Talk:People of Praise

Links

Adding a lot of article links within the article, much of it within the intro paragraphs.

Statements about POP being a cult

Someone (with an IP address) added the sentence, "Some critics have referred to the organization as a 'cult.'" The link goes to this Slate article. In the Slate article, it says, "Law professor and Senate candidate Richard Painter tweeted the old Times story this weekend and said People of Praise 'looks like a cult'; another prominent critic one-upped Painter by calling it a 'secretive religious cult.'" I am going to take the sentence out of the article pending further conversation here. My view is that the sentence "Some critics have referred to the organization as a 'cult'" overstates or overamplifies what one learns from reading the Slate article. What one learns from reading the Slate article is that two partisan folks wrote tweets over the weekend saying it looks like or could be a cult. One of those tweets ( this one ) has seemingly now been made unavailable either by its original author or by Twitter. The fact that two partisan folks went on Twitter and said the word 'cult' in association with People of Praise doesn't seem very surprising in the environment we're in. It doesn't seem like a couple of folks (one of whom later deleted his tweet or had it deleted) tweeting that way deserves this attention in this article, or to be referenced with the honorarium 'Some critics'. Novellasyes (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I added a citation to an interview today with a former member who explicitly describes it as a cult and describes her experiences as a member. I hope this clears things up. User:Jerkey (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I live in Oregon where one of our Catholic bishops is a member and I'm sure he went through a full vetting in Rome before he was appointed six years ago. Maybe it's a regional thing and some branches are more strict than others or maybe it was cultish years ago but it's not a cult in Portland, I know where their community lives and it's in the middle of a nice neighborhood. It looks conservative and it's charismatic but that doesn't mean it's a cult. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It could definitely be something to say in the article that a former member of the group had a very negative experience with the group and refers to it as a cult. This is quoted in an interview with Democracy Now!. (I don't know if Wikipedia would generally regard a negative appraisal of an organization from a former member as worthy of inclusion in an article like this. Others would know.) I wouldn't, though, at any rate, leave the sentence in as it appears ("Some critics have referred to the organization as a 'cult.'") because of the "some critics..." part of it. The word "critic" could (and probably for many people, does) carry the association of something like an expert who has assessed and studied a situation and offered a critical overview or assessment of it. But that's not what has happened so far. The Slate article just references two people who are partisans and who tweeted out things about it being a cult and one of them either removed his tweet or had it removed by Twitter. I would imagine that reporters for the mainstream media are possibly reaching out to scholars and so on who are experts in cults and what makes something a cult, and asking them for their informed opinions on all of this. That to me would be the kind of thing that would be useful in the article, if and when that type of informed opinion gets put out there. Novellasyes (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this was weasel wording and, moreover, an exceptional claim. We shouldn't be throwing around a loaded term like "cult" without multiple expert scholarly opinions/analysis. Some tweets and a Democracy Now! reference are insufficient. I'm doubtful any such sources exist, since the current pope has encouraged Catholic charismatic communities like People of Praise. Marquardtika (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

There was a quote from an expert in the old reception section that has since been deleted: In response to accusations of being cult-like, anthropologist Thomas Csordas has written about the People of Praise and stated, "I would definitely not use the term cult in its popular sense." He said it was theologically conservative with a hierarchical leadership structure, but it was also influenced by the communitarianism of the 1960s counterculture. The article cited is the Slate article Amy Coney Barrett Is Allegedly a Member of a Religious Group That’s Been Called a “Cult”: But what is People of Praise, really?.

Yep, I removed that because the expert is saying it's not a cult...I figured we shouldn't introduce such a loaded and contentious word unless an expert was saying the group was cult-like. Otherwise it seems a bit weasley to me...why have the language here at all if the whole point is it's not a cult? That was my thinking. Marquardtika (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

(←) Here's a Guardian article questioning PoP: https://web.archive.org/web/20200926233624/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/26/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-donald-trump-people-of-praise?CMP=share_btn_fb Miniapolis 23:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not a weasel issue to report a claim that mainstream news sources (such a Reuters) report, but it should be included narrowly. I made an edit just now that does this. -- bkuhn 17:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Though I would agree that there is no outright reliable resource claiming that this group is a cult, there are many reliable resources for discussion of cult-like aspects of this group. Adrian Reimers, and Tomas Csordas are good primary sources, and there are an abundance of news articles dating back to the 70s which can be included as supplement. It is worth noting that anyone who is familiar with this group and news reporting regarding them through the 80s and 90s, or who is aware of facts like the senior leadership of this group sitting on fort lauderdale councils with bob mumford in the 70's that it is also difficult to say this group is definitely not a cult. I will be back when I have spare time and a bunch of newspaper clippings handyLinn C Doyle (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

In referenece to whether or not POP is a cult, here are some sources to consider: "The cult of praise" - A first-hand account from 2008 published in the student magazine "The Wake" (UofM) Also consider this recent AP article: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:500:8501:20E0:3435:BC67:F74D:B41F (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the term "cult" is inappropriate for this article, and is not supported by the cited sources. Also, the timing of its inclusion is highly suspect. MainePatriot (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Cult, broadly speaking, is the term we use for somebody else's religious beliefs, if they are thought out of the mainstream. But, being that the religious instinct is an inevitable part of human condition (everybody's got one, even if they think they don't!), ought, really, the observation that a particular Christian faith group's practices are "outside of the mainstream" be bandied about, especially on Wikipedia, as a slur? Sure, this happens in source material. An Esquire opinion piece from yesterday smirks of the "People of Praise [as] a Catholic group with rituals and traditions that...fall outside mainstream Church practice" (its linking to here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/amy-coney-barrett-people-of-praise/2020/10/06/5f497d8c-0781-11eb-859b-f9c27abe638d_story.html . Of course. We read things like this all the time. Then again, much accusatory ink was spilt with regard to Barrack Obama's church in Chicago, Trinity United Church of Christ (which, btw, is of the same denomination, as was Jim Jones's People's Temple"). If only the world could come to learn better. Individual acts of individuals' debasement often have been excused on the premises of their being of benefit to the overall good. (Hannah Arendt once said in a conversation that "the second step [of totalitarianism] is the notion: 'Things must change—no matter how[...]'") Because of the events of first half of the twentieth century, few mention, however, that "Joe Lieberman's branch of Judaism is outside of the American Jewish mainstream." I propose that we at Wikipedia, at least, extend to other faith traditions this same courtesy.

