify: the Times Union, National Catholic Reporter, and the Troubadour are reliable sources, but those articles do not mention the Sword of the Spirit. Are you saying that the accused/convicted individuals are/were members of the Sword of the Spirit? If so, there needs to be reliable sources asserting that. Even then, however, I'm not sure this information belongs on this page. Take, for example, the NBA. Some NBA players have done notable things on their own (whether meritorious or, like in this case, nefarious). However, such player-specific information belongs on the individual player's article, not the NBA article. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Reference to webpages include web-pages detailing membership of individual members on organisation official website or on web pages containing copies of organisation official documents. Reference to web-pages detailing youth outreach work relevant to these organisations throughout the time of these raised concerns is included in web-pages.

This article pertains specifically to an ongoing child-safety concern spscific to Sword of the Spirit and Servants of the Word policy and membership. It is not a random collection of information which belongs to individuals.

I have reverted your edit.

I have reverted your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linn C Doyle (talk • contribs)

Hello again! I've asked for another opinion on this question, in hopes of reaching a conclusion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I have taken a third opinion request for this page and am currently reviewing the issues. I shall replace this text shortly with my reply. I have made no previous edits on Sword of the Spirit and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 05:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Arbitrarily0: and @Linn C Doyle: After review, I have to agree with Arbitrarily0 on this matter. I also find an issue with the way in which the section "Child Abuse and Sexual Misconduct" is set. It (1) is very poorly worded (2) appears to me to be OR, (3) There is nothing really being added to the article by adding them. It is like reading a vinyl record that is skipping on the same track over and over again because every sentence is started with "Concerns were raised...", (4) you cannot use the subjects own website as a cited source as it is considered biased. My recommendation is to allow the reversion of the edits as Arbitrarily0 started in the beginning of this discussion. As a reminder, this is only a third opinion and is not binding in any way. If you still feel that this needs to go to the next step, please make sure you get enough editors' comments on this page before opening the next step in the dispute resolution process. I am a volunteer with the dispute resolution noticeboard, so shall it get to that point, I will not be your moderator, nor can I be named as an editor since I am only providing a third opinion. Have a great one and keep on helping Wikipedia! Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 05:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Galendalia. @Lynn C. Doyle: I have followed Galendalia's opinion, but if you disagree, please continue the discussion here, rather than reverting the edit, so that we can come to a consensus (see Wikipedia's related guideline here). Also, please let us know if you have any questions about this process. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am reading this article and its quality doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's standards. I am affiliated with the Sword of the Spirit, so I would appreciate some help from neutral contributors, but I have many concerns over the objectivity of this article. It looks like it was written by someone who has had a bad experience with the Sword of the Spirit. Much of what it says is outdated (from the 1980's and 1990's). What is the best way to improve this article? Thanks. Franciskouj (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey Linn, First of all, Thomas Csordas' book does not say that the Charismatic Movement has its roots in the Shepherding movement. He merely says in a footnote: 3. The form of covenant community headship apparently is an adaptation of the "shepherding" relationship practiced earlier in Derek Prince and Robert Mumford's neo-Pentecostal Christian Growth Ministries, now defunct.

Now who you need to speak to is Billy Kangas from the Word of God community. He is doing his PhD thesis on this topic, and can explain all about the links with the shepherding movement :)

Secondly, I'd be interested to hear what others think about Professor Csordas. Is he a reliable source? Just from reading a bit of what he wrote and surveying the different books he's written, it seems to me like he has a dog in the fight.

Professor Csordas is a Professor. I am not sure there is a higher authority for information on a topic.

Thirdly, why do you think this is relevant here?

The relevance of the Shepherding movement goes a long way in explaining the location of sos on the political spectrum of christian institutions, and provides a relevant personal link for the personal history of sos founders and senior leadership (martin, clarke, scanlan). I believe this is informative and noteworthy, as the shepherding movement was another christian counter-culture that attracted some mainstream media reporting.

Ah yes here it is, if you are interested in ralph, steve and the shepherding movement there are links to the fort lauderdale mob meeting minutes where you can see ralph and steve on the council.

http://cristolaverdad.com/?p=3434 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linn C Doyle (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Now I found the passage in Csordas book about shepherding pg 80 in most prints I believe theres discussion of the fort laudardale crew.

It's right there next to the part about performing exorcisms.

I'm sure it is somewhere else in here too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linn C Doyle (talk • contribs) 18:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Best, Franciskouj (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Linn C Doyle,

I'm not sure what version of Csordas' book you're reading.

Here's a query of "shepherding" in the [text of the book].

As I mentioned above, you'll see that, "Shepherding" only appears in a footnote.

I'm going to remove that sentence since it misquotes the source.

Also it's is chronologically impossible for the Charismatic movement which emerged around 1960 to take its roots from the shepherding movement which emerged in the 70s & 80s

Best, Franciskouj (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned above there is a specific page reference which holds in the copy of the book you are using to discussion of the fort lauderdale crowd whom were extremely prolific in the shepherding movement. In the version of the book you are using you have searched for "shepherd" If you search "shepherding" you will find in Notes, Section 3 'A Communitarian Ideal', Item 3 in the list.

"The form of covenant community headship apparently is an adaptation of the "shepherding" relationship practiced earlier in Derek Prince and Robert Mumford's neo-Pentecostal Christian Growth Ministries, now defunct"

This is the most clear of multiple references in this book which you have been directed to which state inspiration from the shepherding movement.

You have also been directed to supplimentary material for your personal research where we see clark and martin on the fort lauderdale council with mumford etc.

May I kindly ask that if you are unable to find the reference yourself please query on the talk page prior to editing content and removing contributions and reliable sources added by other wiki authors.

Chronologically an organisation founded in 1982 can indeed take roots in a movement from 1970. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:DA02:5501:9492:B5A3:57B4:1684 (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

@Arbitrarily0:

Dear Arbitrarily0

I am having continued issue with your reverting of my edits to the Sword of the Spirit page.

Firstly, I believe you are intentionally misrepresenting the edit as original research. Mainstream news sources are cited repeatedly. Where appropriate the organisation own website has been cited to validate the membership of organisations. Where possible links to online publishing of organisation documents has been used (such as the Book: 1987 Community Directory of Servants of Christ the King), and website where hard documents were not available.

Secondly I believe you are being inconsistent with the quality of source this article. In your original edits to the page you created you have repeatedly referenced organisation own website as a source.

Thirdly some facts have been stated that do not conform to your own reliability standards: For example 90 communities, 12,000 members and 28 countries are all unverifiable.

Finally I am well aware that the in your first reversion of my edits includes the removal of your contribution to the page on the Servants of the Word, the organisation to which much of my edits were specifically relevant.

I believe if there is an issue with phrasing or correctly listing sources (such as books containing member lists) the a 'cleanup' should be done rather than a stonewall removal of edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linn C Doyle (talk • contribs) 15:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I will be raising this Dispute in an effort to find a solution and to ensure no corporate vanity issues are biasing the article.

Linn C Doyle

Sourcing

Arbitrarily0 is an administrator. So am I. I am here to join Arbitrarily0 in telling you that your edits are inappropriate. They are inappropriate for a lot of reasons, but let's start with the most important.

All content relating to living people must be sourced to the very highest standards and must be stated neutrally, per our policy on living people. That applies equally to saints and monsters.

Now the specifics of how we source articles.

Wikipedia relies on reliable independent secondary sources.

The Scribd document is what we call a primary source (published directly by the original author), and it is not reliable because it has not been published by a reputable publisher with a fact-checking process. The website bishop(-)accountability.org is not reliable by our standards. It has no independent review and is an activist website. The Troubador is a student website. These are sometimes reliable (e.g. the Harvard Crimson) but usually not, and certainly not for controversial content. NCR may be considered reliable depending on context, but it would need to support exactly the text you're adding, you are not allowed to interpret it or read between the lines. Jamie Treadwell's website is self-published and not reliable. And lastly, servants of the word is also self-published.

That doesn't mean we can't cover this issue if reliable sources exist, but they do need to be really reliable. Of the standard of at least a respectable State newspaper. Guy (help!) 17:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Galendalia:

@Number 57:

@JzG:

@Arbitrarily0:

Great to get these issues addressed.

I would love to contribute to this article.

Can you please assist in inclusion of this material in an appropriate manner that conforms to Wiki standards?

Regarding unreliable sources, the website of the organisation is self published but used as reference for the statement of membership quotas (12,000 members, 90 communities, 28 countries). Surely this should be removed as unverifiable?

Regarding source reliability, is any book a good reference? I notice some books in the original reference material that appear to be published by affiliates of the Sword of the Spirit and Servants of the Word. Is this OK or should such books be considered unverifiable as there is no unbiased peer-review?

• • • PLEASE ADDRESS THIS SECTION****

Regarding removal of section on Sword of Spirit affiliation removed by Arbitrarily0 at beginning of this dispute, namely the referenced section on Servants of the Word. This edit can be found here. I am confused as to why Arbitrarily0 has chosen to remove this section which is their own material? Perhaps you can clear this up. I believe that the referenced note of affiliation between Sword of the Spirit and Servants of the Word is worth noting and should be restored to the page.

To be frank this was the edit that raised a RED FLAG with me regarding Non-Neutral point of view. Arbitrarily0 removed the section on Servants of the Word which was created by themselves. Arbitrarily then stated in this response to the edit (See first paragraph under SOS) that this article seemed reputable but 'only mentioned Sword of Spirit in passing'. There is however repeated discussion of Servants of the Word, the organisation that Arbitrarily0 had originally included in the article, and seemed to remove without mention before removing my edit and escalating this issue.

It is for this reason I have found difficulty navigating contributing to this article.

Regarding sourcing and information regarding individuals. There are past and current legal cases and findings against many of these individuals. I can understand why this should be explicitly proven.

Would multiple mainstream news articles reporting the conviction of Servants of the Word members of sexual assault of children and detailing previous knowledge by the Servants of the Word of 'patterns' in this individuals behaviour and previous allegations against this individual be sufficient conclusive verification of the fact?

Can you please help me understand if a source is 'mainstream news' or not? Are these sources considered mainstream news? FOX local channel the American Conservative Michigan Live Times Union

Is a first hand account a reputable source of allegations?

If information like this is listed about individuals is listed on other wiki pages (for example can it not be included on this page (considering individuals roles as senior management within Sword of the Spirit and Servants of the Word)

Can I clarify: is significant history of child protection failure and sexual assault of children something you consider relevant to this article, or is the sentiment that this sort of thing should not be discussed on wikipedia?

If there is any help you can provide it would be much appreciated.

Linn

I intend to contribute on other aspects of Sword of the Spirit history such as the investigation of the Word of God community and Sword of the Spirit by Archbishop Ottenweller and the response of SOS founders Ralph Martin and Steve Clarke to the resultant report. Is a copy of the original report by Ottenweller a reputable source (here). Can archived news reports such as this or this be considered a good secondary source? For relevance there are many other sources of similar quality (scans of old newspapers etc).

Is a University published Master's Thesis a good source? here

I notice that this is discussed to a degree on this wiki, though not with relevance to the Sword of the Spirit.

I do also notice that some of the material being removed from this page is of a similar ilk here this raises some RED FLAGS and I want to make sure I can add to articles correctly.

@Galendalia:

@Number 57:

@JzG:

@Arbitrarily0:

Thanks for your patience. I want to prevent any confusion in future. It would be great if you could help me with a consensus on what is good or not as a source before anything gets referenced. OK so can I just check I am understanding good secondary sources correctly: this is a good ref? this is a good ref? this is sometimes ok?

This is sometimes ok? This is a good ref? This is a good ref?

This is definitely a good ref?

