Talk:Antioch International Movement of Churches

Due Weight

@Starship.paint:@HonestHarbor:Here are the facts from only the first page of a three-page article from 2001 in The Waco-Tribune Herald. I believe none of these facts are currently included in our article:

  • Seibert has a world map that takes up much of one office wall at Antioch
  • Antioch is at 510 N. 20th St
  • In October 2001, Antioch had a goal of having 30 new churches worldwide before the end of the year
  • Antioch's logo incorporates a globe
  • Antioch has a universal vision
  • Antioch is located in the heart of Texas
  • When Mercer and Curry and their companions were held captive, Antioch held a 24-hour prayer vigil at the church
  • They prayed for mercy in that situation, and saw themselves as an "encouragement and support system"
  • The Taliban said they'd release the women if the US stopped military actions; Bush rebuffed the offer
  • Barry Camp said that the whole affair was a result of being "kingdom minded" instead of focused on the local church
  • Antioch says they have a greater call than just "packing the pews"
  • Antioch regards the church as being "the body of Christ" and not as a building
  • They regard their call as a call to "bring souls to Jesus, one heart at a time"
  • Highland Church, from which Antioch came, was 78 years old in 2001
  • Highland's sanctuary was 30 years old then and has 750 seats
  • Highland is at Maple and 30th
  • Seibert met his wife Laura at Baylor
  • They have four kids (names and ages included)
  • He was evangelism coordinator from 88 to 90
  • He was a college pastor from 90 to 96
  • He was the pastor of ministries from 97 to 99
  • Seibert called Highland "the seedbed for everything that's happened" and said the leadership was his "fathers in faith" who "trained" and "shaped" him, and he expressed gratitude
  • Camp said that when Seibert was the college pastor, they were so populous that they needed three services, two of which were standing room only
  • Camp came to think that Seibert had reached a "maturity" at which he needed to pastor his own church
  • In a 1997 article, Seibert described his methods in CellChurch magazine

If we are not going to include every detail from this high-quality, secondary source, which I don't think we should do, then I need to understand why we would include every little tiny detail that is vaguely related to some controversy. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t have to include every detail, but my understanding is that it's appropriate to include significant information in proportion to how much weight it receives from reliable sources. As long as the material is verifiable, neutral, and given due weight, I really don’t have any objections to including it, especially if we think it's notable. Controversies seem to warrant more space, because reliable sources give them more coverage and weight. I also believe there should be room for editorial flexibility, with determinations made through good faith discussions and consensus, ideally based on those standards. HonestHarbor (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you think we should include the details listed above or not? Shinealittlelight (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is from Terri Jo Ryan's article? I don't think I have access to that source. Some of those details (like Antioch being in Texas) are already in the article. If you make a measured decision to add material that’s verifiable, notable, neutral, and given due weight and contributes to the article’s summary of knowledge, I’d probably be fine with it. But I wouldn't feel comfortable personally adding from a source I haven't actually verified or seen myself. HonestHarbor (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't tell your position on these items listed above. If I add them all, you won't object? See, it's important because I'm trying to get you to see that there's a systematic question here, that has to do with all the material in all of the sources, and I'd like you to see that if you just give a thumbs up to every piece of trivia in every source, the article will bloat. Saying "If you make a measured decision ... I'd probably be fine with it" is not responsive to my point here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t give a firm position on those specific items since they come from a source I haven’t personally seen. So I don’t feel compelled either way about including them. Beyond the basic qualifiers verifiable, notable, neutral, and given due weight, other factors matter too, like where in the article the information fits and the reasoning for including it. I understand you’re making a broader point rather than actually proposing to add all of these details, and that’s your decision.
I agree with you that indiscriminately adding every detail like an automated robot would lead to bloat, which is why material still has to pass through that select filtering, summarized, and integrated appropriately. Beyond strict policy, there is still enough room for editors to exercise their own interpretive judgment. I'd say I have more of a flexible editorial sensibility. Borderline cases can be discussed in good faith and determined by compromise and consensus. HonestHarbor (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really need to illustrate with another source you have access to? If so, I will do that. But it would be helpful if you could assume, hypothetically, that the source contains these items basically in a list just like what I presented to you, so that you do have access to the information. This is just hypothetical, and I don't want to add the material. Will you answer now? Or are you just not going to answer my question?
My worry is that even trivia that is related to a controversy gets pushed into the article, while all the other trivia, such as the stuff in my list, is kept out, and that this is basically because there's some sort of anti-Antioch agenda at play. That's my concern, and I think the way to assuage that concern is to explain in general terms how details in reliable sources are being selected for inclusion. I don't want to include the fact that Seibert has four children, for example, since I don't see how that really illuminates the topic of are article, and it doesn't seem encyclopedic. But I'd say the same thing about the opinion of some largely unknown minor columnist for an alternative magazine in Seattle. So my approach is uniform across cases that are controversial and cases that aren't controversial. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, but I don’t think that’s what’s happening. I get the hypothetical, and even if all of those details appeared in a reliable source, we wouldn’t necessarily include them all. I’ve never argued for a scattershot addition of every random fact that happens to be published; what I’ve suggested is limited to material that contributes meaningfully to an encyclopedic summary of the topic. That applies equally to all details and content.
You may not agree but that's why we're having these good faith discussions about it. We're already actively discussing the Seattle content, weighing coverage, looking for compromise and consensus. In general terms, details should get selected for inclusion when they’re both reliably sourced and shown to be significant to understanding the subject. Sometimes we have different perspectives of what that means. I think I've said enough for now, let's wait and see if Starship.paint has thoughts to add. HonestHarbor (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant to understanding" is all you'll say. So you think that the above trivia isn't significant to understanding, but the stuff you're pushing for--always and in every single case related to controversy--is significant. But you don't really want to even try to say in general what the difference is. This has been illuminating. Thank you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plenty of the above content shouldn't be included, I'd say roughly the content starting with "Antioch" mostly can be included, but the stuff on Seibert should probably be only included in an article on Seibert. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With all respect, Starship.paint, this can't be right. I think you may be missing that this list of facts is about only 1/3 of the facts in this one source. If we were to apply your standard to all the sources, the article will become unreadable due to a bloat of trivia. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I get both points here. Starship.paint is trying to keep the article focused and avoid excessive detail, Shinealittlelight your concern is about consistency across sources, which is also valid. I'm not too concerned over overflowing details nor interested in excessive gatekeeping, quite frankly. As I said, sometimes editors have different perspectives over the importance of what to include. I’m more interested in collaboration than in controversy.
    On a practical note, I am curious. Can you provide a way to verify this article you're using: Ryan, Terri Jo (October 7, 2001). "Building a Kingdom – Fast-growing Waco church has designs on the world". Waco Tribune-Herald. Waco, TX. HonestHarbor (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