(On another note, the same Esquire piece also alludes to the "perpetual freakouts over Cancel Culture, which usually attempt to erase the notion that there are boundaries on what it's acceptable to say in our society, and we're all just fighting over where they are." Yes, cancel culture is about "boundaries' maintenance" with regard to acceptable behavior. But, wait, Isn't PoP thought a cult because, after all, in Coral Theill's words, its "'teachings' were the 'living water' and outside influences would poison the water. We were to 'put on the mind of community' in all things. I soon learned that lack of conformity meant sessions of open humiliation by the community leaders and members, threats, shunning, etc." (from her memoir's chapter 2: "Mental/Nervous Breakdown, Marital Rape")? Isn't that also a form of "boundaries' maintenance" with regard to group members' behaviors? Indeed, how weren't Al Franken, Garrison Keillor, & Louis C.K., although completely inadvertent in their respective "lack of conformity" to certain purifying community mores, not ALSO caused "open humiliation by the community leaders and members, threats, shunning, etc."?)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Coral Thiell

See Talk:People of Praise#Coral Thiell / controversies for earlier and very detailed dialogue on this. Novellasyes (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

These seem to be the four different options that could be pursued.

Option 1: Don't have anything about Coral Thiell's allegations in the article at all.

Option 2: Mention Coral Thiell's allegations about POP being a cult. Do not mention information (published in the Washington Free Beacon) that could be taken to undermine her credibility.

Option 3: Mention Coral Thiell's allegations about POP being a cult. Include additional information about Coral Thiell's history of allegations against others, which were heard by official bodies and found wanting, and the fact that her ex-husband won a defamation lawsuit against her.

Option 4: Create an article on WP about Coral Thiell that includes lots of information and context about her, on the theory that if someone is important enough to have the fact that they are calling the subject of an article a cult included in the article about that organization, then they are important enough to have an article about them.

I prefer Option 3. Novellasyes (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Option 3 seems the most fair. Catholic things (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• I very strongly prefer Option 2. I understand the sentiment for the other options (and don't much care for Ms Thiell), but that should not be -- cannot be -- the question. If a reliable source reports the information, the underlying reliability of their source, in this case Coral Thiell, is not normally in the frame. If we caveat or exclude every RS article quoting a whistleblower with an axe to grind or a less-than-perfect personal history, we might as well shutter Wikipedia. Reuters, Politico, and Newsweek all reported on her claims and I'll be buggered if I can find an RS that rebutted them, or even reported on significant credibility issues. To me, @Marquardtika is trying to lawyer our way into impugning the info because the RS quoted someone that we might not consider independently reliable... and doing it with WFB, whose main claim to fame is funding the original Oppo at the heart of the so-called "Russia Scandal."

I think the correct model to follow is our approach to Scientiologists; they fly into an apoplectic rage rebutting any hint of criticism, and yet RSs investigate and report on allegations. We include that info in the articles without diving into the rabbit hole of vetting each underlying source. Perhaps more on-point are the details that exploded around Roy Moore in 2017. That article includes the results of the RS investigations without adding the unrelenting ad hominem attacks on the accusers. The entire point of some many rules surrounding RS is to ensure that we are relying to sources that are not the primary people who might be in a dispute, but instead on the people who independently report that dispute. I see no other Wiki-credible way to go than option 2. Last1in (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I like option 3. (Cf., for example, @ Joe Biden's accuser, Tara Reade.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see below for my changed !vote. Thanks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI, there was a good New York Times piece today. It had this interesting observation: "A number of current members of the group did not respond to requests for interviews or declined to speak, citing concerns about privacy. Judge Barrett and members of her family did not respond to requests for an interview. Since those who did agree to interviews had left the community, their perspectives were more likely to be negative." So the current members aren't talking to the press. Disgruntled former members are. This article also doesn't name Theill. Marquardtika (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Of the options outlined above, I think #3 is closest to the mark. However, I don't know that we should actually name Theill. She's not really notable in her own right. As an example, politician Cal Cunningham recently admitted to an affair with a woman. That woman's name is all over the media, including in the sources being used on Cunningham's page. But we don't name her, because even though she's involved in a notable event, she herself is not notable. Working off of the current content in the article, we could do something like this: "In the wake of Amy Coney Barrett's 2020 nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, a woman who was a member of the People of Praise group in Oregon for five years during the 1970s and 1980s spoke to a number of media outlets about her experience with the group. She called People of Praise a 'cult' and alleged that during her time in the group, women were expected to be completely obedient to men. She accused her husband of physical and psychological abuse. According to The Washington Post, the woman said her time in People of Praise 'may have been atypical and extreme and that there may be regional differences.' The Washington Free Beacon reported that the woman had a history of lawsuits, including a defamation judgement obtained against her by her ex-husband, and that she was estranged from all of her children. A spokesperson for People of Praise denied the woman's allegations, saying 'men and women share a fundamental equality as bearers of God's image' and 'We value independent thinking.'" Marquardtika (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• In light of Theill's accelerating actism, I !vote option 4. Cf.: notable memoirist Augusten Burroughs.

newsweek/"Former People of Praise Member Calls on Senators to Allow Her to Testify at Amy Coney Barrett's Confirmation Hearing"