This is a scan of a 1992 issue of Detroit Free Press discussing SOS. Is this ok to ref?

This Washington Post article series is Ok?

This journal article from cultic studies journal is a good source?

This is sometimes OK?

This NYT article is definitely OK?

This scanned version of Fidelity magazine is ... not good?

This interview with Ralph Martin published in Charisma magazine is sometimes ok?

This published Master's Thesis is a good source?

Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

In turn,

• American Conservative is unreliable
• wtov9.com is probably OK
• ncronline.org should be used with caution as it has a dog in the fight
• woodtv.com and michiganradio.org are probably OK
• Don't knowe about mlive.com
• icsahome.com, avoid
• Scans of copyright works are a violation of copyright but you can cite the original from Detroit Free Press
• WaPo is good
• spiritualabuseresources.com is unreliable
• natcath.org should be used with caution as it has a dog in the fight
• New York Times is good
• Fidelity magazine and Charisma not so much
• Masters theses also not so good

That's how these things are usually interpreted.

But you have to watch for the tendency to decide what you want to say and then look for sources to support it: instead, you should read the sources and reflect what they say., Guy (help!) 09:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

OK Great :)

What about books published by members of the organisation? Like 'Man and Woman in Christ' by Steven B Clarke (Sword of Spirit founder)? Or 'Language, Charisma, and Creativity: Ritual Life in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal' by Thomas Csordas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linn C Doyle (talk • contribs) 11:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Linn C Doyle, they are not usually considered independent. The tests are:

1. Is this a reliable publisher, that is, one that owuld be readily recognised as trustworthy by other editors?

2. Is it independent of the events under discussion, or do the author and the publisher both have a dog in the fight?

3. Is it secondary, describing existing scholarship, or primary, promoting a novel thesis ab initio?

We want sources that meet all three. Guy (help!) 13:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Galendalia:

@Number 57:

@JzG:

@Arbitrarily0:

with respect to university news outlets is MIT Tech considered a reputable university outlet here?

Ok so I am wandering if it worth including edits to some subjects. For example Word of God community, Sword of the Spirit and Servants of the Word are not mentioned a great deal outside of self-publishing (books by those which 'have a dog in the fight', administrative documents, websites) and some local (Michigan Radio) or potentially biased (National Catholic Reporter) sources.

Some good sources I have include Washington Post, Fox News, New York Times and some mention in academic journals. Possible supplementary sources are Detroit Free Press and Michigan Radio, Wood TV. These sources specifically pertain to practices and history of the organisation Sword of the Spirit, Servants of the Word and Word of God.

The issue I am considering is at present all sources currently used in the pages on Sword of the Spirit and Word of God do not meet the reliability requirements you have kindly outlined for me. Namely all sources used on the Sword of the Spirit and Servants of the Word are published directly by the organisations or indirectly by members and affiliates, or fall into the category of unreliable local or biased new sources.

The information I wish to add builds on top of the existing article which contains only unreliable source material. Is it worth adding reliable source material to a wiki page that doesn't have any where the referencable material you wish to add is supplementary? Linn C Doyle (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Galendalia:

@Number 57:

@JzG:

@Arbitrarily0:

Is it possible to restore This section to the page. This section was created by Arbitrarily0 then removed by Arbitrarily0 upon the inclusion of further material regarding Servants of the Word. I believe there may be an 'advertism' issue here where it is not desired that the Sword of the Spirit affiliation with Servants of the Word is recorded (suppression of information). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linn C Doyle (talk • contribs)

I'd like to remain uninvolved here, but I should mention that I don't object to reinserting that section, if other editors also deem it appropriate. Thanks all for your input, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/7116003/detroit-free-press/ Sword of the Spirit Membership verification — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linn C Doyle (talk • contribs) 22:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

YMCA youth ambassador (Pg 12) http://www.hayowentha.org/documents/2018_Annual_Report.pdf

Reported membership of Fr John Bertolucci verification https://www.scribd.com/document/64895311/Sword-of-the-Spirit-and-the-Central-Intelligence-Agency-1988 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linn C Doyle (talk • contribs) 22:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Word of God

Why is this section here if the Word of God has not been a part of the Sword of the Spirit since 1990? Would it not be better under history? Thanks! Franciskouj (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Francisco Founder community. Historical relevance. The refusal of steve clarke to acknowledge Bishop Ottenwellers condemnation of the Sword of the Spirit as Ralph Martin has done is significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:DA02:5501:30A5:1E89:BFA1:42D0 (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

People of Hope

The sentence on Maragaret Atwood is not an objective statement, I think. For example, the author of this article, Jim Geraghty thinks otherwise. He says: "No, the ‘People of Hope’ Group Did Not Inspire The Handmaid’s Tale" Thanks, Franciskouj (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi

National Review is not as highly regarded a publisher as Penguin.

Margaret Atwood directly mentions People of Hope as inspiration in this interview. This is a direct quote 'straight from the horses mouth' as printed by Penguin.

The opinion piece you have cited does not reasonably debunk this quote by any measure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:DA02:5501:30A5:1E89:BFA1:42D0 (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Friend, Concerning your reverts on the NY Times article, please check out the scanned article https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1986/05/04/issue.html. You will there see that "Empire of Evil" is the title for the following paragraph. The digitized copy makes it seem like it is part of the previous paragraph. So I maintain that Fr Philipp Rotunno did not say the Sword of the Spirit is an Evil Empire but that he said that it thinks it is fighting an Empire of Evil which it considers the world. Let me know what you think. Thanks! Franciskouj (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Arbitrarily0: and @MelanieN:, First of all I want to thank you for your neutrality and for helping to resuce this article. As you can see on my User page, I'm part of this organization so I have a conflict of interest. But I would like to help make this page better. I would suggest rewording the sentence on Margaret Atwood as follows: Margaret Atwood, the author of The Handmaid's Tale said that the People of Hope "subordinates its women" and that their treatment of women is "a form of brainwashing". This sentence makes it clear that it is her opinion, rather than established fact. The article does not use the word "subjugates" but rather "subordinates". In fact, it does not mention the Sword of the Spirit at all although the People of Hope is part of the Sword of the Spirit.

Secondly I would like to suggest that a sentence be added after: "In 1986, the Archbishop of Newark, Peter L. Gerty, ordered the People of Hope community to end their affiliation with the Sword of the Spirit." I would suggest adding: These concerns have since been resolved. This article says: "Archbishop John Myers said he’s satisfied that those concerns have been addressed, and he recently bestowed official recognition on both the People of Hope and upon Koinonia Academy."

Again, thanks. I'll be asking for your help on other sections of the article too. Franciskouj (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Franciskouj. Thank you for following the guidelines for COI editing and suggesting your edits here on the talk page where other editors can discuss and add them. However, I will not be having anything to do with the content of the article. My only involvement here is as an administrator who protected the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Franciskouj Hey francisco! So you had suggested expanding on the people of hope section RE Archbishop Peter Gertys order to sever ties with Sword of the Spirit and later recognition of the poh as a lay community after having addressed issues. Theres a great Washington Post article on the topic (if a little brief but a reputable source so this would be excellent to include). https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1986/02/15/ties-to-sect-curbed-at-nj-school/8eeb35ec-1936-4d7d-accf-b634f74d7b0b/ Specifically it speaks to concerns POH were trying to 'take over' the local school and parish by moving members residence to the area. Theres some discussion of other issues such as "The People of Hope speak in tongues and have brought in their own clergy to perform rites. Critics in the parish accused the group of discouraging social interaction between its members and other parishioners, of arranging marriages for its youth and of moving teen-aged followers into their homes for indoctrination". Theres specific mention of the Archbishop ordering 70 POH members to dissafiliate with sos or be fired from their jobs at the school.

This to me seems like great supplement to the discussion of POH and SOS history with respect to notable events that have been reported in reputable mainstream news sources. It was great that you put that NCR article discussing sos and the local catholic school such archbishop intervention is quite noteworthy for Christian organisations such as sos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linn C Doyle (talk • contribs) 18:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Linn, I think that Theodore McCarrick is not a good spokesperson for the Catholic Church. As you may be well aware, he was defrocked / laicized on 13 February 2019 after he was found guilty of sexual crimes against adults and minors and abuse of power, many of which were going on when he issued his letter against the People of Hope. Best, Franciskouj (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed I would agree belonging to an organisation which protects child abusers is something to be taken into account when judging the character of a person. The validity of the reference, however, is related to publishing reputability rather than personal politics I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:DA02:5501:6C22:E5E:430B:6603 (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Linn C Doyle, You mention in the article that "The People of Hope remained an unrecognised Catholic lay community until 2007 on the grounds of complaints of "abuse, mind control, elitist behaviour and cult-like controls" from ex-members of the group." You put "abuse, mind control, elitist behaviour and cult-like controls" in quotation marks. Where are you quoting from? I googled your quote and found nothing but the Wikipedia article. Franciskouj (talk) 12:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Franciskouj you yourself provided the source https://www.ncronline.org/news/charges-cult-behavior-against-nj-charismatics-resolved-myers-says and suggested it's content be included in the article. It is referenced at the end of the paragraph following all content from that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:DA02:5501:9492:B5A3:57B4:1684 (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Islam, Feminism, Homosexuality and Communism

This section says: These four key opponents of Clarks model for Christianity are listed in Sword of the Spirit training manuals as "Islam, communism, feminism and gay rights" The source for this is here. The way I read it, this is not enough proof that this was part of training manuals in the past (the book it refers to is from 1980), let alone now. Franciskouj (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Francisco A The text directly notes bigotry towards these demographics as specified in steve clarkes Sword of the Spirit training manual. The article section reflects this accurately. I do not understand what other way this information can be 'read'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:DA02:5501:30A5:1E89:BFA1:42D0 (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello again @Arbitrarily0: and @MelanieN:, I'm part of this organization and have received all and even taught some of the training courses. I've never come across anything that says that we think or teach that "Islam, Feminism, Homosexuality and Communism" are the four key opponents of Christianity. Instead we teach the classic Christian formula of "the world, the flesh and the devil" as what needs to be fought against. Franciskouj (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi I have actually read this book and that is an accurate quote clarke does lay these down as opponents of christianity. Theres some extreme view on race and gender from 'man and woman in christ' (see the section on machismo in ch23 for some interesting perceptions of 'black american culture'). There is some living bulwark articles where steve clarke refers to homosexuality as a disease as well. The training manual the book refers to has actually been copied by a beautiful soul and is available online here https://www.scribd.com/document/99711118/The-Complete-Training-Course-of-the-Sword-of-the-Spirit-1982

It would be great to include some more up-to-date info though. Do you have any sources from reputable unbiased publishers that you think would be good to include? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linn C Doyle (talk • contribs) 19:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Linn, I think it's already been established that Scribd is not a reliable source. You have misquoted Csordas' book, and that is what I take issue with. Best, Franciskouj (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The Csordas quote is indeed accurate. Scribd was not the reference, that was for you as you seemed to be under the impression that the training manual did not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:DA02:5501:6C22:E5E:430B:6603 (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I have the quote pg 87. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linn C Doyle (talk • contribs) 17:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The Servants of the Word

Hello, It is worth noting that Mr Treadwell is no longer part of neither the Servants of the Word nor the Sword of the Spirit. You can see the Servants of the Word response to this https://servantsoftheword.org/press-releases/important-update-on-mr-jamie-treadwell.

Franciskouj (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Fantastic it would be great to include some servants of the word / sword of the spirit reaction to the whole jamie treadwell / ed conlin child abuse issue. I dont think something that is self-published can be accepted as non-biased. It would be awesome if you could share any sources you have on this from reputable non-biased publishers :)

Servants of Christ the King

Hello, I am not sure why this section is relevant to this article. The Servants of Christ the King disaffiliated from the Sword of the Spirit a very long time ago - even before I was born! Please help us improve this section. Also, the section says: The Servants of Christ the King disaffiliated from the Sword of the Spirit in 1991 ... following findings ... Then the source it cites is fom 1997. Decisions in 1991 do not follow on findings from 1997.