anonymous former members

@Honestharbor:@Starship.paint:I reverted to the consensus version so we can discuss what to do with this. I do not think this material is due. But if we are going to include it, we should clearly include the important context from the source that these were anonymous former members, and that the source did not interview any current members. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your last edits deleted the entire section rather than reverting to the previous consensus version. Please revert and gain consensus first. The normal dispute resolution process is to revert to the status quo pending the reaching of a new consensus. At present, we have not established consensus on how to treat this material.
On content: the BuzzFeed News article does not use the words "allegations" nor “anonymous” it simply refers to “former members.” Adding that wording introduces editorializing and is inconsistent with WP:NPOV. We should not add interpretations or implied criticisms that the source itself doesn’t make. “Anonymous” is especially misleading as it can imply the former members were unverified and nobody knows who they are. Neither does the article note that anonymity was granted; at most, it could be phrased as “former members, who were not named in the report.” Likewise, BuzzFeed News did not explicitly note the absence of current member interviews, so we should not add that inference ourselves. That would be original research.
To remain source faithful and neutral to the source, the section should simply reflect what the article actually says, “former members.” Additionally Seibert, a member of Antioch, provided a direct response. So it's not accurate to say “The piece did not include interviews with any members of the church,” even if the members’ statements were made in a different context, the source does include remarks from Antioch members. HonestHarbor (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last stable version was what was up for about a year before you tried to reintroduce this content a few weeks ago--content which had already been discussed and been removed over a year ago as UNDUE. That version which was largely unchanged for a year until a few weeks ago is the status quo, not the new changes you just introduced a few weeks ago that never gained consensus. We were unable to get Starship.paint's final take on this, as he has evidently been very busy. I'm happy to wait for him to weigh in, in the meantime, even though I don't want this material in because I regard it as UNDUE, I will include it with the added context or we can wait for Starship.paint to chime in when he has time. I would note that it is part of a reasonable summary of the reporting that it relies exclusively on anonymous former members. If you want to say talking to Seibert counts as talkign to a member, which is kind of implausible, then fine, we can say it reports allegations exclusively from anonymous former members. I am willing to change "anonymous" to "unnamed" if you like. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I'd forgotten I'd had been waiting for @Starship.paint's input on a suggested compromise. It was so long ago it got archived. But if we were still waiting, ordinarily the material would have remained unchanged until consensus was reached per WP:CONSENSUS. I wanted to keep this focused on policy with source fidelity.
I see your point that some material was discussed and removed previously, I think it was moved, not removed. But since it was recently edited and now under discussion again, I suggest we avoid relying too heavily on "status quo" arguments and instead rework toward explicit consensus on how to present it. I recall the separate placement of Seibert’s response followed the structure of the source, one statement responding in the MLM context, another following the “survivors” context.
We should avoid adding inferences the source itself doesn’t make, such as "did not include interviews with any members" or "reports allegations exclusively from anonymous former members." Both of those go beyond what the article actually reports and risk original research.
As for wording, "allegations" is a negatively charged term that does not appear in the source. The article itself uses neutral language such as "described" and "stories," which are more faithful and less controversial.
Although it's not explicit in the source I think it's a fair compromise adding "who were not named in the report" in place of "anonymous." After establishing that, simply "former members" should understood for the remaining: "The article included descriptions from several former members, who were not named in the report. They said that the church had a structure that resembled multi-level marketing, with "social pressure and spiritual incentives" that influenced members to spend more time and money on Antioch and to recruit new Antioch members to 'disciple.'..." HonestHarbor (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was removed about a year ago, not just moved. I agree we should discuss here what to do, since there is no consensus. I have argued and still believe that the negative allegations of a handful of anonymous people that BFN says were former members, at a church of over 5,000 people, is UNDUE. My compromise proposal was to say in 2019 BFN reported that some unnamed former members of Antioch were critical of its discipleship practices. If this is rejected, I propose that the material be presented with the context that it was a few unnamed former members at a church of over 5,000. "Allegation" is appropriate according to MOS:ACCUSED: "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined." Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Antioch on their website: "We define an Antioch member as a Jesus-follower who personally participates in the 5 Circles and commits their time and tithes to Antioch Waco." Do we really think BFN verified that these unnamed "former members" meet these conditions? Seems very doubtful to me. I'm questioning whether BFN 2019 is RS for this content about "former members." Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the material was removed or moved, the key point is that it has now been reintroduced and was under active discussion. Per WP:CONSENSUS, the standard approach is to not make further edits. Work towards an agreed formulation, not to treat the prior removal as permanently settled.
You'd mentioned in the "Suggested compromise" thread the prior version wasn't a "year-old" version, but a few weeks old version. I think we both understood we were awaiting @Starship.paint's input for the "Suggested compromise" talk and not make further edits there. Now it's been long enough that the "Impact on Community" discussion has been archived. @Starship.paint are you able to keep up?
While Antioch has a large congregation, BuzzFeed News is a nationally recognized mainstream reliable source. When a mainstream RS publishes a feature story, we summarize it proportionally, not diminish it because of the relative membership numbers. Inserting 5,000 to scale a comparison, this is not highlighted in the within this immediate context. We should avoid inserting our own suggestive comparisons, which risks original research.
The article does not use “allegations.” It presents “descriptions” and “stories.” Those are more neutral and faithful to the source. In some legal contexts perhaps, but that introduces a legalistic framing that the source itself does not adopt. This is not a criminal trial.
Similarly, the word "critical" is editorializing. The BuzzFeed News article itself does not use that term, nor does it characterize the former members’ statements as such. Instead it reports that they "described" the church’s structure and told "stories" about their experiences. That’s the language we should stick to per WP:NPOV.
Questioning whether BuzzFeed News verified these former members with Antioch’s own definition of “member” is speculative. Per WP:V, we rely on what the source itself reports. If BuzzFeed News describes them as "former members," we should not override that terminology with our own doubts. Reliable sources are considered trustworthy under normal journalistic standards.
Given @Starship.paint’s involvement in the previous discussions, I think it makes sense to seek his input before moving forward. HonestHarbor (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're repeating yourself so I won't reply again, but I agree that we can wait for Starship.paint and in the meantime we can leave the last stable version in place. Thanks. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you are not planning to revert. I would like to note that the last stable version (14:36, 18 Aug 2025) should serve as a temporary reference point while discussion continues regarding the reintroduced material. WP:CONSENSUS recommends preserving a stable version to avoid further content changes until the community reaches agreement.
This is not an endorsement of one version over another. I welcome continued discussion here so we can develop a version that is neutral, proportionate, and source-faithful. HonestHarbor (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean. I don't regard the 18 Aug version, which includes the disputed material you reintroduced, as "the last stable version." Rather, that was a version that included the currently disputed anonymously sourced negative material from BFN 2019, which has been under dispute since you tried to reinsert it a few weeks back. But if you just mean you like that version, well that's good to know. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By "last stable version," I meant the version that was in place before any new edits were made in the current discussion, not to imply it was free of pending dispute historically. I understand that this version includes material currently under debate.
My point is that when content is being discussed and consensus has not yet been reached, WP:CONSENSUS recommends maintaining a reference point (sometimes the last version before further contested edits) to prevent ongoing edit confusion. I am uncertain which edit point you would like to reference from, since currently there is no content version that you wish to revert to. This does not imply endorsement of any particular wording, but I am simply noting a stable baseline reference while discussion continues. HonestHarbor (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to be concise, I'm super tired of reading long text walls. The situation as I see it is this: the stable, consensus version--the reference point if you like, though I don't see that term in policy--is not including this material. Thanks. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(14:36, 18 Aug 2025) as suggested. First @Starship.paint's response to "Suggested compromise" thread. Then move to "anonymous former members" discussion. HonestHarbor (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
18 August version is not the consensus. Let’s stop repeating ourselves ok? Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may be a little confused then, but it seems your current position remains that the BuzzFeed News material is entirely UNDUE and should be removed? That was already being discussed under the "Suggested compromise" section, where @Starship.paint made a compromise edit that I mostly agreed with. One additional point remained under discussion while awaiting @Starship.paint's input.
While that discussion was still pending, edits were made that I felt were not neutral, and when I adjusted them toward source fidelity, the entire content was removed and not reverted to the previous discussion version. Since then, we’ve both offered compromises, but neither of us has reached agreement.
Could you clarify whether your goal is to work toward a compromise wording for this content, or to seek consensus for complete content removal?
I am hoping @Starship.paint can keep track of our discussions to help move this forward. HonestHarbor (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is to expclude the content as UNDUE. I've proposed as a compromise that we say in 2019 BFN reported that some unnamed former members of Antioch were critical of its discipleship practices. (Since then, I've realized that it's probably not accurate that these were "members" of Antioch, so I'm now not sure this BFN 2019 piece is RS for this content at all.) Finally, I have also stated that if the two of you disagree with my view and insist on putting the details of anonymous allegations of alleged "former members" from BFN 2019 in the article, it should be presented in a way that includes the context that these are a handful of (claimed) "former members" from a church of over 5,000 people. We should probably also consider whether it needs the context that BFN had a history with Antioch, having been criticized for publishing a "hit piece" by a number of high profile commenters across the political spectrum. In the meantime, the last stable version of the article exluded this content, so that's where it should stay until we come to consensus. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for summarizing your stance. I may seek to open an RFC in about a week or so to address this and other various unresolved topics. HonestHarbor (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on anonymous former members