". . In a letter addressed to U.S. Senators this week, Coral Anika Theill, urged them to allow her to testify at Barrett's confirmation hearings about 'the oppression, abuse and crimes that I and other women were victims of in the People of Praise sect.' She wrote: 'I would very much like to testify to the Senate in person as I believe the public should hear first-hand about Amy Coney Barrett's support of patriarchal ideology and resulting oppression of women. This should be a disqualifier for the highest court in the land.' Theill said that 'although men have ultimate authority in the sect, women leaders, like [Barrett], are complicit in the subordination and mistreatment of lower status women like me.' In the letter, Theill said she joined a group in Corvallis, Oregon that was 'formally absorbed' into the People of Praise community in 1982. 'The entire time I was there, I was under the control of men and subjected to psychological abuse, including undue influence, threats, shaming, and shunning by leaders and my husband,' she wrote. 'Coercive persuasion was used on my children to turn them against me. My husband and community leaders used coercive control, isolation and intimidation to strip me of my personhood, safety and freedoms guaranteed to me as a United States citizen. They also launched a smear campaign when I finally got the courage to leave.' . ."

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

insideedition(video)[1]
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I find it quite disturbing that after a few days of this discussion, *none* of these options have been selected, and instead the controversy is mentioned, quotes *only* the parts of Theill's comments that serve to exonerate POP, but not her accusations. This doesn't come across as NPOV, as the direct quotes included support to mitigate Theill's accusations, and the summary of her accusations is not complete nor does it include any quotes. I really can't see it meeting any of the options above, nor does it seem to to fit wikipedia standards as written. -- bkuhn 20:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Although wikipedia doesn't host wp:Attack pages, IMHO the section can be expanded appropriately without extensively "quoting directly" either Theill nor her husband and other detractors (per wp:Impartial) but with the material stated in neutral fashioin in wikipedia's voice.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I generally agree with the point above. As it stands, what's now happened is the section has been expanded and I think the whole thing is in an undue weight space, which I'm saying as someone who *supported* adding Thiell's concerns. There is really no reason that I see to include so many quotes from the primary and secondary sources. -- bkuhn 01:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC

A former member claims People of Praise is a cult, which has been reported in mainstream media. Non-RS media have claimed that she is biased and/or not credible. Should the article mention her allegations? If so, should she be named? If both, should non-RS criticisms of her also be included and does she warrant a separate article?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Coral Thiell

Background:

• Coral Thiell was a member of People of Praise (POP) several decades ago. She was also married to a man who was part of POP.
• Amy Coney Barrett (ACB) is a member of POP. In the wake of her nomination to SCOTUS, attention focused on many aspects of ACB's background, including POP.
• Former POP member Coral Thiell believes that POP is a cult. A robust handful of mainstream media organizations, following ACB's nomination, reported on Coral Thiell's negative experiences with POP and her belief that it is a cult. These media organizations include the Washington Post on September 28, Raw Story and Reuters.
• Extensive dialogue has occurred on the talk page of the "People of Praise" article on Wikipedia. Initially, the conversation was about whether to mention Coral Thiell's allegations at all. This was eventually resolved in a consensus to include the material in the article.
• Then, the Washington Free Beacon, which is a conservative/activist publication, and which also has a reporting staff, published two articles going into a number of details about Coral Thiell that the mainstream media organizations did not go into. ( Here and here. ) Their reporting, which links to primary documents, describes Thiell as having "a track record of hyper-partisan online posting, farfetched lawsuits, and fantastic grievance peddling that casts doubt on her credibility." They note that her ex-husband -- the man who was her husband when they were both in the POP group -- successfully sued her for defamation in 2014.
• User:PerpetuaGalway asked on the "People of Praise" talk page to have the material from the Washington Free Beacon included in the article.
• Dialogue ensued on the "People of Praise" talk page and a consensus has not been reached.
• The dialogue raises interesting questions that go beyond just this one situation. Those include:

• How to handle situations where one (less prestigious) media organizations mention facts that are not mentioned in significantly more, and significantly more prestigious, publications. (Let's assume for the sake of hypothesis that the facts mentioned by the less-favored, lonely publication are true.)
• How to handle situations where a robust handful of media organizations talk about the concerns of a disgruntled former member of an organization. The disgruntled former member is not independently notable, but the organization is independently notable.

This is what the article currently says (as of noon on October 14):

"Coral Anika Theill was a member of People of Praise for five years during the 1970s and 1980s. In the wake of Amy Coney Barrett's 2020 nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, Theill spoke to a number of media outlets about her experience with the religious community. Theill alleged that during her time in the group's branch in Corvallis, Oregon, women were expected to endure complete submission to the group's men. According to The Washington Post, Theill said her time in People of Praise "may have been atypical and extreme and that there may be regional differences." Theill argues, "Many call [the group] a community but I describe it as a cult." A spokesperson for People of Praise denied Theill's allegations, saying "men and women share a fundamental equality as bearers of God's image" and "We value independent thinking."

Here are the options that various editors have suggested:

Option 1: Don't have anything about Coral Thiell's allegations in the article at all. Note: This would involve removing a paragraph that is currently in the article and it would leave People of Praise#Reception with three other paragraphs with three other evaluations of the group.

Option 2: Mention Coral Thiell's allegations about POP being a cult. Do not mention information (published in the Washington Free Beacon) that could be taken to undermine her credibility.

Option 2 is what is currently in the article.

Option 2(a): Mention that a former member has alleged that POP is a cult, but do not use Coral Thiell's name. Do not mention information (published in the Washington Free Beacon) that could be taken to undermine her credibility.

Option 3: Mention Coral Thiell's allegations about POP being a cult. Include additional information about Coral Thiell's history of allegations against others, which were heard by official bodies and found wanting, and the fact that her ex-husband won a defamation lawsuit against her.

