Talk:Sword of the Spirit/Archive 2

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)

I had noticed you have previously been helpful removing db-attack drive-by tagging by COI editors. I had noticed you have previously been helpful by protecting this page from vandalism by COI editors. I had noticed you have been helpful reverting vandalism previously on this page. 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. Linn C Doyle (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 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

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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 requested no further involvement with this page.Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Admin here. Linn C Doyle, please lower the temperature. You should seek outside views from relevant WikiProjects, as admins won't resolve content disputes. While one editor here has a declared COI, that doesn't mean you get to keep asserting without evidence COIs or sockpuppetry for other editors: please read WP:AGF. You must not make claims such as threats of lawsuits without providing diffs. Your editing and discussion is often too confrontational: please don't use bolding, because it looks like shouting; please be more concise; please don't keep reverting before consensus can be reached; please edit other topics to cool off and get more familiar with editing in general. Wikipedia editing does not have to be and should not be a constant fight (see WP:GREATWRONGS). Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hi, in case there's any confusion I'm declaring a conflict of interest as an SOS member.

I tried to draft a page several years ago but it didn't work out. I made a minor edit to the language a few weeks ago.

I don't think my involvement is really relevant to the broader discussions.

more92 (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Words Attributed to Atwood Are Not Her Words
,, I brought this up earlier, but it seems to have been lost in the wall of text above. I think this is an important point, and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
 * The source states that Atwood quoted from 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 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, which in turn was quoting a certain Mrs Janice Ross.
 * There's no indication that Atwood was even familiar with POH, beyond this clipping, so I doubt that the community itself was an inspiration for the book.
 * According to the source, the newspaper clipping about the community was one of the many inspirations for the book - not the community itself.
 * To further prove the invalidity of the Atwood article as a source for this Wikipedia article, one can read this article from National Review by Jim Geraghty which lays out how it's chronologically impossible for the clipping to have influenced the book, since the clipping was published after the book.
 * Whether or not you agree with his views, or his tone, please take the time to read it and follow his argument - and you'll see that he's right: it's chronologically impossible for the clipping to have influenced the book.
 * I would think this quote shouldn't be included at all for the reasons laid out above. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Franciskouj (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Francisco. Thank you.Linn C Doyle (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * National Review is not a reliable source. Penguin is. You have been repeatedly previously informed about this.
 * The AR article linked in national review author and by yourself has a different title and wording to the one in the image in the Penguin article which Atwood references. It is not the same printing.
 * The relevant in quote adjustments of what is and is not attributed to Atwood have already been included in the article.

COI
, why did you add a COI tag for me? I told you I don't have a COI. User:Fences and windows above told you not to keep asserting that users have COI's without any basis for saying so. You would do well to heed their advice. I removed this tag. If Sudonymous or someone else wants to re-add it let them do it - I won't remove it until it's resolved. But please refrain from doing so, Linn until your COI status is resolved. Jadbaz (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Jadbaz, you may have missed my later comments at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1008504374#Sword_of_the_Spirit, where I pointed out that your first major edit in 2008 was to create a draft of an article on this topic. I believe you likely do have a COI, though of course I cannot prove so. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Jadbaz I do not understand why your willingness to be identified as a COI editor is dependant on what editor tags you as such?Linn C Doyle (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

More Distuptive Editing
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)

you had raised a couple of points which I would really like to work together on. The edit to the Shepherding info seems to me like you want to discuss headship within this group. It would be fantastic if you have content on this that you would like to contribute :D I think the clarification of 'throughout history' to 'throughout the 80s and 90s' is great too. It would be awesome if you had content you wished to contribute regarding the investigation of SoS communities by bishops. Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Linn C Doyle. So you seem to agree that adding information concerning the timing of these incidents is helpful? I can make some of these changes - I just want to check that you won't undo my edits. Jadbaz (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)

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)