Franciskouj (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it is normal for publishing to describe events after they have occured. SOCK was one of the founder communities in sos and has historical relevance in its membership and with relevance to steve clarke and micheal scanlon, who are prolific sos leaders. This seems worth mention.

Hey Linn, You neglected to explain how [1997 follows 1991]. Correction: I meant to repeat my question from above: The Servants of Christ the King disaffiliated from the Sword of the Spirit in 1991 ... following findings ... Then the source it cites is fom 1997. Decisions in 1991 do not follow on findings from 1997.

Also, please let me remind you that much of this content was removed by @Number 57: on 14 May 2020. you tried to insert it then, and it was rejected by the community.

Quite a few contributors (including @JzG: and @Arbitrarily0:) thought the article was better without this content.

Why are you re-inserting it now?

Before posting anything controversial, as you recommend above in the talk, "It would be great if you could [get] a consensus". Thanks, Franciskouj (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

This all might be a little confusing. 1997 follows 1991 chronologically. Previous edits have indeed been made to this page and I am sure more will be made. Some references that were discussed previously have indeed been used. These references and content is all of a reputable character. The content I have contributed has been included because it is noteworthy, and informative.

Reception

Hello, I would suggest adding this paragraph to the section on Reception: Archbishop George Bacouni, Greek Catholic Archbishop of Beirut, describes the community life within the Sword of the Spirit: The Sword of the Spirit ... is modelled on the Lord's own ... (teaching to)... the disciples on the Emmaus road as we read in the 24th chapter of the gospel of Luke. It is not solely aimed at education of the mind but rather at bringing the faithful to a personal relationship with Jesus, to discovery of their call and mission, and to a deeper communion with the Church. —Georges Bacouni, SYNODUS EPISCOPORUM BULLETIN Franciskouj (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I've added this. It seems to simply state what a bishop thought of this organization.Jadbaz (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure the vatican's website is a reliable or unbiased source.

This NCR article is interesting, but does not speak to the reception of the Sword of the Spirit. Specifically it refers to People of Hope having succesfully changed community life to avoid the criticism of cult-like and abusive behaviour which resulted in the order to dissafiliate with stephen clarkes organisation. perhaps worth inclusion in People of Hope section though as it is relevant to historic involvement with sos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linn C Doyle (talk • contribs) 18:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Linn, The purpose of inserting this sentence would be to add to the section on "Reception". If one is trying to say: here is how this organization was received by different bishops, the Vatican's website is the best possible source, hearing it straight from the horses' mouth. Franciskouj (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Francisco A So the vaticans website is not reliable source because the institution is biased. It is great to hear the opinion of a range of different sources, but I think it is best where the publisher of the source is reputable as unbiased (for example Washington Post or New York Times, academic publishing etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linn C Doyle (talk • contribs) 17:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

exorcism, prophecy

How do we all feel about including a section on sos practices: ie exorcisms, prophecies, gift of tongues, faith healing etc. Some discussion of native sos rituals such as 'lords days', gift of spirits etc. Prof Csordas provides some good resource, and theres some cursory mentions in mainstream news that seemed worth reporting that could be used as suppliment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linn C Doyle (talk • contribs) 18:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

Hi Franciskouj. I noticed you have placed a Conflict of Interest tag on this page.

As far as I can tell all content is neutral in that I believe I: "strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". with respect to neutrality guidelines on balanced articles. It is unfortunate that the reliable published material on the subject discusses unsavoury topics. Franciskouj has been invited to contribute and produce reliable publishing with discussion of different topics, however seems to simply revert, blank and otherwise vandalise contributions by other editors. Franciskouj is employed by the Sword of the Spirit.

Franciskouj I notice there is no mention of any Conflict of Interest dispute. Franciskouj I notice you have not explicitly stated what specifically the conflict of interest is and what you believe evidences this conflict of interest. Franciskouj would you like to engage in discussion with other editors as to what you believe this conflict of interest might be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linn C Doyle (talk • contribs) 17:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Hello, I would like to request help here. I have a COI and have disclosed it from the outset. As you can see from my contributions, they are quite neutral - I haven't added anything to the text, I've just tried to correct what seem to me to be other users misquoting their sources. I will try other methods to draw attention to the article. My concern is that Linn C Doyle seems to have free rein on this article, and it is obvious she has a conflict of interest. She explicitly stated: "Though I would agree my first wiki edits are a statement of anger of the issues that have been whitewashed from the history I believe you will find that subsequent edits have accurately and without bias reflected proportionally the body of work in reliable sources on this topic." So I'm hoping this edit request will draw attention to the article.

• Information to be removed: the phrase, in the introductory paragraph: "which takes it's roots from the Shepherding movement."
• Explanation of issue: The Charismatic Movement does not have it's roots in the Shepherding Movement.
  • It is chronologically impossible for the Charismatic movement which emerged around 1967 (in the Catholic Church and even earlier in Protestant Churches) to take its roots from the shepherding movement which came later, in the early 1970s.
• References supporting change:
  • Charismatic movement emerged in 1967:
  • Shepherding movement emerged in early 1970s: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470670606.wbecc1256
    • Also, the source cited () by the contributor who wrote this does not say that. The author merely says in a footnote: 3. The form of covenant community headship apparently is an adaptation of the "shepherding" relationship practiced earlier in Derek Prince and Robert Mumford's neo-Pentecostal Christian Growth Ministries, now defunct.
      • This is a very weak connection: it states that the "form of headship apparently is an adaptation" of a shepherding relationship. It does not state that one movement came out of another.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Franciskouj (talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Hi Franciskouj.

As you have been previously informed the source actually mentions the shepherding movement with respect to the covenant community movement in multiple sections, not merely in a footnote. Pg 34, 80, 89

The wording does, in this case, specify specifically that the sword of the spirit as a covenant community association takes many influences from the Shepherding movement, not the charismatic movement itself.

Either way the reference is from a published psychology professor who studies the topic, so the best way to query this would maybe be to provide a contradictory reference of equal repute?

The article you have presented yourself https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470670606.wbecc1256 describes the two movements as "concurrent".

As you say the Shepherding movement developed through the 70s.

Chronologically the association of covenant communities is founded in 75, and the sword of the spirit 81/82.

Is there any other edits you think would be constructive?Linn C Doyle (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I would also point out Franciskouj that you have indeed had suggested edits made. You came forward with an edit to the People of Hope, and brought forward an additional source (the news article discussed in the second paragraph), and both are included in this article. The only form of pushback you have ever encountered is when you have been deleting sections of text and deleting references on a page you have declared a conflict of interest for, where you have been specifically directed to explicit pages in the source material, as well as some supplementary material to validate this for you in your own research.Linn C Doyle (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that the request has been declined, and reasons were given for declining it, so I am closing this edit request. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Distruptive Editing

Hi @Jadbaz:

I have noticed that you have made several edits to the content of this page.

Would you perhaps like to declare any COI?

Several of your edits appear distruptive. Namely:

Inclusion of a quote from an uninvolved Bishop as reported in a leaflet produced within a dept of the vatican. This is a WP:N issue where really the reference is Not Notable. Though this is indeed a point of view on reception it is not sensible to include the point of view of anyone quoted from anywhere. Any reception comments should be made by notable and relevant personalities, and reported in at least reputable mainstream media.

This is not disruptive - simply you think that a quote from a bishop is not notable, while I think it is. I'm not sure what you mean about uninvolved. Uninvolved in any scandals, yes. But this page is not about scandal, it's about an organization that goes beyond the scandals. Jadbaz (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I am sure that we can agree (or at least follow wiki guidlines) in that, regardless of how one values the opinions of bishops, a minor news bulletin circulated on the vatican website is neither a reputable or noteworthy sourceLinn C Doyle (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll ask for a third opinion. I disagree that this is not notable. It's a news bulletin from a synod of bishops on the middle East. Jadbaz (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jadbaz: A third opinion will be useful this is an obscure source however, and the source has no peer-review element if this helps you understand the problem.Linn C Doyle (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Shepherding reference. You will find multiple references to Bob Mumford and Derek Prince in the Csordas reference as well as explicit statement of these individuals teaching SOS through the life in the spirit seminars. I actually have a book handy on the shepharding movement which goes into more depth on this. There is even a great picture of Steve Ralph Derek and Bob all together. Either way the Csordas quote is accurate and these individuals, and the relavance to SOS is included in that text. The SOS community and leadership model is indeed heavily influenced by the Shepherding and Discipleship movement. Prior to founding SOS Ralph and Steve actually sat on the 'Council' that overseen the Shepherding communities. I have further references for this that I will add here.

I do not understand the source as you do. We're both reading the same thing, and concluding different things from it. Jadbaz (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes here we are specifically you will be looking for Moore: the Shepherding Movement and Thomas R Yoder (now Yorder-Neufeld) of Harvard Divinity School: 'History of the Shepherding/Discipleship Movement'. You will see that the 'Fort Lauderdale Five' were developing the community and leadership design ('covenants', headship, tithing the full bag) as far back as 1970. Funnily enough the people whom I encounter that believe clarke and martin pioneered this model all seem to be affiliated with SoS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linn C Doyle (talk • contribs) 00:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the evidence that the Shepherding movement started in 1970. The charismatic movement began before that, namely around 1960. So it follows that the charismatic movement cannot take its roots from the Shepherding movement.Jadbaz (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Nobody said the Shepherding movement started in 1970 and that is not what the reference provided states. Francisco who you may know actually provided a ref which states explicitly that the Shepherding and Charsimatic movements developed "Concurrently", if you are interested in the origins and Pentecostal roots. What I said was that the fort Lauderdale 5 were already busy developing covenant community format, much of which was published in New Wine magazine through the early 70s. The fact being stated is not, as you seem to believe, that the Charismatic Movement devolved from the Shepherding Movement, but instead that the covenant community style used by the Sword of the Spirit devolves from the Shepherding movement. Indeed this is accurate as you see Mumford Prince and co had much influence on the development of the initial association of covenant communities and later sword of the spirit. Indeed martin and clarke presided on a council under these figures, and even invited the Fort Lauderdale crowd to teach in Life in the Spirit seminars. If you read the text in the introduction this is grammatically what is stated, not the meaning you seem to have derived. Linn C Doyle (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Good morning @Linn C Doyle:, Can we at least agree to word it more as the source does and to move it to Sword of the Spirit Practices?

I suggest adding this to Sword of the Spirit Practices and removing it from the top paragraph:

=== Leadership ===

@Jadbaz: I dont think there is any reason to disagree with the current content. It states that the covenant community association takes its roots in the Shepherding movement, which it does, as per reference by prof Csordas. I would definitely be happy to get involved in the inclusion of more content in a separate 'Leadership' section though. There is plenty of self-published, academic publishing and news sources which go into some detail in leadership in this orginisation. Linn C Doyle (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think there's no reason to see how my edit is not an improvement. You cannot undo an edit just because you don't like it. I will make this edit.

@Jadbaz: Your edit was not an improvement and instead a destructive edit because you deleted content and references. The content is based on reliable referening, not personal preference as you seem to believe. Altering reliably referenced content, or in this case completely deleting it, is destructive editing and should be reverted as per wiki guidelines Linn C Doyle (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jadbaz: May I point out RE 'you cant undo my edit because you dont like it' statement I really hope you understand that this is not the case. The content included in this article reflects the content of reliable publishing regarding SoS. I would also point out that it is in fact yourself who is deleting content in a disruptive manner, not me. My reversions have simply been to restore to pre-disruptive editing, so I hope you can understand that this is not because of some preferential aspect.Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle:, Please see my edit here.