Here's what that could look like:

"Coral Anika Theill was a member of People of Praise for five years during the 1970s and 1980s. In the wake of Amy Coney Barrett's 2020 nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, Theill spoke to a number of media outlets about her experience with the religious community. Theill alleged that during her time in the group's branch in Corvallis, Oregon, women were expected to endure complete submission to the group's men. According to The Washington Post, Theill said her time in People of Praise "may have been atypical and extreme and that there may be regional differences." Theill argues, "Many call [the group] a community but I describe it as a cult." A spokesperson for People of Praise denied Theill's allegations, saying "men and women share a fundamental equality as bearers of God's image" and "We value independent thinking." The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative digital publication, said that Theill "has a track record of hyper-partisan online posting, farfetched lawsuits, and fantastic grievance peddling that casts doubt on her credibility." The publication linked to documents about Theill's accusations of her children, her parents, her therapists, and her attorneys as well as to a variety of unsuccessful lawsuits Theill has filed over the years, as well as noting that her ex-husband obtained a defamation judgment against Thiell in 2014.

Option 4: Create an article on WP about Coral Thiell that includes lots of information and context about her, on the theory that if someone is important enough to have the fact that they are calling the subject of an article a cult included in the article about that organization, then they are important enough to have an article about them. Novellasyes (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

References

None of these options are particularly good. -- bkuhn 01:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• I am in favor of either Option 1 or Option 3. That means: Either leave out the Thiell cult allegation altogether, or if it stays in the article, incorporate additional context and material around it. Novellasyes (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Novellasyes here. Either Option 1 or Option 3 seem acceptable to me. While I'd lean toward Option 1 on the basis that there doesn't seem to be any evidence other than Ms. Theill's own that her claims are true, Option 3 does seem more fair than the current situation, Option 2. PerpetuaGalway (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• I support including criticism of the group from former members without naming them. I think we can accomplish this by including something like "Several former members of the group have spoken negatively of their time in People of Praise, alleging an environment of female subordination" or some such. As for Coral Theill, I note that she hasn't been covered anywhere in the media that I can find since the flurry of coverage a few weeks ago. In fact, I don't see anything in the mainstream press since the Free Beacon article was published. She requested to testify at the Barrett hearings and was rebuffed. So, as far as reliable sources go, she had 15 minutes in the sun before everyone seemed to move on. Was Barrett even asked about POP in her confirmation hearings? Marquardtika (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

user:Marquardtika, let's not jump too soon to saying that such continuing coverage doesn't exist. For example, Inside Edition had Theill's taped appearance as part of a news segment broadcast only three days ago.[2] Thus, Theill's authorship (sure, memoirist Susan Ray Schmidt's got a few hundred Amazon reviewers; Theill, only a dozen[3]...), when combined with, for example, the several articles written entirely about her telling of her life, tgthr wd be enough for her to pass the wp:N hurdle, inMHO.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

[Added later] - From the day before the above comment, within a panel discussion, Theill tells of "her grueling experience of subjugation, marital rape and losing custody of her many children due to the cult." --> [4] ([5])--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, whether or not she should have her own article is a separate issue than what the content in this article should say. As for her notability, I'd think she would fall under WP:1E. It may be appropriate to create a redirect for Coral Anika Theill to this article. Marquardtika (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