Kairos
The consensus from the Kairos AfD (Articles for deletion/Kairos (retreat)) is that the Kairos page should be merged into Sword of the Spirit, not deleted. The paragraphs you are deleting are all that is left from the Kairos page, so by deleting them you are effectively deleting the page, violating the consensus of merging the two pages. The information contains citation from educational institutions, which seems like a reliable source to me. The information is also certainly coherent. Can you explain why you are insistent on deleting it? It does not help that most of your edits deleting it do not even have summaries. Sudonymous (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

No PA attack on talk page or in edit comments please. Prior to claiming vandalism, please review wiki guidelines, and ensure that you are using this term accurately. If you believe vandalism is taking place, please deal with this correctly rather than simply throwing around accusations.

By item: - Greek origin of the word is irrelevant. There is in fact already an entire article on this word https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kairos - "a Roman Catholic retreat program for high school and college. Kairos is part of the larger three-day movement in America, ultimately derived from the Cursillo movement founded in Spain in 1944." is completely unreferenced. - "As such, the retreat is a four-day, three-night retreat,[24] with the aim of providing participants the chance to "contemplate God's role in their lives".[25]"
 * This relies on high school blog posts. A better source of information is Karios own website, which does not say this, but instead more succinctly states religious doctrine education and evangelism purposes, as referenced in the content deleted by yourself.

- "It was first held in 1965 by the Diocese of Brooklyn, in the United States, and has operated under its current name since 1979." Again is unreferenced. It also seems highly unlikely that this refers to the same Kairos discussed on this page, as Sword of the Spirit did not exist at this point in time. - "It is conceptually based in Ignatian spirituality as put forth in the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola.[26]"
 * This is tangential, not notable, and again relies on high school blog references. It is not consistent with information on Kairos own website.

- "A team of priests, brothers, and lay people under the direction of Fr. Douglas L. Brown of the Brooklyn Diocese made use of the Cursillo retreat format, which has its roots in Ignatian spirituality, but adapted it for older teenagers.[27] Within three years, the retreat was adopted nation-wide.[28]"
 * This clearly does not refer to the Kairos organisation run by Sword of the Spirit again, with the reference dates predating the organisation.

- "The retreats are usually led mostly by the peers of the participants.[30] Each team is composed of student leaders who have already been on the retreat as well as a few faculty members from the school. Kairos retreats are often held at secluded retreat houses removed from mainstream society.[31][32]"
 * This does not seem noteworthy

Linn C Doyle (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate merge
This link used to refer to the popular Kairos retreat based in the Cursillo movement. Those retreats have been incorrectly associated with this different retreat history. Is there a way the editors can create two separate branches and reclaim the old retreat version in the edit history as a separate program? Thanks. Aipacetti (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