This RfC seeks input on whether criticism attributed to unnamed former members of Antioch Waco in a 2019 BuzzFeed News article is given due weight in the article.

Question: Does the inclusion of this material comply with WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, or should it be further trimmed or removed?

Disputed Material (Life groups and discipleship practices section): > In a 2019 BuzzFeed News article, several former members of Antioch Waco stated that it had a structure that resembled multi-level marketing, including "social pressure and spiritual incentives" that influenced members to spend more time and money on Antioch, and to recruit new Antioch members to "disciple." One former member told Buzzfeed News that she had both positive and negative experiences at Antioch Waco, but had come to see it as a "harmful place, with cultic tendencies" that does not have the interest of individual attendees as its highest priority. The article also reported that a Waco psychologist was seeing a group of former members that called themselves "Antioch survivors." Other former members reported being "made to feel unwelcome" by Antioch due to personal decisions, such as opting out of missions, or identity-related issues like admitting homosexuality. Seibert responded that Antioch is "committed to investing in people" and "encouraging each person to invest in others’ lives." He also responded that it is not their practice to teach its members to "cut off contact with those who leave the church", adding that it would be "rare that we would formally ask anyone to leave."

Arguments for Inclusion:

  • This direct wording accurately reflects significant stories and descriptions reported in a reliable secondary source (BuzzFeed News).
  • The material is attributed to former members and balanced with Antioch’s responses, maintaining WP:NPOV.
  • Corroborative inclusion helps provide a fuller picture of how former members and professionals (psychologists) perceive the church, which is notable coverage from a reliable publication. The "cultic tendencies" quote provides a perspective that supports the sociological analysis regarding the church's "cult-like intensity."

Arguments for Removal:

  • The material relies heavily on unnamed sources, which an editor argues gives undue weight to "criticisms."
  • Critics may view the "cultic tendencies" language as WP:UNDUE since it is one person’s characterization, even if framed within a broader set of criticisms and from a reliable source.
  • There is concern that including detailed "allegations" could overemphasize negative claims relative to the rest of the article.

Background: This issue has been discussed extensively in previous sections. For full context on the arguments see: Buzzfeed 2019 (Archived) #anonymous former members