I simply moved and re-worded a sentence to better reflect the source. I kept the reference. I just corrected the page number on it. But I may have made a mistake and mixed up the page numbers, so I understand why you think I might have blanked the reference.Jadbaz (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jadbaz: you have been repeatedly directed to other pages in that book, as indicated in the reference which you altered.

It is easy to observe multiple cases in your edit history where you have removed content and references, and altered so as not to reflect the accurate original content. Specifically your original edit seemed to simply blank content re shepherding movement.

Further references will be provided on this topic when I get round to inclusion of steve and ralphs time working under prince and mumford etc. I would direct you to David Moore The Shepherding Movement.

You did not reword, you changed the meaning. You made it say only the headship takes roots in the shepherding movement. The meaning is that the communities, the association of communities, the community governance, and the headship take root in the shepherding movement. This is because the SoS is steve clark and ralph martins own variant of the type of community association they helped govern under fort lauderdale 5, as described in derek princes publishing in new wine extensively. The original association of communities developed around WoG in 1975 comes after Martin and Clark have been doing the same thing with shepherding communities under Prince and the fort lauderdale crew. They said 'hey lets go do this with catholic charismatics'. This is all historical fact, Ralph and steve have always been completely open about the affiliation, plenty of living bulwark posts where steve chats about derek. Quite frankly I am baffled as to why this is such a point of contention? You have been repeatedly invited to reword how you please, as long as this meaning is intact, as it relates to further content I have to contribute here.Linn C Doyle (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The form of leadership within the Sword of the Spirit apparently takes its roots from the Shepherding Movement [2].Jadbaz (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have intentionally blanked references and content pertaining to Micheal Scanlan and John Bertolluci. Both were leaders at Servants of Christ the King. Scanlan was senior SOS coordinator, as was Bertolucci, who led FIRE. I cannot understand why you have stated that these persons are irrelevant? I can also not understand why you seem to think peadophelia and sexual abuse within senior leadership of an organisation is not noteworthy?

Please look over what I wrote concerning why I removed these. I removed these because these individuals have left this organization 30 years ago and you are referring to a sex-abuse scandal from 2018. Jadbaz (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Bertollucci has not been with SoS for a while, yes. Micheal Scanlan has most certainly been involved during the past 30 years. Either way both were prominent leaders within the organisation, bertollucci being a notable televangelist in addition to sos leadership roles. Furthermore much of the abuse occured while both presided in leadership roles with sos. I do not understand why you think the passing of time makes this no longer relevant?Linn C Doyle (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware that Michael Scanlan had continued involvement. And I was also not aware that these happened while they were in leadership in the Sword of the Spirit. Could you point me to evidence for this?Jadbaz (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jadbaz: The information you require regarding abuse timelines is in the referenced sources. In either regard the revelation that senior leadership in any organisation is guilty of child abuse and sexual abuse is something which I would be considered noteworthy. Linn C Doyle (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The conduct of individuals that were or are part of an organization does not say anything about the organization itself. I'll include this in the third opinion request. Please point me specifically to references that state the Michael Scanlan has continued involvement in this organization.Jadbaz (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jadbaz: You have already been directed to sources for sclanlan (Servants of christ the king) and bertolluccis (FIRE) involvement with SOS. Though this information pertains to individuals, the timeline of abuse occurs during SoS leadership roles. Abuse within an organisation is well notable when it comes from senior leadership at any point in historyLinn C Doyle (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I will be reverting this content to the version prior to distruptive editing. I see that an IP only user has already raised this issue with you.

If you would like to make edits to this page such as the deletion of content and references I would encourage you to discuss this on the talk page prior to making any distruptive edits.

Linn C Doyle, this is good advice. I would ask you to follow it as well.

One thing I do believe would be useful that you raised was the seperation of historic and current member communities. Perhaps this should be the first thing we discuss?

Thank You :) Linn C Doyle (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Linn C Doyle, thanks for reaching out.

I found it unhelpful that you just undid all my edits. It doesn't seem that you looked over them suffiently enough. I would like to reason with you, but I would like you to give thought to my edits and not simply undo them all. That is what I find disruptive.

The reversion was required to restore content and referenced sources which you had blanked as you had done this over multiple edits. If you are peeved perhaps look at this as an opportunity to empathise with the creators and curators of the content you blanked.

This is not true, I deleted the two sentences from SOCK in one edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&type=revision&diff=999090949&oldid=999090587

and the phrase on the Shepherding Movement, which we are discussing above, in another: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&type=revision&diff=999092920&oldid=999092727

You undid all my edits and that's not right to do. Jadbaz (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jadbaz: You can observe the yourself blanking of content and refs re Shepherding, Bertolucci and Scanlan in the links you have shared. Could you please explain the point of confusion where you seem to think this is untrue? I am afraid I am a little baffled.

Your edits were WP:DE (blanking content and references, causing several cite errors). Once again I am a little baffled as to why you think reverting these edits is improper? Considering you have already agreed, for instance, that the Shepherding ref is accurate, then why protest reversion of your deletion of the relevant content and reference?Linn C Doyle (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I have not agreed that the Shepherding reference was accurately used by you in the article. I changed it so that it better reflected the source.Jadbaz (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I see, so when we begun conversation your stance was that SoS and Shepherding had no link causing you to blank this content and reference, has this changed at all?Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I would disagree, and in fact counter that I thoroughly examined your edits, perhaps even in excess of sufficiency.

That is indeed what you were invited to do :) fantastic!

Your edits were reverted as they were destructive (blanking content, blanking referenced sources). It would be great to discuss adding more content to this page :D Linn C Doyle (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand that you have evidence that the Shepherding movement is related to the charismatic movement. There may have been shared teaching and teaching imported from one to another.

I said it was inaccurate because it is, and the evidence you provide does not prove otherwise.

"The form of covenant community headship apparently is an adaptation of the "shepherding" relationship practiced earlier in Derek Prince and Robert Mumford's neo-Pentecostal Christian Growth Ministries" Csordas, Language, Charisma, and Creativity, Notes, Section 3, 'A communitarian Ideal'.

Also see discussion of Princes influence on Pg 80 in section 'I, and those who are with me, call you the Word of God'

From the same text, same section, pg 89-90 "Coincident with the reaction to the Training Course, however, these years also saw the infusion of new energy into the ritual life of the community. As Derek Prince and Robert Mumford next hit had done earlier in the community's history".

The source referenced is accurate. Quite frankly I am baffled why sword of the spirit employees and now yourself continue to contest this reference. Linn C Doyle (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

To clarify if the statement was that the Charismatic Movement took roots in the shepherding movement then a comma or other break would be required after 'Charismatic Movement'. As there is no comma the descriptive term is part of a list belonging to the subject of that sentence, namely sword of the spirit. So the statement regarding the shepherding movement as worded means is fundamentally a more eloquent way of stating 'The sword of the spirit is an association of covenant communities. This association is part of the Charismatic Movement. The association of communities also takes roots in the shepherding movement. Whether or not that comma is there is a small but important distinction in understanding the sentence. Can I query @Jadbaz: are you reading the page in english or is this perhaps a translation issue? Linn C Doyle (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should distinguish between current communities and those that left 30 years ago.

Fantastic. How about rather than removing content as we merge with history, we retain the content and instead seperate the 'member communities' section into current and past affiliates?

I've also included responses to your questions above.

Answered above :) Linn C Doyle (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's try to agree, and if not, let's get a third opinion.

Thanks, Jadbaz (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to redo my edits that we did not disagree on. You should not revert them unless you have good reason to do so.Jadbaz (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

More Distuptive Editing

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

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

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

Response to third opinion request:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finance. Again no value statements here.

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

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

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

Let me know what you think :)

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

Relevant Shepherding History

@Sudonymous: @Jadbaz: So the shepherding link has been surprisingly controversial. For now I have split the statement to make it clear that it is not the neo charismatic movement which comes from the shepherding movement.

Long term I hope to include some more on this in history.

Key facts to include as referenced above and other sources in this article:

• Ralph Martin and Steve Clark enter covenant relationship with Derek Prince "beginning at least as early as 1974" where they were on the ecumenical council, working with the Shepherding Movement association of communities.

• In 1975 Martin, Clarke and others (People of Praise, Mother of God etc) created an association of covenant communities which was independent of the shepherding movement, but based upon it's teachings.

• In 1981 the association of covenant communities fell apart due to disagreement in leadership where PoP, MoG and many other prolific charismatic covenant communities left the association. At this point the Sword of the Spirit was founded by Ralph Martin and Steve Clark to function as umbrella leadership over the remaining association of covenant communities, centred around the Word of God community.

(see rush theopane i think it is for those facts)

• Following multiple investigation of Sword of the Spirit communities on the grounds of alleged abuses and cult-like behaviour, many communities were ordered by local bishops to disaffiliate with the Sword of the Spirit. This included the Word of God community, where Ralph Martin renounced the Sword of the Spirit and the Word of God community disaffiliated, leaving the Sword of the Spirit under the sole leadership of Steve Clark.

(this is well reported in news sources used throughout the article).

This should clear up some of the confusion around the shepherding link and would seem constructive in adding a little detail to the history of the organisation.

What do you all think?

Linn C Doyle (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this looks like it could be a good improvement, though my knowledge of SoS is limited and ultimately I'm trying to mediate between you and Jadbaz so it depends on their opinion. Sudonymous (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It certainly is more accurate now, but it's still inaccurate. There does seem to be a link between the early leaders of SOS and the leaders of the Shepherding movement. However, I think this gives undue weight to this link. Csordas wrote a whole book on charismatic communities such as the Sword of the Spirit and only used the word "shepherding" once in a footnote - never in the main text. On the other hand, a search for the word "Charismatic" in this book yields 605 results. "Charismatic movement" yields 89 results. "Shepherding movement" yields no results.

So I think it would be more accurate to say: "The Sword of the Spirit takes its roots from the Charismatic Movement." or "The Sword of the Spirit is an international, ecumenical association of Christian communities within the Charismatic Movement."

And the link with the Shepherding movement can be mentioned and explained in the body of the article. Jadbaz (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jadbaz: As you have been repeatedly informed the Csordas book references the Shepherding Movements in multiple parts of that book. These pages are indicated directly to yourself above on multiple occasions, and are also in the reference used in-article which you attempted to alter and remove with your edits. You have also been informed on multiple occasions that this information in corroborated by multiple reliable sources (namely individuals who have provided academic study of this group with a minimum of doctoral level study. I suggest, that if you wish to argue this information is inaccurate, then rather than cherry picking from one of the sources you have been directed to, a better approach would be to provide contradictory sources of equal reputability. Linn C Doyle (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: Hmmmm yes. There was previously an IP only user, then a declared COI, and then a user who has been identified as an Undeclared COI, that were all making similar edits to Jadbaz, who has also been encouraged by both of us to decalare any COI so...I guess just work with what is front of us for now. I am currently pretty busy but if Jadbaz doesnt pushback on these edits you two feel free to use the references I have provided and start moving in the material, though I would be grateful in your assistance ensuring the article content reflects the sourcing in this instance. If there is any disagreement with the points listed above please ping me :) I will get back round here eventuallyLinn C Doyle (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions @Linn C Doyle: I won't have time to reply thoroughly today, but I'd appreciate it if you'd wait a bit before adding them to the article. Jadbaz (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jadbaz: Do you have any connection to the Sword of the Spirit affiliate community 'People of God' in Beruit? @Jadbaz: #REDIRECT Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#covert Linn C Doyle (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Linn C Doyle, you may try to glean from my edits where I am based, but I already said that I'm familiar with the Sword of the Spirit but have no COI to disclose - and I stand by that. Please read Wikipedia's policy on harrassment: Wikipedia:Harassment and stop harassing me. Thank you! Jadbaz (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jadbaz: I do hope you can understand that what I am doing here is attempting to give you every possible opportunity to declare any COI.Linn C Doyle (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

On the book Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right by Sara Diamond

On the book Sara Diamond wrote, Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right: I have my doubts as to the reliability and neutrality of this source (One can just read the title and back matter and realize that she has a dog in the fight.) What do other editors think? @Sudonymous:, @Linn C Doyle: is it a reliable source?