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: Where membership is an apparently important claim not covered in multiple mainstream sources.
 * Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * lets see what rfc has to sayLinn C Doyle (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Use WP:INTEXT attribution in text. Exclude the figure from the infobox. We need a WP:RS to state the membership in WP:WIKIVOICE. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Edit: see below – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Do not include this figure if our only source is SoS themselves, even attributed to SoS. In-text attribution can't entirely make up for poor sourcing and there's no worse sourcing than a flattering claim about an organization that can only be sourced to that organization. Loki (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * yes I had raised so undue weight concern here. Will remove again.Linn C Doyle (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * We've already reached out to RSN and found that SoS's website is reliable for this under WP:ABOUTSELF, the only question was how to word it, whether specifying that it is a claim from their website is necessary. I don't understand why you decided to remove it again based on a single response to an RFC, when RSN already agreed that is was ok to include. Sudonymous (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No more WP:PA in edit notes please. In RSN post advice say undue weight may be an issue. Just because a source can be considered reliable does not necessarily mean it should be considered reliable. As has indicated there is reason to believe this source may not be accurate, and therefore the membership should not be included if this is the only source, as it serves to flatter the subject of this article with zero verifiability. As another RFC expert has raised the same concerns as myself the membership number has been removed until either:
 * a clear consensus for it's inclusion can be achieved.
 * another source is presented which corroborates the quoted membership.
 * Perhaps it is best to await these conditions or further RFC comments prior to making any further reversion.
 * Thank you.Linn C Doyle (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You are deleting sourced information that RSN has confirmed is reliable under WP:ABOUTSELF, this is disruptive editing and I will call it out as such. You have provided no reason to doubt the number other than their social media following, which doesn't prove anything. We already reached a consensus that it is acceptable under WP:ABOUTSELF, you cannot just decide which guidelines apply unilaterally like this. Sudonymous (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No WP:PA on the talk page either please.
 * Clearly myself and other editors believe keeping the SOS own quote of membership from the page is constructive.
 * No, I identified several sources which could potentially be used to estimate the accuracy of the quoted 14,000 membership but did not appear to corroborate this estimate.
 * This was done in order to demonstrate that SOS own word is the only point of validation for this membership estimate, and an attempt has been made to try and validate this membership estimate.
 * No ,we did not reach a consensus that this was reliable, in fact we disagreed on this.
 * The source was then submitted to the RSN noticeboard at which point other editors confirmed that this can be considered a reliable source for aboutself, however the commenting authors stated they did not have enough relevant expertise to identify any undue weight issues.
 * As there was still disagreement RFC was raised to gain the advice of relevant editors.
 * My editing since has been to follow the advice of this RFC.
 * The initial comment advises that this content should be moved from the infobox as it is not reliable enough for voice of wiki.
 * The second comment raises undue weight issues (is 'SoS has 14k members' a majority viewpoint, or a fringe theory which is only apparent in SoS self-publishing).
 * Following the RFC advice seems the best course of action to me, and as you should be able to observe my editing has simply been to update the article following RFC advice.
 * If you think there is more discussion to be had here, perhaps you could query the statements with the RFC editors to clarify advice, rather than reverting edits which follow this advice.
 * Alternatively you could provide a source outside of SoS self-publishing which corroborates the 14, 000 membership quote. It would be fantastic if other editors wished to bring new sources to the page :)
 * Thank you. Linn C Doyle (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Deleting reliably sourced information is not constructive. You have not found any sources that 14,000 is an inaccurate number, you are doing rough estimates based on Twitter followers (which is not the same as members). This is WP:OR, and just as original research is not suitable for inclusion on a page, it's not ok to use original research to delete sourced information. RSN confirmed that it is reliable under WP:ABOUTSELF, the only question is how to word it, which is what the RFC is for.


 * Two users responded to the RFC, one said to keep it with in-text attribution (which we currently have), another says to delete it. You are treating the response of a single user as consensus, which is ridiculous.


 * I have already provided a source for the 14,000 number, which has been confirmed by RSN as reliable under WP:ABOUTSELF. If you continue to think it is inaccurate, then it is your responsibility to find a source to back up your claim. Otherwise please cease deleting cited information. Sudonymous (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes the issue raised in RFC comment is that as the only source for this number is the subjects own website, even though self-publishing can be taken as reliable, in this instance it is likely that the 14k membership estimate gives undue weight to a minority viewpoint or fringe theory. Now there is of course disagreement on whether or not that is the case, this is why RFC advice was sought. The RFC comment above clearly states that the membership estimate should not be included if the only source is the subject of this articles own website. I noticed you have made 3 reversions in little over 24 hours. Perhaps rather than getting into edit warring and content dispute it would be better to yield to RFC advice? Linn C Doyle (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If you think the 14,000 number is a minority viewpoint or fringe theory, it should be easy to find a majority viewpoint that conflicts with it, and evidence that it is a majority viewpoint. If you find such a source feel free to add it.


 * Two users responded to the RFC. One agreed with you to delete the information, while the other said to keep it with in-text attribution, which is its current form. You seem to think we should only consider the former, ignoring both the other response and the RSN consensus, but I'm not sure why. The RFC advice has been inconclusive so I'm not sure how we would yield to it.