HonestHarbor (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HonestHarbor I don't see any issues with including this material. Seems very well sourced and properly balanced. Buzzfeed News provides a significant reliable report. While the former members are not named, the reporting itself was conducted by a professional news organization that vetted those accounts. We're relying on the editorial validity of BuzzFeed News, not "anonymous" sources. ~2025-42990-82 (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (invited by the bot) First I'd like to compliment the RFC poster on one of the most neutral yet informative RFC's I have ever seen posted. Next a disclaimer that this is "quick look" post without in depth review. That said, it sounds like credible relevant informative content that should be in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder: Is this the only source available? It feels like a lot of detail for a criticism that only appears in one source.
Also, the line about it being an organization that does not have the interest of individual attendees as its highest priority struck me as very POVish, and yet the paragraph here doesn't present it as if anyone might think there was anything odd about it. Has someone officially decided that "individuals" are supposed to be more important than truth or justice or peace or whatever – even for churches, which we might suppose want those individuals to be thinking about something other than themselves?
So that is a little weird, but then I read the source, which is https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/annehelenpetersen/waco-texas-magnolia-fixer-upper-antioch-chip-joanna-gaines
It's mostly about the effect of gentrification on Waco, Texas, which the author blames on three factors: Baylor University, Chip and Joanna Gaines, and Antioch Community Church (i.e., the Waco instance of this "international" church). The main point of the BuzzFeed News article has been given two sentences in Antioch International Movement of Churches#Impact on local community. The proposal here is to add ~200 words based on just three paragraphs in a very long (~2750 words) article whose main point is summarized in this concluding paragraph: Ask anyone in town, from anywhere in town: Waco is a better place to live than it was 10 years ago. That’s not the question. The question is who will be able to live in that town in the years to come — and participate in it as homeowners, as entrepreneurs, as authorities on and within their own communities.
Basically, the discrepancy between the source's main point and the proposed main use of the source (and the absence of any other sources making similar points about individualism, hurt feelings, social rejection, etc.) makes me think that this is cherry-picking claims that align with an individual's personal biases, instead of Wikipedia editors representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Because if we were trying to represent that source fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, we'd probably have chosen the ~90% about city-wide economics instead of the 10% about subjective personal experiences and individuals' opinions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Include Negative allegations of a handful of anonymous people that BFN says were former members, at a church of over 5,000 people, is UNDUE. This is why it was removed over a year ago after it was added by single-purpose accounts and sock-puppets that only edit this page and only add negative material to this page. It is highly questionable that BFN's anonymous sources were verified as former members, since based on Antioch's webpage, they do not appear to have an official "membership" process ("We define an Antioch member as a Jesus-follower who personally participates in the 5 Circles and commits their time and tithes to Antioch Waco"). Additionally, as mentioned by WhatamIdoing above, these allegations are only reported by this one source, which is an additional reason to think the allegations are UNDUE, especially if presented with any length. Finally, it's worth noting that BFN previously published an attack on this church related to Chip and Joanna Gaines, and this previous reporting was called a "hit piece" in the opinion section of WaPo, among other places. If these arguments for not including this material are rejected, my compromise proposal was to say simply that In 2019, BFN reported that some unnamed former members of Antioch were critical of its discipleship practices. If both my arguments for non-inclusion and my compromise proposal are rejected, I propose that the material be presented with the context that it was a few unnamed former members at a church of over 5,000 people. "Allegation" is appropriate according to MOS:ACCUSED: "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined." Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications: I appreciate the further perspective comments shared here. I would like to address a few points raised. Many of these topics have been previously discussed, please review the background for fuller understanding.

Under WP:V, our focus is on the reliability of the publisher. BuzzFeed News (at the time of publication) had a robust, Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial board. Granting anonymity to sources is standard journalistic practice for sensitive topics; we are relying on the outlet's vetting process.

The "5,000 Members" Context: The original BuzzFeed News report did not contextualize these former members by comparing them to the church's 5,000-person capacity. Introducing this comparison now would be WP:OR. The existence of an "Antioch survivors" group and a psychologist treating them provides corroboration that these are not isolated or "fake" accounts.

In terms of another supporting source that corroborates the cult sentiment, Antioch's "cult-like intensity" quality has been mentioned by sociologist Kevin Dougherty and is included under the "Life Groups" section.

Regarding the statement "organization that does not have the interest of individual attendees as its highest priority" There is a recent article from a separate incident that similarly stated several times about an Antioch Church repeating different variation patterns on the church's image being prioritized above the individuals who attend there "leaders were ‘more worried about image than truth and harm'"

The "Hit Piece" claim: It is important to clarify again that the Washington Post did not label the 2019 BuzzFeed News article a "hit piece." That characterization comes from an opinion column written in 2016 regarding a different article published by Buzzfeed, about the Gaines family. Buzzfeed News is a different periodical than Buzzfeed. Using a years old opinion piece about a different topic to disqualify a 2019 news report by a Pulitzer-winning newsroom is not consistent with WP:RS.

I agree that the gentrification and community impact themes deserve more space through sourcing Peterson's article. We have a verified significant and credible source with topical relevance to "90%" Community Impact and "10%" Antioch Practices. I've been advocating for a greater inclusion for the contents of Antioch Vision, gentrification, displacement, systemic racism but they are topics which has still not reached consensus. While the BuzzFeed News article covers broader themes like gentrification, the specific details regarding "MLM-like structures" and "cultic tendencies" are directly relevant to the Life Groups and Discipleship section of this Wikipedia article. This is not cherry-picking; we are extracting the portions of a reliable source that pertain to the specific section of the church's history and practices being discussed.

The most logical way to achieve WP:DUE weight is to include these significant verified community impact details, not to omit this reliable reporting. I would welcome comments on that talk thread too: Impact on Community (Antioch Vision, gentrification, displacement, systemic racism)

Summarizing the material down inevitably fails in notability. The current draft is already balanced with a lengthy rebuttal from Seibert, which satisfies WP:NPOV. Reducing the criticism to vague general statements while keeping the church's specific defense would actually create a neutrality imbalance.

