This is an archive of past discussions about People of Praise. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I removed the recently added sentence that says, "For People of Praise, charitable activities comprise a fraction of their activities, with yearly tithes close to 3.8 million in 2017, salaries and other administrative expenditures comprised approximately 3.3 million for the Indiana parent organization, whilst various charitable works were allocated approximately $500,000, making those charitable efforts." I removed it because the footnote/citation that was provided ( to https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2020/05/30/pope-francis-calls-upon-catholic-charismatic-community-work-justice ) says nothing like that at all. Novellasyes (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The cited article does in fact discuss the proportion of charitable work to evangelical work of this class of group, and the numbers are supported by the 990 which is cited elsewhere, and is in the infobox. The there was a whole paragraph worth of information with multiple cites that is to be read as a whole. Sentences can contain information from multiple sources, that is permissible. DonGeiss (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm also confused by this content. In the cited article we have "Although there are important exceptions to this story—People of Praise, which has about 1,700 members in 22 cities in the United States, Canada and the Caribbean is one; LAMP ministries in the Bronx would be another—the Renewal is not known for its social commitment." People of Praise seems to be getting singled out for its "social commitment." I don't see anything in the source about People of Praise's financials. As for the 990, pulling things out of it that haven't been highlighted by independent secondary sources is WP:OR. And trying to tie something in the America source that is about the generalities of these types of groups to something specific about People of Praise from their 990 is WP:SYNTH. Marquardtika (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
“Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.” Again, the 990 is relevant, per the infobox, and the numbers referenced here are in support of the fact the PoP spends ~15% of its budget on social causes, vs. what the article suggests is closer to zero for its peers. DonGeiss (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean when you say "the 990 is relevant, per the infobox". Can you elaborate on what that sentence means? Novellasyes (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
All I meant to say was that information from the 990 was included in the infobox, so it's use in the article was more substantive than that single sentence. That said I haven't gotten a clear answer from other users of an example of how a primary source typically supports a secondary source, but I'll reiterate my statement above that the rules are clear: there is not an unequivocal bar to primary sources. I believe these filings are acceptable sources in this instance, but perhaps I am mistaken on that--I can't find anything specifically prohibiting them, and per guidelines anything not specifically prohibited may be use to substantiate a secondary source.
After some discussion, I think it would be more appropriate to offer the quantification in a different way. Overall, though, it is a relevant and appropriate point to include, and a reputable source to provide objective background to the conflicting statements on whether these parachurch groups engage in socially benevolent activities (either frequently, not at all, or de minimis). If the article is going to discuss that distinction, then it deserves some clarity beyond essentially "some do engage, some don't engage, all engage less than mainline catholics". A numerical data point is merely the most concise way I've come up with in a first edit to reduce ambiguity in these more or less conflicting statements. In other words, to simply say PoP spends "some" effort on social support is so vague as to be barely useful, but to say the group spends 500,000 per year outside the community illustrates the point that the secondary source makes in a plain and informative way: That PoP stands apart to some degree from other charismatic communities in this regard, but is not solely (or mostly) devoted to these activities.DonGeiss (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
There are a couple of different issues here. (1) Do you believe that if the infobox is structured in such a way that incorporating information into it from the 990s regardless of whether that information has been discussed in reliable sources, that therefore, other information from the 990s can also be incorporated into the body of the article, even if this other information has not been discussed or paid attention to in RS? (2) The sentence you wrote that I took out said "For People of Praise, charitable activities comprise a fraction of their activities, with yearly tithes close to 3.8 million in 2017, salaries and other administrative expenditures comprised approximately 3.3 million for the Indiana parent organization, whilst various charitable works were allocated approximately $500,000, making those charitable efforts." This raises an issue not just relating to whether it is okay to draw directly from the 990s even if RS aren't interested in that topic, but a second area of concern, which is that your sentence performs an analysis of the meaning of the dollar figures in the 990s. I believe this is known as WP:SYNTH and that it is advised against. Novellasyes (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I think I addressed your second question in my previous comment. Regarding infobox, no; you misunderstand me. I'll start by saying this is a tricky situation because the organization is secretive and has been actively purging data (as discussed in the article, and cited). So certain information that was formerly available on their own website is now only available elsewhere--for example those in leadership roles and their titles (It's certainly appropriate to include some names, but I will agree not all; that deserves attention, but not complete removal). I further agree that it might be questionable to cite the 990 one time as supporting a secondary source if we had no other use for information in that document. That would be WP:NOR. That is not the case here, and that is why I think its usage is appropriate, in the limited but important manner I have proposed above. Next, regarding the infobox, I simply filled out the infobox template with information that the template itself requests; if you look at other organizations and businesses they do not cite newspaper articles to source, for example, the CEO of Wal-Mart. I believe the same could and should apply here. Filings are acceptable for that purpose. They are also acceptable for subsidiaries. The same applies to subsidiaries on a 990 in this context. Regarding the next part of that question, I'm not saying what you propose, I'm merely suggesting that the appropriateness of the 990's use to support the "squishy" statements about charitable activities is simply bolstered--not justified, just bolstered--by the fact that I/we/etc. didn't dig up a prepared filing specifically for that singular supporting purpose. As I said above, I do agree that expressing contributions as a ratio is probably going to far, but to say they spend some money on charitable activities, and drop a cite to an already used source seems to be exactly what the guidelines for use of a primary source contemplate--to give context and support a valid secondary source (which I also cited). If you disagree, please state why. DonGeiss (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