 * I have not made 3 reversions in a little over 24 hours. I think you misread the timestamps, or maybe you mistook my most recent edit for a reversion, which it wasn't. Sudonymous (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Once again, please avoid WP:PA and accusations. As I read it one comment provides a decision between infobox and in text for presentation of the estimate, the second comment makes the explicit point that this is likely a flattering figure and should not be included.


 * Well absence of evidence otherwise hardly validates factoids which do not exist outside self-publishing. I am not sure that is how 'facts' should be established. In general if reasonable doubt or poor control is identified one is generally required to provide corroborative evidence, which I have attempted to locate, but cannot find. I do not know if you perhaps have some corroborative sources you could provide to clarify the figure? That said it is not difficult to observe inconsistencies even in self-publishing.


 * Community websites currently quote 12000 (current) http://communityofnazareth.org/?page_id=87
 * Other parts of the SoS website quote 9000 (2015) https://www.swordofthespirit.net/bulwark/december2015p6.htm
 * While Jan the same year (2015) kairos (SoS youth outreach) quotes 10,000 https://www.facebook.com/KairosEuropeAndTheMiddleEast/photos/a.395011363912456.95243.367198746693718/790978267649095/
 * SoS own website also reports 10000 (2009) https://www.swordofthespirit.net/bulwark/october09p5.htm
 * Similar inconsistencies can be observed with respect to the estimate of member communities across these links.


 * In either eventuality this is not really the issue raised by RFC. It appears the figure only exists in self-publishing, and the concern raised is that this figure may be inflated for corporate vanity purposes, and as the advice given is that the figure should not be included if no estimates are available outwith self-publishing.


 * You have indeed reverted 3 times in not long over 24 hours. In case this was perhaps something you were unaware of here are the links:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1008227351&oldid=1007891392
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1008544373&oldid=1008410353
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1008741389&oldid=1008738391


 * If you think this is still ambiguous at all perhaps you should seek further RFC or request clarification from the authors of RFC comments as a method of resolving content dispute?
 * Thank you. Linn C Doyle (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:ORGSOURCE perhaps best explains this issue. Linn C Doyle (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Membership numbers fluctuate over time. The fact that SoS reported 10,000 members in 2009 and 2015 does not contradict them having 14,000 in 2021. The SoS website previously said 12,000 before being updated to 14,000, so it is reasonable to assume that the Community of Nazareth website simply hasn't been updated recently. You have not provided any evidence that these numbers are falsified.


 * Those 3 edits were each on separate days. 60+ hours between the first and the third.


 * If you think we need more responses feel free to do another RFC. I will work off of the RSN conclusion.


 * WP:ORGSOURCE is an essay by an individual describing their opinion. WP:ABOUTSELF is a policy. This source is acceptable under WP:ABOUTSELF. Sudonymous (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Well actually you did not follow RSN, which suggested in-text but gave no conclusion on weighting issues. I see no reason to ignore RFC I do not understand why you think RSN makes these comments negligible.
 * Yes I noticed you waited till just over the 24 hour period, as indicated above.
 * That is interesting that the previous quote is 12000. I was not aware the SoS website quoted this prior to updating to 14000. Perhaps you could provide this source?
 * I am also surprised by your knowledge of what the SoS website has looked like in the past, as you have claimed that prior to recent editing you had no knowledge of the organisation. Linn C Doyle (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * So I found a peer reviewed membership estimate in a journal article. This has been included in the article, so hopefully this clears the issue up :) It is a journal article so this info is more than suitable for infobox inclusion which you seemed eager to do :) Linn C Doyle (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If you look at the edit history of this page, it previously mentioned 12,000 members with the SoS website cited as a source. I assume this means the website used to state 12,000 members. I see you're once again trying to accuse me of a COI, it's getting annoying so please stop.