Viewing this content through a lens of MOS:ACCUSED is a misapplication. The guideline specifically warns that words like "alleged" can imply a point is inaccurate. Since we are not reporting on any unproven criminal proceedings, but rather on documented social criticism from a reliable secondary source, the most neutral approach is direct attribution rather than adding a label to the content as "allegations." The current draft attributes the views clearly to "former members" while providing the church's response. HonestHarbor (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Content appears generally WP:DUE for inclusion in general, but could use some minor trimming for WP:WEIGHT and WP:Proportion purposes.(Summoned by bot) I've only done a partial review of the previous discussions, but considering what I have read here, and in the entirety of this thread, I am of the opinion that the OP has the better end of the stick policy wise. It is absolutely correct that when we talk about the availability of WP:reliable sources for purposes of WP:V and WP:NPOV, we are talking about the actual published sources, and we do not get to dismiss those sources as RS just because they didn't satisfy an individual editor's assessment of good reporting, or because we don't have inside information as to the number, identity or other specifics of their primary sources. That is essentially an effort at a kind of WP:original research, and just nowhere near a valid policy argument to depart with the actual requirements of our core editorial policies.
    The closest thing we do to anything like this is that, at RSN, if a given source has developed a particularly questionable reputation for editorial controls or independence, they might be deprecated or subjected to special conditions by the community at large. But where a source is generally considered reliable, it is not the place of our editors to second-guess or dismiss claims or statements we have personal doubts or concerns about. That's Wikipedia 101: leave your own perspective at the door.
    Similarly, I am not much concerned by the fact that some of the criticism is quite sharp. "[R]eliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." NPOV is about our neutral treatment of sources, not their treatment of the subject matter. Provided the statements are attributed, they do not in principle violate any policy on neutrality. The solution to the concern that BFN may have relied upon a small proportion of critics from a much larger church population (a fact that is certainly true for just about religious institution that has come inf or criticism, and certainly not a policy-relevant argument against inclusion) is to do what is possible to frame that context for the reader.
    So that leaves the last argument for the reductionist side of this dispute. And here that side does fare a little better under policy. Having looked a little at the content and sources, and considered WhatamIdoing's cogent points above, I do think there is a question of WP:PROPORTION here. I think you could remove 20% of the content there (keeping the criticisms and church's responses in the same basic balance as at present), withotu risking the losing essential detail. SnowRise let's rap 05:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposed Consensus Version: Thank you for the comments. I've taken the feedback regarding proportionality and weight into account and have trimmed about 20% of the narrative while retaining the specific, attributed criticisms regarding the church's structure and the impact on individuals from the source:
    In a 2019 BuzzFeed News article, several former members of Antioch Waco stated that it had a structure that resembled multi-level marketing, including "social pressure and spiritual incentives" that influenced members to spend more time and money on Antioch, and to recruit new Antioch members to "disciple." One former member told Buzzfeed News that she had come to see it as a "harmful place, with cultic tendencies" that does not place the interest of the individuals first. The article also reported that a Waco psychologist was seeing a group of former members that called themselves "Antioch survivors." Other former members reported being "made to feel unwelcome" by Antioch due to opting out of missions, or issues like admitting homosexuality. Seibert responded that Antioch is "committed to investing in people." He also responded that it is not their practice to teach its members to "cut off contact with those who leave the church."
    I believe this version satisfies the concerns regarding WP:PROPORTION, while remaining faithful to the WP:DUE coverage of the topic HonestHarbor (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are no further comments or objections, I will proceed with implementing the above trimmed version, which reflects the RfC consensus to retain the material with reduced weight per WP:PROPORTION. HonestHarbor (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how an RfC works in my experience. Your proposal does not seem to me like it is in line with views expressed above by me, WhatamIdoing, or Sincreator. But I'd be interested to hear what they think. I had suggested saying something like "In 2019, BFN reported that some unnamed former members of Antioch were critical of its discipleship practices" if (against my judgment) this material is to be included. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We could list this at Wikipedia:Closure requests, if a summary statement from an uninvolved editor would be helpful.
    We could also try a different approach to the RFC question. For example, we could ask editors "Is the following paragraph a neutral summary of https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/annehelenpetersen/waco-texas-magnolia-fixer-upper-antioch-chip-joanna-gaines ?" and then put the edited paragraph after the question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We could also take this question to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Shinealittlelight and WhatamIdoing: Thanks for the further comments. Since there are still differing views on whether the trimmed version fully reflects the outcome of the RfC, I agree that it would be helpful to have an uninvolved editor provide a summary close based on the full discussion. I will list this RfC at Wikipedia:Closure requests. HonestHarbor (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

River Church Banff

I agree with including this material. But it should be a brief summary; going into such deep detail on an incident at one church that has recently become affiliated with Antioch is really UNDUE. I would agree with including something like the version I proposed, even though even that was pretty much too long. I also will try to add more information from the other sources to fill out the international section, so that we can see better how it fits into the full range of information in sources.