@Jadbaz: Sara Diamond has a PhD in the study of right wing groups in USA 1945-1992. Indeed it conforms to the information provided by Professor Csordas, who is an expert on charismatic groups, and the information provided by David S Moore, who has published several books on the shepherding movement. The content is stated neutrally as fact, with no value statements made. I fail to understand what possible problem you have with this source?Linn C Doyle (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Source Reliability and Bias Disputes

@Jadbaz: @Sudonymous: Firstly you both seem to think Dr Sara Diamond, who specifically conducted their doctoral studies on right wing religious groups in the USA, is a poor source. It also seems you think that the 'sydnos episcopotum bulletin' is a good reference.

I disagree based upon WP:ABOUTSELF conditions 2 and 3 primarily, which I believe the sydnos leaflet fails. 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

Though item 4 WP:ABOUTSELF conditions is also a concern, and I have made clear further concerns about promotional aspects, and the sensibility of including unreliable sources.

Am I correct in concluding that we are all in disagreement here?

You also have both seem to think this article has undue weight, or has been reflecting my personal bias.

Alternatively, I say that I am making no moral value statements in this article, and that the article accurately reflects the content of the sources cited. There is no negative bias here. The sources cited consist of the body of reliably published work on the topic, not minority opinion, so again no bias or undue weight here. I have repeatedly invited both of you, and other editors, including known COI editors, to bring forth reliable publishing containing positive reception and review of this topic. There is therefore no bias here.

Am I correct in concluding we all in disagreement here?

Linn C Doyle (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: I do not think Sara Diamond is a poor source. I haven't actually looked into her background too much, but I assume she is a reliable source.

@Sudonymous: So I can assume the comments regarding 'we cant trust her expertise' are the re atwood? Well you say the book is what 'losely based upon'. No the book is titled after the name SoS used for Women, 'Handmaiden', and the publishing of the book prompted the SoS to rename the handmaiden role. It is relevant, and a prolific figure. Baffled as to why you are protesting this reaction?Linn C Doyle (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: yes, it was about Atwood. Her book is a work of fiction, just because the term "handmaiden" is used for both is not proof she is an expert. That is a very weak proof of expertise. Sudonymous (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: Well there is no sense arguing I have already pointed out the difference is relevance and publishing reliability. I disagree with you and will not be changing my opinion on the validity of the Atwood react and will not be supporting your proposed removal of this content. Thank you for your input on that topic. I am happy to discuss other issues. Linn C Doyle (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: And I've already pointed out you are incorrect on that difference; the archbishop's opinion is as relevant if not more than hers, and it is a reliable source under WP:RSOPINION. You do not own this article, you cannot just shut down discussion if you do not like my input. Sudonymous (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: And I have pointed out why I believe you are incorrect. As neither of us are changing our stance and the discussion is not moving forward on this I am letting you know my stance clearly, and informing you that I am finished discussing this with you. Thank you for your input.Linn C Doyle (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: What accusations are you referring to? Sudonymous (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: You have accused me of editing with bias. You have called me disingenuous. You have accused me of refusing to read your responses. You have accused me of trying to block opinions that you seem to think I disagree with. You have accused me of shutting down discussion. You have accused me of claiming to own the page. You have been repeatedly invited to contribute, and indeed specifically invited to contribute content you seem to claim I am biased against, in an effort to progress discussion, but have thus far failed to do so, instead choosing to stonewall your opinion back at me alongside accusations. It is not constructive, and not welcome, so this part of our conversation is finished. Linn C Doyle (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: Yes, I have accused you of editing with bias. You've also repeatedly accused Jadbaz of editing with bias. I don't think you can complain about accusations of bias when you do the same.

I shouldn't have accused you of being disingenuous, I'm sorry about that.

It took several responses for you to actually respond to my points about WP:RSOPINION and WP:ABOUTSELF, instead you were repeating your statements which ignored the existence of those guidelines. Maybe you had read my response, but you were acting like you hadn't.

I didn't accuse you of claiming to own the page, I accused you of acting like you own the page. Refusing to discuss your choice to include Atwood's quote, while insisting that it stays, is an example of acting like you own the page. You're acting like you get final say on what is on this page and that others like myself only get to give input.

I came here to respond to a third-opinion request, so my goal is to help you and Jadbaz solve your dispute, not to contribute to the page myself. I have been trying to give advice on how to solve your dispute and improve the page, but I am trying to avoid directly editing the page as I am only here to provide a third-opinion.

If you don't want to discuss the Atwood quote anymore that's fine. but if you don't want to discuss that content you can't complain when others change or remove it. Sudonymous (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: Again you are being accusatory. I do not act like I own anything. Again you are accusing of refusing to read. I read everything and replied as can be seen above. You accuse me of refusing to engage? Insisting the atwood content stays? This is a lie. I told you clearly that I believed it a notable comment by a reliable publisher and would not change this opinion. I told you that I would not support its removal. You are the one who is, even now after stating you have read the noticeboard post, still acting like your insistance that this is an unreliable source is not absolutely ridiculous and the source of disagreement, and that your stonewalling of this was not the reason discussion could not move forward. Do lie and say this is me acting like I own anything I have never made any statement on what anyone else can do, only what I support. You continuously accuse me of bias yet have failed to indicate any inconsistencies with source material or source material that should be included but is not. In fact I have invited you, other editors, and COI editors to provide this material, telling you I would be more than happy to support its inclusion if it is reliable and verifiable. Even now when you discuss the bishop as if you wish to move forward you are cherry picking the information from the noticeboard you claim to have read. For example my expressed concerns regarding factual statement were noted as valid. For example my concerns regarding undue weight, notability, and neutrality were all noted as valid on the RS noticeboard. You failed to mention all this, instead choosing to present it as if it entirely agreed with you. In fact I have invited everyone including yourself, other editors, and COI editors to present a version of this source you think would be suitable. No-one has done this, so do not try to blame me for the fact that this discussion has not progressed, as if I am not making attempts to engage and create reliable content. It is absolute nonsense. Quite frankly deliberate misrepresentation, accusations, ridiculous arguments such as Penguin being unreliable publishing and requiring removal, stonewall refusal to consider viewpoints expressed both by myself and confirmed on the RS noticeboard, refusal to engage in developing new content to include, refusal to evidence accusations, inflaming known COI editors who this page has previously been protected from by admins, none of this is remotely welcome, useful, or appreciated. Constructive discussion, of course, is, but that above, is not welcome, and not remotely an apology. Given that we now have 3 active COI editors lobbying the page for the same edits I think sockpuppetry and corporate vanity is at this point a major concern, and the best thing you could do is to reach out to an admin to sort this mess out. Quite frankly I am confident my content is accurate and neutral, and that it reflects the majority opinion of reliable publishing, and I am quite sure that the COI editors are breaching all sorts of wiki guidelines, so I am quite happy for an admin to wade in here at this pointLinn C Doyle (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: I have never said that Penguin was not a reliable source for the Atwood quote, this is a blatant misrepresentation of what I've said. I also never disagreed with you that Bacouni's statement might not be factual, so there was no reason for me to mention that the noticeboard confirmed that. The commenter did not confirm your claim about undue weight, neutrality, or notability, they stated that they were only making a judgement about reliability, not the other issues. If you want to discuss those other issues you need to use other noticeboards.

@Sudonymous: I am not misrepresenting anything. We can all read this talk page above. Arguing about it at this point is not constructive. Clearly we disagree on whether or not you made penguin out as unreliable. Let us leave it there. The commenter did in fact confirm that all of these are valid concerns for this sort of source, something which, again, we are all able to view.Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: Yes we can all see the talk page, and nowhere on this page have I said Penguin is unreliable, you have also failed to provide any quotes that show this. I insist you stop lying and blatantly misrepresenting my arguments. Sudonymous (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: actually I have specifically quoted this at the bottom of the page. Insist and accuse all you like my friend.Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

You have been insistent that the source is unreliable, so there was no point in me presenting a proper way of including the source. Now that we agree the source is reliable, we can talk about whether it is relevant information and how to properly include it if it is. One conversation at a time.

@Sudonymous: and as per the RS noticeboard the source is unreliable, and as such should only be sued include comment of opinion with no statement of fact about third parties, as I have repeatedly and consistently indicated. As noted this needs to pass the assumptions that this is a notable, that the bishop is relevant, and that the source does not represent a minority viewpoint, which I have consistently and repeatedly raised as concerns. So no we do not agree the source is viable. Despite this I have invited you to provide an example of the content you are pushing to include such that it can be reviewed for inclusion, and that we may specifically discuss what about the content is viable and what is not. It has been entirely your decision not to accomplish this.Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: the RS noticeboard confirmed that it is reliable for Bacouni's opinion, which is all the source was ever used for. The commenter also confirmed that it was reliable for Bacouni's opinion on facts involving third parties (e.g. "Archbishop Bacouni [insert reason for relevance here] argues that Sword of the Spirit makes people like cheese"), but you are misrepresenting that conclusion. I would love to discuss whether the quote is relevant for inclusion, but first I need you to admit that it is a reliable source for Bacouni's opinion, including his opinion on SoS, as confirmed on the RS noticeboard. I need to make sure we are on the same page here so we do not go around in circles. Sudonymous (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: From the get go I have made clear that this is self-published and unreliable. The RS noticeboard agrees with this, stating explicitly that the only thing this can be considered reliable for is the bishops own opinion. At no point have I disputed this. What I have disputed is the factual nature of the proposed included content and the article proposed for inclusion, given its unreliability. I have also clearly and repeatedly raised concerns regarding the lack of verification of notability, relevance, and non-minority opinion. I have specifically invited you multiple times now to present content to include based on the bishops opinion and explicitly informed you that this would be great provided we do not violate the above mentioned concerns. I have made this all clear on multiple occasions, you feel free to progress the discussion when you are ready.Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: the quote as originally included is a statement of Bacouni's opinion on SoS, which we have confirmed the source is reliable for. It is not used for providing factual evidence. If you think it is not notable or relevant, you have to present an argument for that. Sudonymous (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: You yourself said that quote needs work, and no it is you that would have to establish this is not a minority opinion and that the bishop is in fact neutral. I have repeatedly informed you of this, and you have even yourself accepted that the bishop is biased. This is why I request you present potential content. For example there are some obvious statements such as "What we can attest and see among these new movements is not only a new vitality for prayer and evangelism, but, more importantly, an ability to inspire a lot of men and women, young and old, to stay in their countries as missionaries, and to serve their local churches with zeal and obedience" I would point out the obvious promotional bias and that the country is minority christian with no notable growth. This is therefore self-promotion, and not worth including. So why dont you have a go doing that, but with content that you all are lobbying to include, and where you explain to me why this does not fall into the concerns of bias, notability, relevance or minority opinion.Linn C Doyle (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

You are blatantly misrepresenting me and making accusation about me right now, I'm sorry for calling you disingenuous but it does not compare to what you're accusing me of.