In point of fact, the text at wp:1E does not preclude coverage being given someone's life being brought additional renown due to some other event. See that here she's noted in 2007; here, 2010; here, 2010; here, 2014; here, 2018. What's the ersatz singular event, therein? It can't be eg her 2020 Senate letter. It's the alleged familial abuse, childhood through adulthood and into marriage. Whenever that event [sic] under consideration involves someone's entire life--as in the case of the publication of a memoir--it's wiki established practice to cover the life itself via biographical details (rather than referring only to, say, details of Theill's writing the the memoir, its publication and then its allegations' becoming additionally newsworthy due circumstances not specifically related to them).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 for two distinct reasons: (1) It is the only one that can be reliably sourced. That this woman made such allegations has been reported widely, including interviews with the person. The only source identified for the criticism of the woman is the WFB, which so totally does not fit under WP:RS. The quote about Theill noted above, "a track record of hyper-partisan online posting, farfetched lawsuits, and fantastic grievance peddling," is not at all an unfair description of FreeBeacon.com. (2) That said, I don't think we even need to reach a WP:RS decision for this. We are not journalistic, but encyclopaedic. We vet our sources, not the sources-of-the-sources unless other reliable sources have raised the issue (see WP:1E). Since none have, it doesn't belong. (2a) If we need to caveat every single whistleblower for their reliability or grievances, we're doomed. (2b) Doing so blows up all the red flags for WP:UNDUE. (2c) WP:1E kind of implies that such a person is known for anything, and Theill really isn't. No one is calling this "The Theill Controversy" and, if discussed, you won't likely hear folks talk about "Theill's allegations"; at most, they'd talk about "a woman who said it was a cult." As 1E explains, "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person." Last1in (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Supporting brief mention of content raising questions about her credibility such as perhaps the success of her former husband's lawsuit against her. (If and when an option 4 should "transpire," editors could then revisit the question of how much information about her to include here in this article, at that juncture.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2(a), or Option 3 with significantly reduced material from a tenuously-reliable source (one sentence at most, IMO). There is no way a source of that quality is DUE multiple quotations, for one, and for two, this article is not about some random lady who called the organization a cult once. I'd go so far as to say all the sources are kind of dumb, but since it's received significant press coverage, there's really no getting around it. jp×g 02:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2(a) preferred; failing that just option 2. The allegations are well-sourced and significant, and can be attributed properly without using her name; nor does her name enhance them in any way, since she falls under WP:BLP1E / WP:NPF - the important thing is that secondary sources take them seriously, not who is making them, so it makes sense to avoid naming her. Additionally, because the Washington Free Beacon does not pass WP:RS, Option 3 is an unequivocal BLP violation and cannot be implemented regardless of the outcome of this RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Tagging you here PerpetuaGalway. You first introduced the question about whether to use any information from the Washington Free Beacon back in early October. I don't know if you are still following along, but wanted you to see the above. This is a user weighing in to say "no" on the grounds that the Washington Free Beacon does not pass WP:RS and therefore can certainly not be used to say anything about Coral Thiell because that would be "an unequivocal BLP violation." Aquillion, perhaps you can say more about that. I looked to see whether the WFB is on this list: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and do not see it there. I then did a search to see if folks have ever talked much about whether it should be considered reliable or not. There has been some conversation as you can see from that link. But, I don't see a consensus statement anywhere that is definitive as to whether the WFB fails WP:RS. (If I had seen a statement like that earlier, FWIW, I wouldn't have opened an RFC since if WFB had been deprecated or blacklisted, etc., that would have settled this without having to have any further discussion). Novellasyes (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS/P doesn't list every source in existence (that wouldn't be possible!), only the ones that have come up on WP:RSN. If you think there's a dispute over whether it should be used, you can raise that question there. Also remember that what you want to use it for matters; WP:BLP-sensitive statements require high-quality sourcing. Some sources may be usable for uncontroversial and unexceptional things, but are not usable for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims or clearly-derogatory statements about someone who falls under WP:BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Your original categorical statement was, "the WFB fails WP:RS". There's a system on WP of taking a look at and having a number of users chew over whether a source fails or doesn't fail WP:RS, or is a source that requires various cautions and contextual balancing. When a user categorically says, "Source X fails RS", many people would interpret a categorical statement like that to mean that the source has been vetted that way. However, when a user says "Source X fails RS", they may mean something else. They may mean, "In my opinion, we should regard Source X as failing RS". I understand you now to have meant your categorical statement that way and I appreciate you offering some additional thoughts on why you see things that way. Novellasyes (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking back, the Washington Free Beacon was in fact depreciated as a source here. --Aquillion (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are interpreting that section you linked to correctly, but I could certainly be wrong. In that section, someone asks if it ought to be deprecated or rather could be considered RS in some contexts. Some users say it should be deprecated. Others disagree. I do not see that consensus was reached. It looks like the conversation just petered out. I think, but again could be wrong, that what you linked to establishes that some users on Wikipedia think that the Washington Free Beacon ought to be deprecated. It doesn't say that it was deprecated. Here is a list of blacklisted sources. Here is a list of sources that are often discussed as to whether they should be regarded as RS or not or with cautions. Here is a list of deprecated sources. The WFB does not appear on any of those lists. Novellasyes (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that the WFB deserves designation as a blacklisted source. I think it's more like a fictional Fred's News & Sports from Nowheresville, Yorkshire; you might quote them for a background info about superstar goalie John Doe who played footie for the local under-12 club, but you're not likely to consider them a reliable source for info about Brexit (unless the story is picked up and verified by a serious news outlet in which case we quote the RS, not FreeBeacon). In this case -- especially considering the rather virulent rightist views of the paper, the controversy around Ms Barrett and Trump's rush to fill the seat -- material from the WFB is simply not useful for this article. That said, there is always the possibility that a RS will eventually investigate Ms Theill and PoP and we might end up in a McPherson/Scientology situation (another where an arguably biased source first reported the story). At that point, Option 4 become viable. Until then, I still believe that this article should mention the description of PoP as a cult, something important in context and widely reported in national, impartial, reliable outlets. Last1in (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

In a case where there are both an individual's allegations as well as counter allegations in court testimony resulting in verdicts not in her favor, how could it be wp:NPOV to reference only the former? Keep in mind the following caveat by researcher Judith Church Tydings (Cultic Studies Journal, 1999, Volume 16, Number 2, pages 83-179 "Shipwrecked in the Spirit")[6] : "So-called 'atrocity tales' should not be dismissed as pure distortion or fabrication, although they may sometimes be that. Neither should positive reports be dismissed as mere 'parroting of a party line' or 'brainwashing,' although they may sometimes be that as well. We must look deeply into each individual case and thoroughly examine enough individual cases from a variety of levels within the group to arrive at a reasonably balanced picture of the complexity of the group environment and the idiosyncratic responses of its members and former members." Which means not simply adopt a telescopic view and reference the RSes that summarize Theill's perceptions of her husband's and family-of-origin's religious convictions as cult-like without any substance given to her family's pov. Especially when, more granularly, as an example, a January 14, 2010, Salem, Ore. News article[7] mentions not only Theill's allegations (sample: that in August 2000 she'd been a victim of an attempted at murder: "Coral says she was stalked, threatened, abused, financially robbed of $150,000 in legal costs, and then beaten and strangled, during an attempted murder incident in August 2000."--but also that Theill had lost if at the hands of her ah evil husband and his lawyers (per the article's tone) a slew of court cases.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

It's neat that people are coming up with new perspectives on this. Your point, Hodgdon's, is that the NPOV factor has to come into this conversation (not just the RS factor). Last1in--very well written! It is unquestionably true that the WFB flies the right-wing flag very fulsomely. Novellasyes (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