Specifically, here is my proposal: In 2025, a volunteer youth leader at River Church Banff, an affiliate church of Antioch in Scotland since 2016, was convicted of "sexual activity with an older child." The Press and Journal and The Times reported that the church's senior leadership had been aware of these allegations for several months before the family and police were notified in February of 2023. Parents of the victim said the leadership repeatedly downplayed the allegations, and at least one "church worker" said in private messages that the church had mishandled the allegations. After the victim’s family approached Antioch Waco in 2023, the leaders of River Church issued a joint apology. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus version"
The version you reverted to is not a "consensus version." On Wikipedia, "consensus" means discussion among multiple editors leading to general agreement, not solely a single editor reverting and calling it "consensus." Issues like River Church Banff and the section headings have not yet been discussed, and no consensus has been reached. In line with WP:BRD, potentially contentious changes should be discussed before making bold reverts. WP:BOLD advises us editors it is important for us to take care of the common good and avoid making disruptive or reckless edits. I welcome input from other editors on this matter.
Section headings
I agree that excessively worded section headings can be an issue, and I’m open to simplifying if that’s the concern. However, MOS:OVERSECTION is a structural guideline policy not a content exclusion policy. The presence of discrete subheadings do not by itself create undue weight; it becomes problematic only if the amount or prominence of coverage exceeds what reliable sources support. I don’t believe the subheadings in question rose to that level, though I’d be happy to discuss rewording or restructuring them. In my view, MOS:OVERSECTION does not justify removing accurate, well sourced headings entirely.
River Church Banff
On River Church Banff, I agree that an article should not go into excessive investigative or narrative detail, and I’m not advocating for that. However, over-compressing the material risks under representing what reliable sources identify as a very notable issue connected to Antioch’s affiliate structure and senior leadership. Banff is not a "recent" Antioch affiliate, it's been part of the Movement for 9 years to the date the article had been published. The inclusion was already a brief, factual summary of the River Church Banff case and consistent with WP:DUE and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. This incident received sustained coverage from multiple independent, high-quality sources (The Times, The Press and Journal), involved senior leadership responses who should be named, and directly resulted in an OSCR regulatory inquiry. That regulatory action establishes notability beyond a purely local crime and creates a documented connection to Antioch’s wider network.
That said, I can propose this:
In 2025, a youth leader at Antioch affiliate River Church Banff was convicted of "sexual activity with an older child" while grooming a 14-year-old boy. The Press and Journal and The Times reported that the church's senior leadership, lead pastor Rob McArthur and founding elder Joe Ewen, had been aware of the behavior for several months before the family and police were notified. Parents of the victim said the church leadership repeatedly downplayed the allegations, and The Times reported that the boy's father was told to "back off" when he raised concerns. One "church worker" said the church had mishandled the allegations. After the victim’s family approached Antioch Waco in 2023, McArthur and Ewen issued a joint apology. Media coverage highlighted the congregation’s formal link to the Antioch International Movement of Churches, identifying Antioch Waco as River Church Banff's “mother church,” receiving staff salaries through the United States organization, and hosting missionaries sent from Texas. Following media reporting, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator opened an inquiry into the church's trustees. HonestHarbor (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We tried a few versions of this, we didn’t reach a consensus, so we revert to the stable version before our attempts and discuss here. This is how Wikipedia works. The sources don’t report “grooming”. Why would you propose that language? Why is it important to you to put a bunch of names in the summary? Why do you say “coverage highlighted” when it was mentioned one time in one report and was definitely not a focus? Why should this incident receive more words than the Haiti relief efforts you just cut down? Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting to a prior stable version while discussion continues may have been appropriate if there had been lengthy substantive discussion and no clear agreement aftering review from multiple editors. My concern is that discussion on scope and framing of River Church Banff and the section structure was still emerging when the revert occurred, without any editorial discussions. I’m not disputing referring to a stable baseline temporarily when no consensus stalemates occur, but I do want to clarify that this does not itself establish "consensus." That remains an open question for discussion here.
The Times does use the word "grooming" in the sentence: "They claimed that concerns about grooming were repeatedly “downplayed” ​by leaders." Using the same term, attributed to the source, reflects the reporting rather than introducing editorial language.
The sources also explicitly name individuals. I'm open to with leaving out Middleton's name, for the purpose of word count reduction, but Rob McArthur and Joe Ewen are senior Antioch-linked leadership figures whose actions (or inactions) are a significant and central part of why the incident was reported as a sustained church governance and safeguarding failure rather than a vague stand alone failure. Joe Ewen is listed on Antioch Waco's staff of external advisors making this a significant profile insight story regarding Antioch's senior leadership practices. The internal decision to dismiss concerns can be directly attributed to McArthur and Ewen. Naming senior leadership where reliable sources do so is consistent with neutrality and precision, not undue emphasis.
Media "coverage highlighted" Antioch Waco because it was indeed explicitly highlighted and significantly relevant to an Wikipedia article about the Antioch International Movement of Churches. On phrasing “media coverage highlighted,” my intent was not to suggest that the Antioch connection dominated all reporting, only that it was explicitly noted and relevant to an article about the Antioch International Movement of Churches. Moreso, the incident received sustained, independent reporting from multiple outlets and resulted in regulatory action (OSCR inquiry), which distinguish it from routine local crime reporting and are relevant to assessing due weight.
When balancing sections, source strength and coverage depth matter. The Banff story is a lot more significant and covered than Antioch's Haiti relief efforts. Banff sources recieved multiple coverage from independent outlets, sustained over a long period of time, named leadership for accountability, and involved a formal charity regulator inquiry. By contrast, the Haiti relief material is largely sourced to The Christian Post, which is a religious advocacy outlet. It can be useful for brief, basic, factual descriptions, but it limits how much prominence that material can reasonably be given relative to issues covered extensively by independent sources. I’m not suggesting removal of the Haiti content, only that source strength and coverage depth matter when balancing sections under WP:DUE. HonestHarbor (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Right, we revert to the last stable consensus. Just following policy here. Try to AGF.
The sources do not use "grooming" in their own voice, but mention that "grooming" was a concern of the parents. Can you explain why that detail--which was not in the source's voice--is so important to you to include?
The sources contain many details. They also contain the responses from the relevant church. We don't include every detail that occurred in one instance in one church in worldwide network of dozens of churches since that would be UNDUE--a point that I have repeatedly made to you. Your proposed edit is UNDUE, just as the details of the chruch's statement in response to this incident are also UNDUE.
To me, "media coverage highlighted" suggests that it was a main theme of the coverage, or that it was at least heavily emphasized. Since it was not, I think that it doesn't belong in our article.
The proposed sprinkling of many subsections is also clearly out of step with WP style guidelines, and I oppose that suggested change on that basis alone. The POV character of the edit was also unacceptable.
As for the Haiti story, some of your edit was good. But I think it's CP is a fine source for getting a sense of what Antioch is trying to do with its international efforts. To that end, I'd suggest including the number of homes built and the reason for choosing that specific community. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, To clarify, the River Church Banff deletion was not a "consensus version," as it had not been discussed or agreed upon by multiple editors. Reverting to a non-consensus version first without discussion is not considered consistent with gaining WP:CONSENSUS. Editors should be bold, but not rash. BRD does not encourage reverting. Try to revert only when necessary. WP:ONLYREVERT states reverting tends to be hostile, per WP:BADREVERT do not revert an edit as a means of showing your disapproval of the edit summary. When discussions of proposals to delete articles, media, or other pages end without consensus, the normal result is the content being kept.
The use of the word "grooming" is accurate, appropriate, and multi-sourced. This wording is a non-issue. In addition to The Times, the Press and Journal also describe Middleton's repeated sexual behavior as "grooming" multiple times.
If you remain unconvinced, I can suggest an alternative:
In 2025, a youth leader at Antioch affiliate River Church Banff was convicted of "repeatedly sexually touching a 14-year-old boy."
The initial proposed edit summarizes the events concisely; it does not include every detail in the sources and therefore is not UNDUE.
In order to clarify the wording, I propose Media coverage "noted" instead of "highlighted." Adjusting "highlighted" to "noted" further avoids implying editorial emphasis.
Regarding international coverage, the Christian Post can be used sparingly to illustrate Antioch’s broader activities, but numerical details or exhaustive reporting on every project would risk undue weight. I agree it’s not always appropriate to include than every detail such as collections of specific numbers.
Separate subsections help distinguish this notable event from the broader international activities of Antioch, making the article clearer for readers looking for specific topics. Proper headings allow for easier navigation in a long article with multiple international branches and events.
For these reasons, I believe the material I proposed can be retained as it is a concise, properly sourced, and neutrally-worded. As always, it would be good for @Starship.paint to chime in. A potential request for comment would also help ensure the community agrees on the due weight and presentation. HonestHarbor (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We obviously needed to talk about how to include this material on the talk page before we could come to an agreement about how to include it. This is just basic Wikipedia editing 101. I didn't do anything wrong or even unusual here. I am trying to work with you. I would recommend that you try editing some other pages to see that this is how it normally works on wikipedia.
I see that the word "grooming" is attributed to claims made by various people, concerns various people had, and at one point the P&J says they found evidence supporting these concerns. That's different than a report that grooming occurred. The accurate statement of what this person was convicted of is "sexual activity with an older child." Why would you not want to report accurately what she was actually convicted of?
I think your proposal includes undue detail, as explained above, and you're not being responsive to my point. Can you explain why the reponse of the church in their statement isn't due but all the negative stuff and inaccurate summaries of the conviction are supposed to go in our article? I haven't heard your explanation of that yet. My own view is that both the details you want to include and the response from the church are undue, and we should try to treat this as what it is: a single incident at one of many dozens of worldwide churches that are part of our subject in this article. That means we should keep it relatively brief.
I agree about not using CP for exhaustive reporting of evrery detail, but I think a sense of what their project was in Haiti is DUE, and so I'm advocating inclusion of the fact that they sought to build 100 homes in an underserved community. That's a pretty short descrpition, and it seems to give a sense of what they were up to. You disagree?
The subsections were unaccetpable stylistically, cutting the article into tiny pieces. They were also clearly negative POV. I'm just repeating myself here, you're not being responsive. The manual of style is not policy, but we do try to accord with it because it makes sense. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for laying out your concerns. I think it’s important that we ground our approach directly in Wikipedia policy.
My concern is about characterizing the reverted version as a “consensus” version. As WP:CONSENSUS explains, consensus requires active agreement reached through discussion. In this case, the full omission of the Banff material had not been established through talk page discussion or agreement among multiple editors; it was simply a prior version that existed before this dispute arose.
More generally, policies such as WP:BRD emphasize that in good-faith content disputes, discussion and incremental adjustment are preferred over repeated reversion, particularly where edits contain potentially encyclopedic material.
Multiple reliable sources, including The Press and Journal, independently use the term “grooming” in their own reporting, not only as attributed concerns. That makes it attributable encyclopedic content. That makes the term attributable encyclopedic content under WP:V and WP:RS. That said, in the interest of precision and neutrality, I have already proposed compromise wording that avoids the term entirely and instead relies on precise conviction language. The Times explicitly states Middleton was "convicted of repeatedly sexually touching a 14-year-old boy" which is improves accuracy.
From a Wikipedia policy perspective, including numerical detail from the Christian Post risks WP:DUE violations, as it gives undue weight to a single local detail within a worldwide organization. Likewise, removing subsections solely for stylistic preference disregards MOS:HEADINGS, which allow subsections to improve clarity and navigation in long articles.
At this stage, it seems our remaining disagreements seems to be about degree rather than principle especially how to balance precision, attribution, and brevity. If we’re still talking past each other, I think it would be productive to invite additional input from other editors, such as @Starship.paint or open a RFC to get wider community input on due weight and wording. HonestHarbor (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by what I said above and I agree we are at an impasse. The precise conviction language is as I said above, "sexual activity with an older child", so your suggestion, and any report that uses a different phrasing than that, is inaccurate or paraphrasing where we should be as precise as possible per WP:BLP. I agree about getting other editors involved; I'm happy to wait for Starship.paint, who seems to have told you he was going to be along at some point. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple reliable sources describe the conviction using similar language. The Times reports that Middleton was "convicted of repeatedly sexually touching a 14-year-old boy" and elsewhere "convicted of sexually touching the teenager." The Press and Journal likewise reports that she was “convicted of sexually touching the young teenager” also "14-year-old boy she was later convicted of sexually touching."
While The Times also uses the phrasing "sexual activity with an older child," the source provides the more descriptive conviction language in the first sentence of its reporting. Under WP:BLP and WP:V, it is appropriate to summarize the conviction using wording that is both accurate, clearly supported by multiple reliable sources and properly attributed.
The precise actions which lead to Middleton's conviction is stated in the original source. "repeatedly" is an appropriately worded measure of precision.
To address concerns about precision and to avoid disputed terminology such as “grooming,” I propose the following compromise wording: In 2025, Lauren Middleton, a volunteer youth leader at River Church Banff (an Antioch affiliate church in Scotland), was "convicted of repeatedly sexually touching a 14-year-old boy" and placed on the sex offenders register. According to The Times, the conduct involved inappropriately stroking the boy beginning in 2022.
This wording uses conviction language that appears across multiple sources, attributes descriptive detail explicitly, and keeps the summary brief and proportional, in line with WP:DUE and WP:BLP. HonestHarbor (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What was the legal charge she was convicted of? Answer: sexual activity with an older child. That's in the sources. That's what she was convicted of. I notice you didn't answer why the church's response shouldn't be included. Details that are also undue in my opinion, but which should be in the article if we are giving all the details: she was accused of touching his thigh, and she was sentenced to 200 hours of community service. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting for the RfC below to be re-structured per my concerns about a neutral opening prompt before I respond there, but as a threshold matter, I'd like to observe that your positions are not mutually exclusive: we can (and should) describe the precise charge the part was convicted of; we also can (and should, to some extent) include the description of the acts which formed the basis of that conviction as they are found in the WP:RS. This is not a zero-sum determination and there is room for both the title of the formal charge and the attributed verbiage describing the criminal conduct that led to that conviction, with both contributing a form of accuracy and context. I also would tend to regard the Church's response as a critical part of the coverage. SnowRise let's rap 22:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Inclusion and Wording of River Church Banff Incident