 * Again, please no WP:PA. Nobody accused you of having a COI there. I said I was surprised about your factual statement regarding a source which you claim to have no knowledge of. Thank you for explaining this was in fact an assumption based on previous versions of this page :) Linn C Doyle (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If you read the journal article, it actually cites the SoS website as the source for the 10,000 number. If a peer-reviewed academic paper considers the SoS website reliable for membership data, I think it's reasonable that we also consider it reliable. Seeing as this paper is relatively old, I think it would make sense to cite the SoS website for the up to date number. For the moment though I'm just adding the 10,000 number to the infobox and rewording the sentence slightly. Sudonymous (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that is how academic publishing works. Further clarification from RFC editors or the RSN noticeboard may be able to provide you further insight into whether or not it is appropriate to replace figures sourced from journal publishing with self-published sources. Thank you for adding the source to the infobox :) Linn C Doyle (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Academic publishing uses reliable sources. If a source is reliable enough for a published paper, it should be reliable enough for Wikipedia. We also know the page is reliable under WP:ABOUTSELF. The point is not replacing journal-published sources with self-published sources, but 7 year old sources with recent sources. Up to date information is useful.


 * You were clearing implying that I did have prior knowledge about SoS and was lying previously. That is WP:PA. Myself pointing out your WP:PA is not a personal attack. Sudonymous (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Use the journal source and include both in body and infobox. Does not need WP:INTEXT attribution. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we have a clarification on this RfC? I'm asking for a third opinion, e.g., by, , or others. I think it's fine and well to use the journal source for the official numbers for the organization. But it should also be fine to report that the organization self-reports a different and more recent number, as long as it's clear that that number is self-reported. is opposed to that, however, so I'm asking for a third opinion: is it okay to retain this line which LinnCDoyle2 removed?   Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 14:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also @LokiTheLiar who recommends journal source and no self report.
 * If this third 3rd opinion (6th opinion?) also agrees that we should use secondary sources rather than self-published primary sources by the subject of the wiki, maybe a pinned comment on the verdict in the talk would be helpful? LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