H'sSG, if you have that depth of sources beyond the WFB, perhaps draft an article on Ms Theill and let the Deletionists and Inclusionists battle it out. I'd support it if you have mainstream sources. Whilst I agree with Ms Tydings when it comes to research and journalism, I don't think it is our place to do any of that. Wikipedia is is an enyclopaedic work. We rely on sources that have already done that job. If mainstream, reliable sources say, "PoP has been called a cult," we include it. If most of those sources quote Ms Theill or anyone else, naming them would be appropriate. If they don't feel Ms Theill, et al, are significant enough to name, we shouldn't either. We point interested parties to the reliable source(s) if they want to dive deeper. What I would like to see us avoid is another Rajneeshi mess where the word cult does not appear in the article at all, but a large portion of the cited sources have "cult" in their titles. Also, can you imagine the size of an article like Scouting sex abuse cases if every accuser were named and vetted by Wikipedians? I'll stick to my guns on Option 2: Mention the cult without diving into Ms Theill's veracity; naming her or not (2 vs 2a) is not something that I care much about. I do, however, care very much that Wikipedia not become a battleground (yet again) to argue the merits of subjects instead of simply explaining them. We summarise reliable sources; we don't try to establish capital-t Truth. To paraphrase Indiana Jones, Wikipedia "is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall" and he probably has his own Wiki. Last1in (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, user:Last1in. My offcuff reaction is to believe PoP has exhibited, especially within its past, any number of cult-like characteristics. But so have any number of religious groups, not only those considered more-so "conservative" in their practices: Witness not only the number of support groups for former "orthodox" _____es, galore, from folks raised Catholic, Evangelical, Pentecostal, or Jewish but also among those raised hippy-ly free love. Nonetheless, I don't think bandying about the term cult adds substance to examining these religions' or lifestyles' practices, even in the wholly encyclopedic context. Here is a May 17, 2019 Oregonian piece concerning Rajneeshees. Does it suffer because it lacks the term cult? Representative quote: "...the canyon-wide gap between Rajneeshees who saw themselves as joyful and enlightened, and locals who suspiciously eyed them as dangerous interlopers." Just surfed to "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Cult." Red link. But, eventually found my way to wp:LABEL (to which I'll contribute a redirect from MOS:CULT to "blue" it): "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Fair enough. But I'd go further and have any such in-text attributions go to specific folks using such labels. In general with regard to editorializing language, I think it more informative and better writing to cover, say, what a subject said and did and allow readers to come to their own conclusions -- without their being "lead." My observing here (inasmuch as Naziism was pretty much a religion!...) argumentum ad hitlerum: an account of the Fuhrer suffers not a whit if it fails to repeat instances where observers considered him, say, quote, a lunatic monster! -- whereas a just-the-facts,-ma'am approach, IMO, makes an indictment of this monster all the stronger.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

1. oregonian[8] (No use of word "cult") - ". . Making "Wild Wild Country" a six-part docuseries was essential, Maclain [Maclain Way] says, 'because we needed that bigger canvas. We wanted to give every perspective full weight.' It was also important to the brothers to tell this story to viewers who might have no knowledge of it. Though the events happened in 1981 through 1985, the conflicts touch on contemporary concerns, including separation of church and state, freedom of religion and the temptation, as Maclain says, to 'demonize the other side.'"
2. wikipedia's "Wild Wild Country#Criticism" (With the word "cult" used by a critic) - ". . Win McCormack wrote that "Where the filmmakers have fallen down on the job is in the area of interpretation. They have not addressed squarely some of the more important issues raised by their film, and have left others out completely. The latter category includes a few of the cult’s most odious practices, as well as the true extent of the threat it posed not only to its immediate neighbors in Oregon, but to the entire world."[10] Jane Stork, one of the main sources for this documentary, reported in her autobiography Breaking the Spell: My Life as a Rajneeshee and the Long Journey Back to Freedom (2009) that her own children were sexually abused during her time in Rajneeshpuram.[11] This was not included in the documentary. . ."
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• (sorry; lost count of colon marks): H'sSG, well-reasoned and well-argued. As much as reductio ad Hitlerum has been overused, the man himself is an ideal case study in many discussions and this is a perfect example. Whilst the phrase "lunatic monster" does not appear, terms like genocide and dictator are plentiful in his article, as well as red-line word like enslavement, totalitarian and autocracy. I'd argue that "genocidal dictator" is at least as emotional a phrase as "cult" (or monstrous lunatic). I think part of the problem here is that 'cult' has completely lost any connexion to its root and has become a pejorative, and one without an academic definition (outside cult of personality which, amusingly in context of this discussion, does appear in the Hitler article). I withdraw the objection to Option 1 with one caveat: We need something in the Reception section to balance the general tone that PoP is no different than the Knights of Columbus or a local Altar Society when it is far closer to Opus Dei (an article in which 'cult' is used as a descriptor four times) or some other not-a-c-word organisations.Last1in (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you ( Last1in are getting at something interesting here but I don't quite get how one would describe this in this article, or anywhere else. The fact is (I think you are saying) that when it comes to whether something is a cult, versus just being ... well, completely normal ... there are shades of gray. It's not like POP either is a cult or it isn't a cult. Personally, I don't think it is a cult. There aren't any "cult experts" who say it is a cult. I give very little credit to what Coral Thiell said, because I think she is a very low credibility speaker. But I would agree with your thought that while it perhaps isn't a cult...it's something outside of the norms of Christian fellowships in contemporary times. I don't think there is a vocabulary to talk about that (that I am aware of). You wanting to allude to something like that in the article is something I completely get. Novellasyes (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

user:Last1in: Speculatively speaking, when a family member's gaslighted into emotional instability, this person's testimony can be difficult to evaluate, even taken to consider the probability of allegations against specific family members let alone to generalize about the family's religious group as a whole. That said, there's a pattern of certain claims being levied against the PoP. Are there somewhat less problematic voices? In other words, I think I've come to agree with your conclusion that Option 1 might be the best option, if such alternate voices are available. And let's make whatever-it-is granular: instead of: "Some in Luther's time believed his teachings heretical"/"People in Luther's time thought the Church's teachings heretical"--something more substantial. "Specific folks /a/, /b/, & /c/ thought Luther's teaching /x/, /y/, & /z/ heretical"/"Specific folks /a/, /b/, & /c/ believed the Church's teaching /x/, /y/, & /z/ heretical"(?)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

How about something like I suggested above, such as "A number of former members of the group have alleged an environment of female submission/subjugation/subordination within People of Praise." Based on what I have read about the group, there is plenty of sourcing for such a claim, and it avoids having to name any specific former members. See, for example, this, this, and this. Marquardtika (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I would be more comfortable saying "Some..." instead of "A number of...." If I read the article and see "A number of..." that sounds like it must mean several dozen or maybe even more. I'm not keeping track but maybe there have been several dozen? If so, that's fine to say but if it's 10 or fewer, I'd go with "Some..." Novellasyes (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Ooooo! Reductio ad Hiterum and reductio ad Martinus in the same discussion! Sorry, Novellasyes, I just couldn't resist and there isn't a Latin equivalent of Luther...