@Sudonymous: I believe I have accurately evidenced every instance where the content of your contributions here is not consistent with previous statement, with reference to specific issues that I feel are not constructive. You, however, have simply resorted to name-calling and accusations without bothering to discuss what the specific issue is. Where you have claimed I am misrepresenting you I have evidenced why my representation is accurate. I am afraid that real sorrys are not followed by 'but' in my book. Naught I can do to help you with that.Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: No you have not evidenced your representation to be accurate. You are accusing me of claiming that Penguin is unreliable, which I never have. You need to admit that you misrepresented my argument if this is going to go anywhere. Sudonymous (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: You have been quoted briefly at the bottom of the page. In discussion every response has been extremely consise in identifying the part of the text it relates to. Thank you.Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Those quotes do not show me claiming Penguin is unreliable, in fact they make it clear that I did not mention Penguin's relevance, as I already explained in that section. Stop misrepresenting me, thank you. Sudonymous (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: you specifically lobbied for the removal of atwood article when I stated unreliable opinion pieces should not be included.Linn C Doyle (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Who are the three active COI editors? I only see Franciskouj and possibly Jadbaz.

@Sudonymous: In a nutshell I think it is perhaps time we contacted admins to deal with COI editors and provide a ruling on content here. Would you all agree?Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: Sure, but this includes a ruling on your contributions to this content, as I still believe that you are an undeclared COI editor. Sudonymous (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: glad we agree admins should be involved :) Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

You claim not to be acting like you own the page, but you both refuse to discuss the issue of the Atwood quote anymore, and also undo simple changes I made, changing the section. This is a clear example of acting like you own a page. Sudonymous (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

We are specifically using it to state the opinion of the archbishop, not stating that his opinion is a fact. We are using that source to make a claim about the archbishop's opinion, not a claim about SoS itself.

@Sudonymous: yes the archbishops opinion of alleged activities of a third party where you have identified the publisher has a bias. This fails items 2 and 3 of WP:ABOUTSELF as detailed above. Do you disagree?Linn C Doyle (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: Not it doesn't fail 2 and 3, as we are reporting on his opinion in the reception section, we are not using it as a statement of fact. The reception section is for talking about opinions of relevant people/organizations, and yes opinions are biased.. Sudonymous (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: Yes it does fail 2 and 3, as we are reporting his opinion as the entire article is about a third party and all opinions stated involved claims about the third party, namely activities and experiences of others as detailed above, which are events not directly related to the source.

Why dont we test our disagreeing hypothesis here. For example why dont you provide some proposed content which does not violate sections 2 and 3.Linn C Doyle (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: we do not claim what the archbishop says is fact, but we state it as his opinion. The point of the reception section is to summarize relevant opinions about SoS. The relevance of his opinion is not effected by how factual it is, as we are only citing it as an opinion, not fact.

The quote we are arguing about does not violate sections 2 and 3, I'm not sure why you are asking me to provide more content. Sudonymous (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: So for example if you were to say you wished to include "Since many of these Christians will not come to church, members of the movement go and walk with them on the road as the Lord did" I would point out that the claim that the SoS are evangelising non-christians is in direct violation of 2 and 3 as that is a statement of fact regarding a third party. How do we know anything the bishop says regarding sos evangelism is accurate?

If you were to say you wished to include " It is modeled on the Lord's own catechetic pedagogy with the disciples on the Emmaus road as we read in the 24th chapter of the gospel of Luke" I would say this again violates the same conditions as a statement of fact regarding sword of spirit practice is made here. How do we know anything the bishop says regarding sos community design is accurate?

You seem to think that content from this article can be included without such violations. Can you please provide an example of the content, from this source, should be included in this article. Perhaps if you were to provide an example of content you wish to contribute to the article it would make for a more progressive conversation about inclusion. Linn C Doyle (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: I saw your comment on the reliable sources noticeboard, and I see that it has been confirmed that it is a reliable source on Bacouni's opinion, including opinions of the form "Bacouni thinks that SoS does X". Now hopefully we can return to the actual discussion of whether his opinion is relevant and what part of his opinion is worth including. Sudonymous (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes we are in disagreement there, I believe your editing has shown a clear bias. Sudonymous (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: OK direct me to an edit I made that did not accurately reflect the content of the source?

Also please direct me to the "significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" that I am neglecting?Linn C Doyle (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: As I've already stated repeatedly, the issue is not you misrepresenting your sources, it is choosing to focus almost entirely on accounts of scandals and negative opinions, with very little information on what SoS is or what it does. I'm not sure why I have to repeat this. Sudonymous (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: So do we agree that I am accurately representing the content of the sources? So this is clear as can be.

Please direct me to he "significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" that I am neglecting?Linn C Doyle (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous:, @Linn C Doyle:, @Jadbaz: I'm sorry to add fuel to the fire here, but for what it's worth, there was an IP user that had a serious problem with misrepresenting sources. If this IP user is Linn C Doyle, then Linn C Doyle does seriously misrepresent their sources. If not, then someone else who has contributed significantly to the article has a serious problem with misrepresenting sources.

Here's the issue: Three consecutive edits were made by 2A00:23C7:DA02:5501:9492:B5A3:57B4:1684 within an hour of each other on 4 Sept 2020.

These edit contains two serious problems with misrepresenting sources:

• Saying that Rev Rotunno branded SoS an "Evil Empire", while the source stated that Rev Rotunno said that SOS thought they were "fighting an Empire of Evil".
• Saying that Jamie Treadwell was convicted while so far he has only been charged and is awaiting trial.

One of these edits contains a third misrepresentation, but this misrepresentation is not as bad as the other two laid out above:

• The edit states that "The subjugation of women within the Sword of the Spirit and People of Hope became inspiration for 'The Handmaid's Tale'" while the source merely says that a headline from a newspaper clipping about POH inspired Atwood. The source states that Atwood quoted the clipping which itself said that POH ‘subordinates its women, discourages social contact with non-members, arranges marriages, moves teenage disciples to households for indoctrination . . . their treatment of women is very Islamic. It’s a form of brainwashing.’. These aren't even Atwood's own words. These are the words of Mrs Janice Ross as quoted by Frank Bajak in an Associated Press article. Atwood was quoting the AP newspaper clipping. There's no indication that Atwood was even familiar with POH, beyond this clipping, while the edit implies that the community itself was an inspiration for the book. The newspaper clipping about the community was one of the many inspirations for the book - not the community itself.
• The Atwood article doesn't even mention SOS but the Wikipedia edit says the People of Hope and The Sword of the Spirit served as an inspiration for the novel.
  • By the way, to further prove the invalidity of the Atwood article as a source for this Wikipedia article, one can read this article from National Review which lays out how it's chronologically impossible for the clipping to have influenced the book, since the clipping was published after the book.
• I would think these are all misrepresentations of sources.

I suspect that these edits were Linn C Doyle's edits - but it's up to them to confirm or deny this. I do realize I may be mistaken in my suspicion and these edits might not be their edits.

Why do I suspect that these edits might be Linn C Doyle's? Here's why:

1. After an edit war that took place between 22 October and 6 November concerning Rev Rotunno's statement, the page was protected by MelanieN. A few hours after that, Linn C Doyle logged in and reinserted the sentence on Rev Rotunno after rewording it.
2. In the same edit that introduced the language of SOS being branded an Evil Empire, Margaret Atwood's opinion is introduced.
   1. Over the past week or so, there has been back and forth on Atwood and whether the sentence on her should stay or go. Linn C Doyle argued this past week that the Penguin article should be used because Penguin is a reliable publisher. Different IP Users from Glasgow, which I suspect are all Linn, have argued this same thing. I suspect these are all Linn since their arguments follow on one another without reference to "another user" (Interestingly, most of the IPv6 edits on this page, including the IP User I am suspecting is Linn, are from Glasgow.)
   2. Linn has been a staunch defender of an edit by this IP user who I am criticizing - so I suspect they are connected.
3. Finally, I suspect these 4 September edits are Linn's, because in these edits the paragraph on Jamie Treadwell is re-inserted and Linn C Doyle was the first to attempt to insert this paragraph many months before.
   1. Linn had tried to include this paragraph on 8 May 2020 (their first edit) but it was reverted. Then, months after, this IP User re-inserted the paragraph with some changes.

I'm not the first to suspect that Linn has edited without signing in. User:Toddst1 has also thought so, and they added a Uw-login tag to Linn C Doyle's talk page.

Linn C Doyle, were the edits made by 2a00:23c7:da02:5501:8522:5abb:c9ed:e1e4 made by you? They have serious problems with misrepresentation, in my opinion. Franciskouj (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Franciskouj: First and foremost I have occasionally edited while logged out, though if you are asking me to confirm my identity for you I would suggest that you perhaps review wiki guides on this.

Indeed the inclusion of extensive new material detailing the sexual abuse and grooming of children by members of the sword of the spirit (Tiesi, Bertolucci, Treadwell, Conlin, Keating etc) is an edit I have previously made to this page. As a matter of fact several admins weighed in on discussion, and I engaged to make an effort to understand appropriate editing of wiki. And indeed I have accepted that those first edits were motivated by the revulsion that the well reported history of abuse in this organisation. Again this is no secret, all discussed and resolved above with the assistance of admins. In fact the admin who created this page has been editing this page since. I dont know why you feel the need to misrepresent this as some covert scheme.

Secondly re the "empire of evil quote" you yourself have stated that it reads like this is what the article says, and presented I believe a scan of the hard copy which shows that it is a takeaway quote. This edit has since been updated. Again I do not understand why you feel the need to raise issues that have been openly discussed and resolved above and misrepresent this as some ploy again.

Again regarding the arrest of jamie treadwell on peodophelia charges, you had mentioned this information was innacurate. Again this is discussed openly above. In fact the last comment in that discussion is me, inviting you, as a sos employee who worked alongside treadwell, to provide some sourcing so we could update the article accordingly. It is yourself who failed to get back, so again you are intentionally misrepresenting the situation to stir the pot.

Re atwood I have gone over this reference time and again, and there is no sense in engaging with you on this topic any more.

All i am seeing here is SoS employees, COI (declared, undeclared and strongly suspected) who are all lobbying for the removal of reliably sourced, neutrally presented content which reflects the content of reliable publishing on the subject. Quite frankly you are employees trying to push through a minority opinion, and manipulate the article to reflect more positively on you than reliable publishing actually does. I think you are intentionally lobbying to hide information on paedophilia and abuse in your organisation and doing this in a dishonest manner hiding behind multiple users. I think perhaps it is time to get in contact with admins, as I will no longer be wasting my time arguing in circles and tolerating the harassment of SoS employees. Thank you for your input.Linn C Doyle (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Linn C Doyle, There are 12,500 members of the Sword of the Spirit of which I am one. How did you conclude, may I ask, that (1) I am employed by SOS and (2) that I worked alongside Jamie Treadwell?

Secondly, as I stated above, I understand how the article might be read that way. I only expressed that I understand how you may have read it that way. I still don't condone it though. I think Wikipedia editors should be more careful than that. And I was more careful.

When I read it, I read it as you read it, digitally. And something didn't look right to me although I'd never seen the article before. But because it didn't look right to me, I went through the trouble of signing up and paying for NYTimes Machine to see the scan of the page. And, as I suspected, it was digitized incorrect. But the digitization was not so bad as to immediately conclude that Rev Rotunno dubbed the SOS an Evil Empire - a serious claim. The period came before the quote, other quotes in the article were double quotes, and a reading of the paragraph following 'Empire of Evil' made it clear to me that it was a title for the following paragraph, as the words "Parish Priest Reassigned" were for another paragraph. I expect Wikipedia editors to be careful before making edits that can seriously affect the reputation of an organization. In the real world this is called slander and it is illegal.

Finally, I didn't say that you didn't end up correcting the quote. You did when you re-worded it, and I did mention that you re-worded it before re-inserting it.