'''Hello! I have removed this dispute from WP:3O, as it involves more than 2 editors. However, as a means of hopefully triggering some consensus, I thought I'd include my (insignificant!) opinion.''' I've reviewed this discussion and the RS discussion. The key lingering debate seems to concern WP:ABOUTSELF and, specifically, whether SoS's self-reported membership is exceptional or fringe. If the self-reported membership is "exceptional", then inclusion is not warranted. Hope this is marginally helpful.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Observations of debate so far: Here, User:Sudonymous supported inclusion; User:Linn C Doyle opposed inclusion. By my reading, it appears these users have switched off on whether or not to include in-text attribution based on a subsequent RFC. User:LokiTheLiar opposed inclusion, and, upon discovery of a journal article estimating membership, User:Finnusertop switched from supporting inclusion with in-text attribution to using the journal article alone. On the RS discussion, which I believe predated the journal's discovery, it appears User:David Gerard and User:Emir of Wikipedia supported inclusion with in-text attribution. User:Slatersteven seemed skeptical of inclusion.
 * 2) For context, I'm a little concerned about the early methodology used to make exceptional determination—comparing a membership numbers to Facebook likes or Twitter followers strikes me as a little WP:SYNTHy, though I recognize that sometimes OR is required in background investigations.
 * 3) I'm not sure I see the "undue weight" concern a few editors have discussed. According to WP:DUE: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." But it's not actually clear to me that the membership estimate is a "minority" view. What's the majority view, and where are the sources supporting that view? One journal article providing membership as of 15 years ago doesn't indicate a majority / minority view.
 * 4) That said, the journal article does, by my view, create an interesting issue. Frankly, as the journal article relies on SoS's self-reported membership, I partially agree with Sudonymous that the distinction between the journal and SoS's modern website seems ... thin. However, regardless of methodology, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. As such, when it comes to the infobox, I do think only the journal article should be used.
 * 5) However, as to the article text, I would suggest including the journal article and the SoS self-report, with in-text attribution for the self report. That conclusion is based on two points:
 * 6) First, of some but not dispositive note, per the WP:RS discussion, there appears to have been a consensus that the self report was worthy of inclusion. On the RS discussion, it appears User:David Gerard and User:Emir of Wikipedia supported inclusion with in-text attribution. Only User:Slatersteven seemed skeptical of inclusion, writing, "[D]o we rely on the Democratic Party of the US for [a] claim [about its membership], or do we use third party sources?" But, I'm not sure how on-point that analogy is—there are plenty of third-party and contemporaneous sources discussing Dem. party membership. That's not the case here.
 * 7) Regardless, I think the ultimate question is whether the journal article affects the WP:ABOUTSELF analysis and cautions omission. I do not think it does. It's not accurate to suggest that the membership report of the journal conflicts with the modern membership report—there's a 15-year gap between those estimates. To the contrary, I actually think the journal article lends support for inclusion: if we are to say that the journal article is an acceptable source for the 10,000 members statistic (and on that point I think there's no debate), then I think it's even harder to argue that the 14,000 number is "exceptional" or "fringe"—there's no verifiable reason to think that an organization couldn't have gained 4000 members between 2008 and 2023.
 * Thank you, Jerome Frank Disciple. This seems fair to me. LinnCDoyle2, if you have further concerns, we'll need to open up another RfC. (Keep in mind: it doesn't necessarily make the organization look trustworthy that there was a 4,000-person increase in membership; but that is what the organization presently reports.)  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 17:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I want to second that great point by Arbitrarily0. That's precisely why I agree with the users who suggested that in-text attribution should be used.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I would disagree with both of you. We should use information from a peer-reviewed secondary source, not self-report primary source.
 * But I will accept the majority consensus here. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Atwood
insists on including this material about Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. I have argued above that the inclusion of such information is an example of "excessive detail" that the third-opinion editor above was referring to. Perhaps more importantly, the source in question merely claims that the author of the Handmaid’s Tale possessed a newspaper clipping about the People of Hope community (and other organizations), with no clarity on to the extent of which this served as "background material," if at all. (Note: the People of Hope community is one of over 50 member communities the Sword of the Spirit). If there is a definite and notable connection between the Sword of the Spirit and Atwood's novel, I also think we should expect to find it in other sources. I have suggested that if LinnCDoyle2 wants to synthesize a theory about the relationship between the Handmaid’s Tale and the Sword of the Spirit, they may do so, but not on Wikipedia. We agree on the need to include disparaging information in this article, but I think this is a step too far. LinnCDoyle2 has disagreed my reasoning, so we are seeking a third opinion: does this material on Atwood belong in the article?  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 14:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you ! Can you just address the follow-up question? The Vox article you discovered says, "the story didn’t hit the AP until after The Handmaid’s Tale came out in 1985, meaning that Atwood couldn’t have pulled the word “handmaid” from that mythical news article after all." Doesn't this mean that the whole People-of-Hope-Atwood connection is just a rumor? (Or maybe I'm misunderstanding something.)  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 17:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoops! I addressed this point in a separate paragraph that I must have accidentally deleted when I was rearranging a few portions of my comment right before I hit save edit. Great catch, and sorry about that! I'll do my best to recall what I said:
 * Both the Vox and the NJ.com article (with the former relying on the latter as a source) say, however, that the timeline on the inspiration doesn't add up—according to those sources, the AP article came out after the book had been published. That said, the sources do note that Atwood has pretty consistently said that the People of Hope served as her inspiration. Even if the inspiration claim happens to be false, given the third-party coverage of both her comments and subsequent timeline issue, I think a second sentence noting the issue should be added.
 * To respond to your question of whether it's just a rumor—it seems like that's definitely possible ... although it's also, separately, possible, that Atwood had heard of the group before the 1985 event. I'd maintain that, even if a rumor, the rumor should be addressed in the article given the third-party coverage. Something like:
 * Margaret Atwood has said that her book, The Handmaid's Tale, was partially inspired by the People of Hope, pointing to an 'Associated Press' clipping from her archives that described the group.[penguin ref][vox ref] However, subsequent investigations revealed that the newspaper clipping Atwood said she relied on posted publication of the book, calling into doubt whether the group actually served as inspiration for Atwood.[Vox ref][NJ.com ref]
 * --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is that, as far as I can tell, we can't even say, "Atwood has said that her book ... was partially inspired by the People of Hope". According to the Penguin sorce, all that Atwood said was, "They [these newspaper clippings] are Handmaid’s Tale background material". Writers often have way more background materials than they actually make use of. Atwood herself says, in that interview, "this is just stuff I came across when reading newspapers and magazines. I cut things out and put them in a box. I already knew what I was writing about and this was backup." This is why my recommendation is to leave this out entirely. There was a rumor, not said by Atwood herself, that was eventually disproved; run-of-the-mill stuff. If anything, it would be notable that People of Praise were (falsely) associated with Atwood, but not People of Hope.  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 19:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Eh other secondary sources use the term inspired, and I think "partially inspired" sufficiently hedges there. Plus, the Penguin source can't be considered in isolation—the Vox and the NJ.com article both rely on a NYT interview and a New Yorker interview.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify which secondary sources you have in mind? NJ.com, for example, says "Did a religious war in New Jersey actually inspire the title of Atwood's famous book? .... Still, if the Berkeley Heights conflict did not technically inspire Atwood's classic, it was one of the first real-life reflections of the kind of fundamentalism that fans of the book worry about." In other words, the verdict is that it did not inspire Atwood. But are there others I'm missing? We need to have good sources for disparaging material; that's why I'm pressing here.  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 20:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So there are 2 issues that I think we have to distinguish:
 * Are there reliable sources that say that Atwood did cite the People of Hope as inspiration?
 * Did the People of Hope serve as inspiration?
 * If the answer to item 1 is yes, and it meets notability standards, then it's worth including in the article—that's irrespective of whether the answer to item 2 is yes.
 * The Vox link, in particular, says, "[W]hen Margaret Atwood explained her Handmaid's Tale inspirations to the New York Times in 1987, she described one of them as 'a Catholic charismatic spinoff sect. ... [D]uring ... interviews [with journalists], she's always cited People of Hope [as that sect]." It then goes on to clarify that People of Hope was probably not the sect she was thinking of. As such, again:
 * Margaret Atwood has said that her book, The Handmaid's Tale, was partially inspired by "a Catholic charismatic spinoff sect, which calls the women handmaids." In other interviews, pointing to an Associated Press clipping from her archives, she identified that sect as People of Hope. However, subsequent investigations revealed that the newspaper clipping Atwood said she relied on postdated publication of the book, calling into doubt whether the group actually served as inspiration for Atwood.
 * All of those sentences are adequately sourced, no?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jerome Frank Disciple @Arbitrarily0
 * So a few things to point out.
 * The current statement in the wiki does not state to whether or note "inspiration" was taken for the novel.
 * Rather it states that Margaret Atwood includes the people of hope in the background material for the handmaids tale.
 * This at least is clearly the case.
 * I would support the additional inclusion proposed by @Jerome Frank Disciple
 * I would also like to afford both of you some context.
 * Please see Csordas book 'Language, Charisma, and Creativity' pg81
 * "Clark and Martin outlined their plan for restructuring the group to facilitate community growth. The Life in the Spirit Seminar was subsequently revised to emphasize community living, and members were required to take or retake an additional twelve-week Foundations in Christian Living course. Prospective members could make a preliminary or underway commitment, but only after completing all the courses and being invited by community leaders could they make a "full commitment" to the covenant. "Growth groups," small-scale spiritual development groups that were characteristic of Charismatic prayer groups from the movement's beginning, were reorganized on geographic lines within subcommunities.
 * The functions of community leaders were categorized by specialty, including charismatic gifts such as prophecy, services in support of the community, and offices such as elder. Those specializing in service received the title "Servant" if male or " Handmaid " if female."
 * I would not propose any synthesis of information into the article.
 * But it seems foolish to write off claims that Atwood took inspiration from the people of hope as a debunked rumor.
 * As @Jerome Frank Disciple points out Atwood may have previous familiarity prior to the publication of the news article in 1985 - and indeed those familiar with the topic will know that there was some news reporting on the people of hope particularly in the early 80s including a televised mini-documentary news segment.
 * So I would be careful with claims that the people of hope as inspiration is a debunked rumor.
 * Rather I would include the information very specifically - that the use of a specific news article as source material is not possible due to dates - though it is still clearly the case that the article exists in the background material, and that Atwood claims the group as inspiration. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with Jerome Frank Disciple's version, and have added it to the article (adding "1985" and a correction to "posted publication"). It still seems a little strange to include this material, because I worry we're getting excessively detailed again. LinnCDoyle2, since Jerome Frank Disciple are in agreement on this, you'll need to go to WP:Dispute resolution, or a similar forum, to get this resolved. You above argument again seems to be synthesis (which doesn't mean it's false, just unfit for Wikipedia).  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 22:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As previously stated I support the additional inclusion proposed by @Jerome Frank Disciple
 * I do not understand what you wish me to do with dispute resolution - all editors have agreed on the version. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Arbitrarily0 @Jerome Frank Disciple
 * A minor edit here.
 * " the newspaper clipping Atwood said she relied on "
 * This is an error.
 * We do not know whether or not this clipping was relied on.
 * Rather it simply exists in the background material. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Another minor error.
 * The AP article is not the one used in Atwoods background material.
 * Rather the article in Atwoods background material is a reprinting in the Evening Telegram on Oct. 31, 1985.
 * https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/mandatory-voting-canada-s-weediversary-fighting-alongside-the-kurds-atwood-archives-dolly-parton-more-1.5324795/the-atwood-archives-reveal-what-the-author-was-thinking-about-while-writing-the-handmaid-s-tale-1.5324818 LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