Yes, I think the problem is linguistic. The root of 'cult' has little to do with the current meaning, and the meaning it has adopted has never been defined. For my money, any organisation that deploys terms like 'handmaid' and uses ostracism on former member fits the bill. Sadly, the latter describes most of the congregations in the world (of all religions).

I have several problems with the various wording options. First, words like 'some' and 'a number' beg the questions, "Who?" and, "How many?" respectively. The bigger problem is avoiding the objectionable 'cult' and using 'female submission/subjugation/subordination' or anything similar. It is a bit like being offended when someone calls me illegitimate and replying, "Take that back! I’m just a bastard." Both are correct, but the first frankly sounds a lot better. There simply is not a good way to word this with an NPOV voice; the NYTimes spent a bit over 3000 words tapdancing around those and similar terms and still came off sounding like Caspar Milquetoast describing a hooker.

Here is the best I’ve got: Former members describe the group's culture as insular to the point that it felt intrusive and controlling, claims that the group's current members dispute. It's not great, but it allows the reader to apply the term 'cult' (or not) based on their own definition of that ambiguous term. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Fwiw, here's apologetic response, pub'd Nov. 11th @ christianitytoday[9] via an

... interview of PoP's coordinator, ND elec/eng prof. Craig Lent

[Christianity Today]: - Some in the media described the People of Praise as a cult or cult-like. Tell us how you understand this community in terms of commitment expected by those involved and how it is practiced. [Lent]: People of Praise is a covenant community. Our covenant is not an oath or a vow, but is a commitment we make to one another to be there for each other in the long run, throughout life's seasons, its ups and downs. One can make that commitment only after several years of living community life and discerning over time if this is what God is calling you to do. Of course, it is possible that God later calls someone to a new work, in which case one is released from the covenant. But that is the exception. In choosing to make the covenant of the People of Praise, I understood that I was freely choosing to live my life with this particular group of Christians. This is admittedly counter-cultural in an era which is commitment averse. Some are hesitant to accept a dinner invitation because of a fear of missing out (FOMO) in case some better invitation might come along. Making a commitment forecloses some options, but opens up new possibilities. This is of course not news to those in Catholic religious orders and congregations. Some communities coming out of the charismatic renewal ran into difficulties with leadership that was overly authoritarian. A community built on controlling people is unlikely to endure. God has made each person radically free, even free to accept or reject their creator. While we take one another and our mutual commitment seriously, we do not try to control one another. Each person must discern God’s will for themselves and take responsibility for their own choices. In People of Praise, we use the approach of Ignatius of Loyola as a model for how a person can make choices out of love for God.

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

H'sSG, if I hadn't been interacting with you on this page for a couple weeks, I would swear you were pranking me (you aren't, are you?). I know it’s rude to make fun of someone's name, but an apologist for PoP, a predominantly Catholic group with a strong bent toward self-sacrifice, is named "Lent"? I write fiction and can't imagine having the guts to do that to a character. It's a bit like having a chiropractor named Dr Spineman or a seamstress named Mrs Thread. Most striking, though, is that the entire first paragraph and most of the rest of the quote sound like they were lifted verbatim from a Criminal Minds speech delivered by the this-is-not-a-cult leader just before Derek and Spencer find the bodies. Sorry-not-sorry. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm user:Last1in. It seems that, tho (mostly) Catholic, the PoP re-strike the Puritan's bell!: Quite a few hear its non-ring as ominously foreboding, believing it'd been in all times and places cacophony; within quite a few others' ears, though, it rings reassuringly and even melodious, like some long-forgotten pleasure. Me? I'm somewhat agnostic: I see down sides & up sides to it. Any hoo please do see this quote, too, OK? --> (@ June 18th nationalreview/nathanielblake[10]

... Re geo.mason prof. John Turner)

". . the Pilgrims sought freedom for Christians, redeemed from bondage to sin and Satan, to live in accord with Scripture, covenanting as a congregation free from the dominion of the corrupt Church of England. In Turner’s telling, this understanding was essential to the development of New England Congregationalism. . . Plymouth also had the distinction of initiating political self-government in New England. The colony held annual elections with a franchise much broader, albeit still limited, than that in England, and trial by jury was a fundamental right. Most adult men could aspire to participation in both the religious and political government of the colony. But this communal liberty did not imply broad personal liberty. The Pilgrims believed that government had a responsibility to constrain individuals to conform to the righteous mores of the community, and they had no qualms about regulating matters from speech to sex to attire. Church membership was voluntary, with prospective members rigorously scrutinized, but the Pilgrims did not want to establish 'a bastion for religious toleration and freedom.' Though church membership was not required, attendance often was and taxes funded a local church and minister. Though only members were fully subject to the discipline of the church, the faithful still sought to maintain political control of the community. From the beginning Plymouth included people who were not members of the Pilgrims' separatist congregation, while others, such as slaves and Native Americans, existed outside the political community and its protections even if they shared the Pilgrims' faith The Pilgrims expected 'godly magistrates to support true churches,' a responsibility that included the punishment of heresy. This nonetheless allowed a little space for individual freedom of conscience. Since no one was forced to join the church, dissenters could peaceably remain if they kept a low profile. . . Turner’s book is a reminder of how alien the Pilgrim way of life is to modern sensibilities, even for self-proclaimed conservatives[. . F]ew, even among the revolutionary elite we call the Founders, were liberal ideologues, classical or otherwise. Ordinary people, especially in New England, still had much in common with Plymouth, with most people living in small communities that regulated and restrained individual liberty and enforced moral judgments. . . Plymouth quietly governed itself while watching with alternate elation and alarm as England went through [her] revolution, [her] restoration, and regime change. . . Colonial history reminds us that the American Founding was not an abstract project of liberal ideology but one of practical political syncretism, incorporating a variety of traditions and influences. These included English common law, admiration for classical republics, a country Whig suspicion of central authority, and, yes, some liberal theorizing by the likes of Locke and Montesquieu. But more important, especially for ordinary citizens and local leaders, was the tradition of self-government, informed by Reformed Protestant theology, that constituted much of colonial life. . ."