What I did say is that you started out by seriously misrepresenting your source. And I think that's a problem, not because it happened once, but because it happened many times. Franciskouj (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Editing without consensus

@Sudonymous: I noticed you decided to edit without any discussion or consensus, so I have reverted this edit. If you think the atwood react belongs in a different section it would be best to discuss here first. There has been no discussion of moving this section, and given that you have been made explicitly aware that there is no concensus regarding any edit to the atwood source, I think this would be prudent. The only discussion of this source so far, is your suggestion that it should be removed because Margaret Atwood is not notable, and Penguin is not a reputable publisher, where you argued that this react should be removed. I stand by the reputability of this source and its relevance absolutely and will not change this opinion (and given that you have stated that you have read the noticeboard post on this issue I would expect you to realise this is not a minority stance), however I am open to discussion of other issues you may have with this source. Thank you.Linn C Doyle (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: I never said Penguin is not a reliable source, please do not put words in my mouth. I also never said the Atwood quote had to strictly be removed, simply that I did not see a reason to think it was relevant while the Bacouni quote was not. You explicitly said you didn't want to discuss the Atwood quote anymore, which makes reaching consensus impossible. Given that you didn't want to discuss, I decided moving an opinion to the reception section was the least that could be done. Are you actually willing to discuss this? Or will you tell me that you aren't interested in my input again? Sudonymous (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: "If you think this article shouldn't have opinions, then we'd need to remove the entire Reception section, and all the opinions snuck into other sections, such as the Margaret Atwood quote" Your words. When I had explicitly pointed out the difference was due to the Publisher and that Penguin was reliable and a leaflet generally was not. You insisted the two were both low reliability sources. "If you think we shouldn't include opinions in this article then make that case, but then you also have to remove Margaret Atwood's opinion." You repeatedly lobbied for the removal of this content. You also have repeatedly misrepresented my argument, that low reputability sources which are minority opinions should not be given undue weight and that this would be a minefield specifically for this topic. I have never said that opinions should not be included, only low reliability opinions. It is not constuctive to pretend I am being deceptive, especially when we can all read the comment above. It is also not constructive to ask leading accusatory questions like "Are you actually willing to discuss this? Or will you tell me that you aren't interested in my input again?". You are once again being misrepresntative, as I was exceptionally clear that that disagreement was exclusive to your lobbing for the removal of the atwood source claiming penguin was a low reputability publisher. You have also been explicitly informed that the reason for the 'no further discussion' was your stonewalling. I took the issue instead to the RS noticeboard as it was more constructive than cyclic disagreement. None of this is constructive, welcome or appreciated. You have obviously just been invited to engage in discussion about moving the atwood quote with explicit mention of this being a new topic.

@Linn C Doyle: Nowhere in those quotes of me do I say that Penguin is unreliable, and I clearly say "if" you want to remove Bacouni for being irrelevant, than you should also remove Atwood for being irrelevant. Never said that we necessarily had to remove Atwood's quote. I explicitly pointed out that the leaflet is reliable (confirmed on the noticeboard), which means the only possible difference is relevance. You can't find a quote of me saying Penguin is unreliable because I never said it, and I would appreciate it if you stopped lying about what I've said.

Even now you are continuing to refer to the source as "low reliability", when we've already confirmed that it is reliable for sourcing Bacouni's opinion, which is all we ever wanted to do with it. Nothing more. Is that not deceptive?

You were the one stonewalling by refusing to further discuss this. You're right, your behavior is unconstructive because you are insisting on calling the Bacouni source unreliable when it clearly is, which prevented us from discussing the real issue of relevance. That is why I asked the leading questions, because I am tired of being stonewalled by you. It is ridiculous to call my insistence that the source is reliable "stonewalling", when it has been confirmed that it is reliable! Sudonymous (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: when I said we should not include low reliability opinion pieces you claimed we should remove penguin publishing. How else is this to be interpreted? we can all read above. Again you did indeed lobby to remove the atwood quote, as, once again, we can all read above.

The argument that Atwood is neither relevant nor notable is one that I will not agree with, thank you. This is not a stonewall, this is the information verified with the RS noticeboard, which, again, we can all go read.

I was stonewalling, but with the reasonable position which I went to the effort to double check I was correct with on the RS noticeboard. I so no reason why this is not the correct action? Quite frankly

The leaflet is not confirmed as reliable on the noticeboard, which again we can all go read, it is confirmed as unreliable self publishing, which is why it is only suitable for the personal opinion of the author, and not factual statement, and in this case only where relevance and notability, and non-minority opinion can be identified, as repeatedly outlined above.

I think by going "You're right, your behavior is unconstructive because" you are simply descending this into immature bickering, which I am not interested in. You have been invited to discuss why you think this source should be moved without consensus or discussion. Feel free to do so.Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: My argument was that the Vatican piece is not unreliable, and that the only reason to remove it is if you think we should not include opinions, or if you think it is irrelevant. By those standards I think Atwood's quote has to go to.

I've never claimed that Atwood is not notable, only that her opinion is no more relevant than the archbishop's. The noticeboard did not confirm that her opinion is relevant, that noticeboard is only for reliability (which I never disputed), not relevance. If you refuse to discuss whether her quote is relevant that is a perfect example of stonewalling.

The noticeboard clearly confirmed that it is reliable for stating Bacouni's opinion, which is all it was ever used for. So you admit you were the one stonewalling, yet you accuse me of it.

What's immature is blatantly misrepresenting what I've said, and refusing to accept when I try to clarify my position. It's also immature to continue to argue that the Vatican newsletter is unreliable for Bacouni's opinion, when we have already confirmed it is reliable for that. Sudonymous (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Location of Atwood Quote

@Linn C Doyle: The Atwood quote is currently located in the People of Hope section, but I think it would make more sense in the reception section. The only purposes of the quote is to give us Atwood's opinion on the group, and to inform us that her book was influenced by People of Hope. While this influence is notable, and it may make sense to include her views on the group, it doesn't belong in a section focused on facts about the current member communities. Instead it belongs in the reception section, since it is about an opinion and how the group influenced popular culture. You reverted my movement of the quote to this section, hence why I'm opening this discussion section. I know we have two other conversations going on in this talk page, but those have devolved into discussions of personal conduct, so I'm hoping we can use this section to actually discuss the move. Sudonymous (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: So the reason Atwoods response specifically is included in the People of Hope section is to provide some general useful disambiguation in wiki on some 'hot topics'. For instance, a member of the People of Praise was recently appointed to supreme court. Many low quality publishing (tabloid media) has reported that Atwood based the Handmaidens Tale on stories about the People of Praise, however in order to clarify this inaccuracy I have sourced verifiable and reputable printing of the Atwood interview, in which Atwood specifies the "People of Hope" as inspiration. As this react is centred around the People of Hope I believe it belongs exclusively in the People of Hope section, as moving it would perhaps imply that this react could be applied to other Sword of the Spirit communities, such as the People of Praise in India, which was not even founded when Atwood was collecting articles about the People of Hope "cult".Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: I don't think the purpose of the page is to provide "general useful disambiguation" on "hot topics". When included in the reception section, I kept the part that specifically said People of Hope was the influence, which should keep it clear that People of Hope was the influence, not People of Praise or some other community. Also, if the goal is to correct false statements about People of Praise, why would it go in the People of Hope? If you wanted disambiguation on hot topics, you would put something in the People of Praise section saying that people falsely state that it is the influence for the book, when People of Hope is the real influence. Even then, I think the best option would be putting it in the reception section, possibly with a disclaimer that "some sources falsely say that People of Praise influenced Atwood's book". Sudonymous (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: Please re-read. Nobody said "purpose of the page is to provide "general useful disambiguation" on "hot topics", thank you. The goal of including this in the People of Hope section, not the goal of including this. It is included because it is a world famous author reliably published providing reaction relevant to the group, given that these groups were researched in the writing of a world famous book. If we can provide useful disambiguation with formatting I see no reason why not to. I also dont see the use in moving this reaction. Is it currently unclear that this is 'reception' material. I also dont think explicit reference to the people of praise is required, that is just poor journalism, the fact is that the correct information is now contained here, and is accessible :)Linn C Doyle (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: You said the purpose of including it in that section is to provide "general useful disambiguation" on "hot topics", and I believe that we should not orientate the information layout based on that goal. That's what I was saying. And if you do not want to directly cite that misinterpretation, I think it doesn't make sense to claim that you are trying to clarify that specific inaccuracy. I'm fine including her reliably published reaction to the group, but I believe reactions to the group go in the reception section, not in a section focused on factual information on the group itself. If People of Hope had their own page, it would make sense to add a Reception section and add this quote in that section, but they do not, so it should go in the reception section of this page. The purpose of the current member communities section is to give factual information on member communities, and adding a side note about how that community influenced a popular book breaks the flow of information. It makes much more sense to put it in a separate section. Sudonymous (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: in that section thank you. I think it is useful to include this reaction in the People of Hope section as it is particularly relevant to this community. This also avoids messy sorting in the reception section, which thus far has been reserved for reception commments that are explicitly generalised to the whole of the sword of the spirit.Linn C Doyle (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: The layout of that section affects the layout of the entire page. The reception section is currently pretty short, I don't see what the issue with "messy sorting" is. Including reactions in a section focused on facts is also "messy sorting", I'd argue. If we wanted to include the reaction with the People of Hope section, we would have to make a subsection for "reception of People of Hope", but including that in the "current communities" section seems very messy. Including it in the reception section, and clearly stating that it is about the People of Hope, seems to be the clearest way of providing the information. Sudonymous (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: The community sections are not lengthy. The structure for each is generally one paragraph for a factual summary then remaining paragraphs for notable mentions of the group in reliable publishing. I do not see any issue with the current format, and I see a value in retaining community-specific resource for the community sections, and reserving 'reception' for more general statement. If you feel any sections are too short or neglecting of notable reliable content it would be fantastic if you contributed. Linn C Doyle (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: I did not say that the community sections were lengthy, I said that mixing factual statements about the communities with reactions to the communities is messy, especially for a loosely linked reaction (author basing a book loosely on the community). I do feel that some sections are too short and neglect information but that is for another discussion, please keep this discussion on topic. Sudonymous (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: I disagree that this is "messy". I disagree that this is a "loosely linked reaction".

Again, you repeatedly accuse me of neglecting information, but for almost a fortnight have been unable to provide an example of what that information might be, despite being repeatedly invited to produce such examples, and informed that further reliable content for this page is welcome.

This is neither constructive nor welcome. Thank you. Linn C Doyle (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: I have explained before what I found lacking; specifically that there is too much of a focus on controversies and negative opinions, and very little information on what the organization actually does day to day. More importantly, that is specifically not the point of this discussion subsection. I'm specifically talking about why I think the quote needs to be moved. I am also specifically trying to avoid discussion about potentially neglected information, because those conversations have so far gone nowhere. Instead I am focusing on the placement of this quote, as I hope we can get something productive out of discussing it. I'm not sure why you brought up neglected information, but bringing that up here is not constructive and I ask you to keep the conversation on topic.

Normally when a book has been based on a subject, that information is included in the "reception" or "in popular culture" sections of a page. Here it has been placed in the middle of a different section, breaking the normal placement of this sort of information. Do you have a reason why we should not stick to using a "reception" or "in popular culture" section for this? Even if you want to associate it more directly with People of Hope, this could be done with a proper subsection. Sudonymous (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: You raised the issue. Yes my reasoning is stated above.Linn C Doyle (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: No I did not raise the issue. When I mentioned the reception section was short, that was only as a way to point out that this information could easily be included in the reception section without being messy. I was not trying to start a conversation about general "neglected" information, and ever since you mentioned it I've been trying to move away from that conversation since it is off-topic of this specific issue. Your reasoning does not specifically mention why you want to break from the traditional way of doing it on Wikipedia, I was hoping for a response directly regarding that. Sudonymous (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous:

• "I do feel that some sections are too short and neglect information"

You raised the issue. You also seem that you should be able to throw accusations at me, but it is inappropriate to respond to these accusations. You are also mimicking me, which is hilariously immature. Linn C Doyle (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: If you look at your response before that, you said

• "If you feel any sections are too short or neglecting of notable reliable content it would be fantastic if you contributed".