Should the Antioch International Movement of Churches article include the following precise, sourced wording for the 2025 River Church Banff incident, noting the senior leadership response and regulatory inquiry, reflecting precise conviction language, attribution, and proportional coverage?

Proposed wording: "In 2025, a youth leader at Antioch affiliate River Church Banff was convicted of "repeatedly sexually touching a 14-year-old boy" and placed on the sex offenders register. According to The Times, the conduct involved inappropriately stroking the boy beginning in 2022. The Press and Journal and The Times report that the church's senior leadership, lead pastor Rob McArthur and founding elder Joe Ewen, were aware of the behavior for several months before the family and police were notified. Parents of the victim spoke of how their son was "betrayed" by their church, saying the leadership repeatedly "downplayed" concerns about grooming and prioritized protecting the public image of the church. After the victim’s family approached Antioch Waco in 2023, McArthur and Ewen issued a joint apology. Media coverage also noted River Church Banff's formal link to Antioch Waco, including receipt of staff salaries and hosting missionaries from the United States. Following reporting, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator opened an inquiry into the church's trustees."

Arguments for inclusion:

  • The material is supported by multiple independent, reliable sources.
  • It summarizes a notable incident linked to Antioch’s affiliate structure and senior leadership.
  • It maintains proportionality and attribution without editorializing.
  • It gives context about the wider organization and regulatory outcomes without excessive narrative detail.

Arguments for removal or trimming:

  • The formal legal charge is “sexual activity with an older child” and any other phrasing (e.g., “repeatedly sexually touching a 14-year-old boy”) is “inaccurate” or paraphrasing, per WP:BLP.
  • Terms such as “grooming” are not directly in the sources’ voice and should not be used.
  • Media coverage did not “highlight” Antioch Waco’s involvement, so such phrasing is inappropriate.