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Last1in, I think your proposed wording above is spot-on ("Former members describe the group's culture as insular to the point that it felt intrusive and controlling, claims that the group's current members dispute.") The only change I'd make it to say "Some former members..." But I would definitely support this wording in general. Marquardtika (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I very much agree with Last1in's proposal. Love it. I also went on the talk pages of any users in this section who have had anything to say (who have not said anything in the last week or so) and mentioned that it looks to me like a consensus is on the verge of happening in case they want to get a last word in. Novellasyes (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

nytimes[11] - ". . Each group of covenant communities, including others like the Sword of the Spirit and the Word of God, has a slightly different character. Some later developed reputations for being excessively controlling. In the 1990s, local bishops intervened in several covenant communities after leaders were accused by members of attempting to strictly control relationships and finances, and representing that control as the will of God. In 1980, the bishop of the Fort Wayne-South Bend diocese received complaints about the People of Praise’s system of headship and that the group fostered fear and guilt, according to an article at the time in the National Catholic Reporter. . . Men and unmarried women are each assigned to individual counselors, an older member of the same gender, whom they consult about spiritual and practical matters. Some former members say those counselors — male leaders are called 'heads' — exerted notably granular influence, attempting to control their dating lives and their household budgets. Married women are 'headed' by their husbands. . ."
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok gang, I just made this edit. I realize it was bold and obviously feel free to revert. It seemed to me like there was an emerging consensus for the text I added in place of the content about Theill/cults, etc. Much ink has been spilled on this page (and it is all very interesting and I have learned a lot!) but I'm thinking it may be cumbersome for someone to come along and close the RFC. Let me know what you think! Pinging User:Hodgdon's secret garden, User:Novellasyes, User:Last1in.Marquardtika (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

@Novellasyes: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 9,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far, far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle (it is in fact one of the longest RfC statements I have ever seen), and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that! How is this: "A former member of People of Praise claims it is a cult. Her allegations received some attention in the mainstream media. She is not otherwise notable. A conservative website that is less RS has written several stories indicate that she has a long-ish history of making unsuccessful allegations against various groups and individuals. If the article includes mention of her allegations, should it also include mention of the undermining information even though published in a less-RS publication?" Novellasyes (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Alternate: "A former member claims People of Praise is a cult, which has been reported in mainstream media. Non-RS media have claimed that she is biased and/or not credible. Should the article mention her allegations? If so, should she be named? If both, should non-RS criticisms of her also be included and does she warrant a separate article?"Last1in (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RFCST, the statement must be the first thing after the {{rfc}} tag; it's no good posting it here, because Legobot starts scanning at the {{rfc}} tag and stops either when it reaches the first valid timestamp or when it decides that what it is scanning is too long to actually be a statement. It's the second one that has happened here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but there was no need to reset the |rfcid= --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll note that there doesn't seem to be any kind of sustained coverage about Theill. That makes me less likely to think she should be included here. There was a flurry of media activity but the lasting noteworthiness of her story to this group remains to be seen. Marquardtika (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

As the controversy surrounding the Barrett nomination fades, the thinness of the Theill storyline is showing quite well. The fact that a WP:RS says that the PoP has been called a cult is still valid, but the notability of their source is fading quickly. I think that strengthens to the case for Option 2, and it shows the reason that Option 4 is (IMHO) the reasonable fall-back position if she (saints forefend) she becomes notable outside of WP:1E.Last1in (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Wanted to note that in terms of discussion, the WP policy called WP:EXCEPTIONAL has been mentioned twice on this talk page. In one case, the policy was cited as a reason to not include Coral Thiell's "it's a cult" accusation. Then more recently, WP:EXCEPTIONAL is being cited as a policy that would forbid mentioning the info from the Washington Free Beacon that is intended to undermine her credibility, which the Washington Free Beacon attempts to do by mentioning and then linking to the original source documents that establish (if you believe that the original source documents they link to are authentic) that she is (as they say) a serial and unsuccessful litigant and also someone who was sued (successfully) by her ex-husband for defamation. Novellasyes (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Update "Notable members" now that Justice Barrett has been confirmed

The title says it all, "Notable members" still says Barrett is a nominee, but she has been confirmed as a justice now. Wilhelm von Hindenburger (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

This Article Could Use a Reference Purge

Behold! Here thar be unreliable sources. Burn em to the ground says I! What say ye?

There are numerous dubious sources in this article. Ralph Martin and Billy Kangas, for example, work for Word of God (community), which is heavily involved with People of Praise, where past membership used to work together on Bob Mumfords Shepherding movement, as with Sword of the Spirit where we are seeing some living bulwark references. There's a veritable plethora of self-publication and blatant corporate vanity issues in the referencing too.

That and a never ending onslaught of opinion pieces regarding a certain supreme court (though I would agree this is controversial and noteworthy, many sources used are not reliable) which could use some sifting through.