I then responded

• "I do feel that some sections are too short and neglect information but that is for another discussion, please keep this discussion on topic.".

@Sudonymous:

• If you contributed. Not if you would like further opportunity to accuse me of bias while failing to provide example of content you think I am missing.

You raised the issue

you are also, above, currently mimicking my language "immature", "this is not contructive", "thank you" "stonewalling". Besides you are also acting like this is some sort of childish game where you try to turn everything around, I think I am quite done with your nonsense.Linn C Doyle (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: Yes, I was trying to clarify that I thought there was some issues with neglected content, but that I wasn't interested in contributing new content at the moment, hence why I didn't want to discuss it and instead discuss this, the movement of the Atwood quote. "immature", "constructive", and "stonewalling" are all good words for describing the issues at hand so I felt it made sense to use them. Thank you is an attempt to keep the conversation polite. I am not playing a childish game, I am trying to have a serious conversation about whether to move the Atwood quote and you keep changing the subject. Sudonymous (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: nonsense, you have been jumping at every opportunity to throw an accusation, mirror my sentences back at me obviously mimic to mock. utter nonsense Linn C Doyle (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: both of our behaviors in the previous thread was uncivil, so in starting this new thread I am trying to improve on my behavior. Since starting this thread the only thing I have accused you of is changing the conversation, and refusing to give a response other than "see above", both of which I think are factual descriptions of your behavior at this moment. I am not trying to mock you. Sudonymous (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: Calling me uncivil. Accusation of refusal to respond when really it is you who is repeatedly requesting a response i have already provided and repeatedly directed you to.Linn C Doyle (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I was responding to something you brought up (if I thought any sections were too short), while also specifying that I wasn't trying to talk about that at the moment. I was trying to record our disagreement but then move on to the discussion at hand. I was not trying to throw accusations at you, I am specifically trying to avoid accusations and other unconstructive behavior, because our conversation has been plagued by it these last few days and I'm trying to work past that. I am also not mimicking you, not sure why you think I am.

Going back on topic, I am hoping to hear why you think the traditional layout of having information about "books inspired by X" in "reception" or "in popular culture" sections should not be followed. Sudonymous (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: and that information has been provided above.Linn C Doyle (talk)

@Linn C Doyle: After I brought up the issue of how most articles put information about books in "popular culture" sections you did not respond. I am asking for a response to that. Sudonymous (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: see above Linn C Doyle (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: as I've already said I am asking for more detail, but you are now refusing to give it. It's fine if you don't want to discuss this move, but you cannot both refuse to discuss and block me from moving the quote. You have to choose one. Sudonymous (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: Accusation of blocking movement of the quote when it is you who is making changes to the article with no discussion or consensusLinn C Doyle (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: No refusal, info above. Wow, more accusations....Linn C Doyle (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: dont edit war under the guise of BOLD when you are the one stalling discussion by repeating the same question. I think the section should stay where it is for aforementioned reasons. Feel free to discuss further.Linn C Doyle (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: I am not edit warring. If you read WP:NOTSTUCK, you are allowed to make another bold edit during discussion if you adjust the edit to reflect the other person's concerns. You were concerned that putting it outside the People of Hope section would lead to confusion, so I put it in the People of Hope section, but under a new subsection. If you want to discuss further, you need to explain why you think this change is still not suitable, since it is now in the People of Hope section.

Furthermore, I am not the one stalling discussion. I am repeating a question because you refuse to actually respond to it. After I brought up the fact that this is a pop culture reference and pop culture references usually go in a separate discussion, you never gave an argument against it except "see above", referencing things you said before I asked the question. Those previous statements do not answer my question. Sudonymous (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: Feel free to discuss furtherLinn C Doyle (talk)

@Linn C Doyle: I am trying to discuss further, but you are not responding to my discussion. If do want your input, but simply reverting edits and telling me to "discuss" without responding to my questions is not discussing. Sudonymous (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

People of Praise Bangalore

The article previously said that People of Praise disaffiliated, but also that People of Praise (in Bangalore) is still part of SoS. This didn't make sense so I looked into it, and it appears the two People of Praises are unrelated. If you check the website of People of Praise, there is no mention of a Bangalore branch (https://peopleofpraise.org/about/branches/). Each branch of SoS has its own name (https://swordofthespirit.net/our-communities/), and it seems the Bangalore branch chose a name that happens to be the same as People of Praise, but they are otherwise unrelated. I moved the People of Praise section to the "former member communities" section, and I removed the line about the Bangalore branch since there is nothing notable about that branch as far as I can tell. Sudonymous (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: The request to disambiguate between People of Praise, the historic associate of Sword of the Spirit, and People of Praise, the indian covenant community, was made by another editor. I see no reason to change the current format. It is clear that the point of the indian people of praise section is to provide this disambiguation, and it is clear that the two groups are seperate. You have been repeatedly invited to discuss on the talk page prior to making edits, have stated above you are aware this is the correct thing to do, yet have not done so. We are now at three reverts. Thank you.Linn C Doyle (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: I would also caution you on blanking references...Linn C Doyle (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: The section does not disambiguate between them though, it does not at all make clear that they are separate organizations. Discussing prior to making edits is not required or suggested on Wikipedia, only required if other editors disagree with your edits. This edit is completely unrelated to my other edits so there is no reason I would need to discuss it first. I blanked the reference because the only sentence backed up by that reference was deleted, due to it not being notable enough for inclusion. Sudonymous (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: I would like to discuss again removing the section on People of Praise Bangalore. There is nothing notable about People of Praise Bangalore as far as I know, and the only information we have about them on this page is their name and location. SoS has 90 communities, listing the name and location of each of these on this page would be ridiculous, so we should only include notable ones. The other communities on this page (e.g. People of Hope) seem notable, but I don't see the importance of information on People of Praise Bangalore. Thoughts? Sudonymous (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: Given the political and religious notability of Trumps supreme court nomination I personally think it is both notable and useful to demonstrate that there is a PoP belonging to the Sword of the Spirit, however it is not the People of Praise with a supreme court member. I understand you disagree so I would propose rather than start butting heads you may wish to open an RfC on this section which we could both agree to respect the outcome of. Thank you. Linn C Doyle (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: The People of Praise in Bangalore has no connection to the American People of Praise organization, they just share a name. Barrett being a member of an American group with the same name as a distinct Indian group does not make the Indian group notable. Sudonymous (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Why does each community get a subsection?

I was previously under the assumption that each of these listed communities was its own network of branches, similar to People of Praise, which has locations across the US. But looking into it I've realized most of these are just individual branches of SoS. According to SoS's website, there are 19 locations in the US (not including college outreach branches), and many more globally. Obviously we cannot give each of these a subsection, so which do we choose? Word of God and People of Praise seem to deserve sections, as they are early branches that served important historical roles, and then disaffiliated. People of Hope is the branch that specifically influenced Atwood, so I guess that gives it notability. But what about Servants of the Word? The only thing notable about it is that one of its leaders abused children. Should every branch that gets written about in a local newspaper receive a section (whether for a scandal or something positive)? If we do that then we could have dozens of sections for tons of tiny chapters, which makes no sense.

I think we seriously need to consider a reorg, since giving individual branches sections doesn't really make sense, it would be like if the Catholic Church page had sections for parish churches. Instead I think it would make sense to organize content by subject, and simply mention branches when relevant. Word of God and People of Praise are important for the early history of SoS, so they can be mentioned there. Servants of Christ the King and Servants of the Word are only really notable for their scandals (sexual abuse and accusations of cult behavior), so it seems like it would make more sense to have sections dedicated to those issues that mention the individual chapters (e.g. "several chapters have had sexual abuse cases, such as Servants of the Christ the King in Steubenville, Ohio..."). People of Hope is only relevant because Atwood was partially influenced by it, so it can go in a pop culture section. I know I've already proposed the pop culture section, and that it is a contentious change, but I still think it makes sense, especially after realizing People of Hope is literally just a single chapter in a small New Jersey suburb. Sudonymous (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sudonymous: Listing communities was proposed by COI editors and accepted. Review the editing history of the user whos third opinion request you responded to. The section on Servants of the Word was included by admin. The content of each communities description contains accurate and neutral representation of the reliable body of work on each topic. For example if you google "Sword of the Spirit" and "Servants of the Word" then look at the news tab you should see two articles. One is published by Michigan Public Radio, a source which I have discussed with admins and been told is accurate. The other is Word of God self publishing by paid writer Billy Kangas, so that cannot be included. I see no reason to support your lobbying. Linn C Doyle (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Linn C Doyle: Just because other editors proposed it and it was accepted it does not mean it needs to stay that way. I provided a rational for why a different layout would be more logical, but you're not providing me with a reason that it is not. I would like to discuss why you think that layout idea is bad.

I didn't say the information is inaccurate or biased, I said we should rearrange it as the current layout is subpar. I never suggested the Billy Kangas article be included, so not sure why you bring it up.

You don't have to support my lobbying, but you need to give a reason for your reverts other than "this was the consensus and I don't want it changed". Sudonymous (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Admin review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responding to Accusations of Bias and COI editing

For any admin review there have been multiple users which have assumed I am a COI editor based on the content of this article. I have repeatedly pointed out that the content included in this article is presented neutrally, and accurately reflects the content of reliable publishing on this topic. Some editors have considered that I am focusing on 'negative review' content. I have repeatedly made open invitations on this page for editors to provide reliable sources which contain this content which they believe I am omitting, yet all have failed to do so. I can understand the assumption that the article content is focusing on a minority viewpoint, however it should be appartent to anyone who conducts any investigation that I am not providing any bias.

For example if we google "Sword of the Spirit" and "Servants of Christ the King" together, the first page on google shows 5 blogs discussing cultish aspects of the group, one newspaper article discussing intervention by bishops due to allegations of abuse, and one link to the Notre Dame Archives.

If we google "Sword of the Spirit" and "Servants of the Word", and look at the 'news' tab, we see one article which is paid publishing from the Word of God (community), and the article on Jamie Treadwell which has been included in this article.

If we google "Sword of the Spirit" and "People of Hope" the first page of google shows one book by Csordas which has been included in this article, a blog post on reddit discussing the group as a cult, the organisations own self-published webfront, and a newspaper article from the new york times detailing investigation of the group on grounds of abuse.

I am, quite frankly, baffled as to how anyone can do the slightest bit of cursory research that the content included in this article is not minority opinion, but instead reflects the content of reliable publishing. There are journal articles, textbooks from doctors and professors, and news articles from reputable publishers such as New York Times, Washington Post, and Penguin.

I am not a COI editor and I am not editing with bias. Indeed there is a complete failure to present me with any example of content which is missing. I have repeatedly invited even known COI editors, and included sources they have brought forward here, but I think the fact that even the declared COI editor brought forth articles which referred to abuse within these groups as an example of positive review to be included speaks volumes as to how reliable publishing speaks to this group. I have given open invite and received no sources to include so I am quite frankly baffled as to why anyone thinks this is COI behaviour.

If you have any material you feel this page is lacking, and it is from a reliable, verifiable source, please feel free to contribute this information here, and direct me to the parts of the source which contains the information you feel my edits have been lacking. Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:45, 6 February 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)