Questions for comment: 1. Does this proposed wording accurately reflect the sources, remain neutral, and maintain due weight in the article? 2. Should the senior leadership names be included, considering sourcing, notability, and accountability under WP:BLP? 3. Does the proposed summary appropriately reflect the incident’s coverage and significance, while remaining proportional in length?

HonestHarbor (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:, since I am here in response to the FRS notice for the RfC above, I will also contribute a perspective on this editorial issue. Before I do that, however, and seeing as I am the first to respond, I think I should advise you HonestHarbor, that unlike your prompt for the previous RfC, where a respondent understandably praised you for the neutral wording for the prompt, you haven't really achieved that here. Most all of what is included in the "Rationale" section of the prompt is argumentation from your perspective, and for your position, and belongs in your !vote, not the prompt. It's permissible to, as you did in your last prompt, provide a short summary of the positions advanced in previous discussion, provided you give reasonably equal airing to the outlooks of the differing sides to the dispute. In this instance, your arguments are both way too large and mostly or completely advance your take on the editorial issue, and this generally not consistent with WP:RFCNEUTRAL Since I am the first respondent and caught this issue before lodging my own view, this is easily remedied: I suggest you simply re-edit prompt and move those contents to a separate !vote post, and then we can proceed normally. SnowRise let's rap 21:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting for the record that the present prompt is the version amended by HonestHarbor (for which I thank him), and which I believe is now perfectly consistent with WP:RFCNEUTRAL. SnowRise let's rap 23:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support @SnowRise Thank you for your guidance. I support including the proposed wording because it is accurately sourced, neutral, and provides proportional coverage. Including senior leadership names is justified by reliable sources and relevance to church governance. The summary reflects the significance of the incident while remaining concise.
Rationale: (River Church Banff Incident)
  • Accuracy and sourcing: This wording reflects precise conviction language as reported by multiple independent, reliable sources (The Times; The Press and Journal). Using terms like "repeatedly sexually touching a 14-year-old boy" ensures clarity and adherence to WP:BLP and WP:V, avoiding language like "grooming" while still summarizing the reported behavior.
  • Naming senior leadership: Including Rob McArthur and Joe Ewen is supported by WP:BLP and WP:V because they were explicitly named in multiple reliable sources, their actions (or inactions) are central to understanding the incident, and they directly relate to Antioch's church governance and accountability context. Omitting their names would reduce the precision and context necessary for neutral coverage of a notable incident within the organization.
  • Attribution of critical claims: Phrases like "betrayed," "downplayed," and "cared more about protecting the public image of the church" are all clearly attributed to the parents, which satisfies WP:BLP.
  • Proportionality and due weight: The summary is concise, neutral, and proportional, consistent with WP:DUE and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. The section avoids narrative over-detail while reflecting the significance of the incident, including the OSCR inquiry, which elevates the event beyond a routine local crime.
  • Contextual relevance: Including details about Antioch Waco’s affiliation, staff salary connections, and missionaries clarifies the wider organizational context, which is relevant to readers understanding the governance and accountability structures of the Antioch movement.
(Subsections)
  • Subsections and structure: Additional subsections improve clarity and navigation in articles covering multiple events, locations, or aspects of an organization while remaining compliant with WP:MOS:OVERSECTION; it provides clarity without undue editorial emphasis or narrative bias. HonestHarbor (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with caveats. I believe that the OP has demonstrated that the content generally adheres to policy, but I'm not a huge fan of the selective one-buzzword quotes, properly attributed or not: those statements could probably be swapped out for one well-chosen fuller quote. Or, honestly, lost altogether: I'm not sure how much of educational/informational value we get out of stating that the victim's parents are pissed. Well, no shit? I think most of us wonder at how such a parent even goes about keeping their understandable rage in check in the manner they have to (in order to avoid further traumatizing their child and to help facilitate justice for them) following such assaults. I can see maintaining some statement of their justifiable anger and criticisms, but its much less critical information than the details of the abuse itself, and institutional responses both within and and without the movement.
    Regarding the RS-consistent descriptions of the criminal conduct and abuse, that is perfectly fine, within the bounds of being consistent with WP:DUE WEIGHT (which some mention surely is here). The argument that WP:BLP requires us to describe criminal and amoral acts only using precisely the label that happens to align with the crime they were charged with is both inconsistent with that policy and in my view, nonsensical. Formal charges are legal terms of art, and are often highly idiomatic, and often employ antiquated or peculiar nomenclature; they are a charging instrument which designate which statutes and causes of action, and their associated evidentiary standards, will be of relevance to a determination of guilt and penalty.
    Even within the courts themselves, these terms of art are not meant to be descriptive: those details are found in the elements of the crime, and in findings of fact and conclusions of law in resulting orders and judgments. Outside of the courts, and especially in the context of encyclopedic language, of all places, the idea of using only the name of charged/convicted crime to describe behaviour that is illegal (but also a lot of other terrible things) becomes even further untenable. If we have multiple RS all confirming a certain description of the abuse by converging on similar verbiage, that's probably due. for inclusion. That said, as I pointed out for the disputants above, this is not an either/or situation: both the formal charge and the more factually specific description are probably appropriate for inclusion.
    I also lean towards inclusion on the McArthur and Ewen statement. Some might say this information presents the movement and its leadership in a bad light merely be association--not that that would be good enough reason itself to avoid inclusion. Others might be more charitable and say it shows a willingness to own up to terrible things that occurred within their religious community. But I don't think it matters how we read the association; its probably minimally relevant for inclusion either way. SnowRise let's rap 05:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is too much detail. It's treating this article like a WP:COATRACK upon which we can hang too much detail. For example, was convicted of "repeatedly sexually touching a 14-year-old boy" and inappropriately stroking the boy are redundant. The bit about Media coverage also noted River Church Banff's formal link to Antioch Waco feels unnecessary: aren't all of the affiliates affiliated with each other, by definition? Would you write something like "Media noted St Mary's Church formal link to the Catholic Church in Rome"? Or "Media noted the local Scouts Club's formal link to the national scouting organization"? I wouldn't. I mean, it's nice of the journalists to help their readers understand what the organization is, but by the time Wikipedia readers get to this paragraph, they should already know that. I also wonder how we can balance the age of the victim with privacy for the victim. Maybe "a young teenager"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose with caveats. I agree with WhatamIdoing above. This degree of detail, and indeed this article has often been treated by single-page editors as a WP:COATRACK for specifically negative fine-grained details about this worldwide movement of churches every time any incident occurs in any of the many dozens of churches. This incident was reported enough that it does deserve mention, but all this fine-grained detail is undue. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antioch_International_Movement_of_Churches