De-indenting: This is getting slightly unwieldily. I think the text as is is perfect. I'd only point out that the Evening Telegram clipping is from the AP. That's why it says "(AP)". That said, I think labelling it as Evening Telegram is fine—but you need to properly cite Evening Telegram in the article. Right now, the only source next to that sentence is the Vox story, which says "Associated Press clipping".--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good edit and I do appreciate the effort and additional sources.
 * Maybe I am misunderstanding something here - it was my impression that AP was a discrete business from the Evening Telegram.
 * If this is the case I would say the news article has made an error - Atwoods handwitten notes say Evening Telegram 31st October - so it seems to me the date and the publisher you have quoted is an error in your edit - so surely we should fix this? LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries! The Associated Press is a cooperative that distributes stories to its members, which have the option of building on or minority editing those stories. The AP has a website, but it doesn't publish its own newspaper or anything—instead, several newspapers are members of the AP. So, sometimes you might read an AP story in the Washington Post or the New York Times. You can typically identify AP stories because a byline will say "Associated Press" or the parenthetical "(A.P.)" will appear after the article location, as the Evening Telegram clipping does. Here, the Evening Telegram printed an AP story in its newspaper. (If you really want—you can double check this by zooming in on the clipping—notice how much it matches the story as it appears on the AP website.)
 * So the Vox story is not in error, but, if you really want, I have no problem with replacing AP with Evening Telegram in the article text—both are correct! However, if you want to say Evening Telegram, you have to properly cite the source you provided above in the article text.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * OK I understand now.
 * I will get round to including the Evening Telegram reference at some point.
 * Otherwise the current version seems fine to me. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

---