This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Antioch International Movement of Churches article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Evangelical Christianity Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Evangelical Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Evangelical Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Evangelical ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject Evangelical ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject Evangelical ChristianityEvangelical Christianity Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted on 17 August 2011 by reviewer Nathan2055 (talk · contribs).

I understand your concern about undue weight and reliance on primary sources. My intention is to document the notable status of former affiliates noted by the removal from Antioch’s official locations page and acknowledgment on the All Peoples Church site itself.

While it’s true these are primarily primary sources, I was cautious to only present straightforward non-controversial facts. The changes in affiliation is a significant factual update relevant to the article, especially since the former affiliates are notable churches in their own right. Is there anything about the way the content was written that you found it undue or is it the sourcing only that you take issue with? I could not find any secondary sources, so from my understanding it's acceptable to use a primary in a matter of fact way.

It's a brief, neutral mention with clear citation to the primary sources. The addition reflects the organizational changes as facts, without undue emphasis. HonestHarbor (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of mention in any secondary source suggests that this is UNDUE. There are lots of facts that are mentioned in secondary sources that aren't included in the article; why would we decide to include stuff that nobody has found to be of interest enough to comment on in secondary sourcing? Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The change in affiliation is a verifiable, objective fact sourced directly from the organizations involved. While secondary coverage would be ideal, WP:PRIMARY allows use of primary sources for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. Removal from Antioch’s own official locations list and acknowledgment on All Peoples own site are clear indicators of organizational change, which is relevant to documenting the current scope and structure of the movement. Similar factual affiliate changes are routinely noted in other organizational articles without secondary commentary, provided they are neutrally worded and proportionate in length. When All Peoples was part of Antioch, there were three affiliated churches. Since disaffiliating in 2022, All Peoples has expanded to twenty churches and growing, representing a substantial presence and reach that makes the separation notable in the context of Antioch’s history. HonestHarbor (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that it is notable, and once again I don't understand how you are thinking about why we don't include the hundreds of other pieces of verifiable objective facts--these from actual secondary sources--that we are currently not including so as not to bloat the article with minutiae. You're not really explaining that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s ultimately up to editors to determine which facts are notable and relevant. Concern may be warranted but that doesn't automatically disqualify an reasonable edit. I’m not proposing we overcrowd the article with excessive detail, but rather to include a small, objectively presented, and proportionally brief section that's barely noticeable. All Peoples change in affiliation is a verifiable organizational shift directly documented by both parties involved, impacting the scope and structure of the Antioch movement. While it may seem minor compared to other content, it is a significant fact about the movement’s evolving composition. Other churches have also become closed or disaffiliated; Antioch Ann Arbor, Antioch Cape Town, Antioch Oklahoma City, Antioch Orlando. These should be noted. All Peoples has grown substantially after disaffiliation from Antioch, making its departure more notable. HonestHarbor (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for your criteria that, when applied to all the availabe secondary sources, would not produce bloat. You're not providing such criteria. A lot of the stuff you're trying to edit into the article was removed some time ago as UNDUE. I'm happy to revisit the matter, but I don't see any argument here. Just repeated assertions that the material "should be noted". Why? You seem to be wanting to suggest that these churches were being held back by their affiliation with Antioch? But of course that's not in any source. So that's clearly not a good reason. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My approach is to follow Wikipedia's criteria: content that is supported by reliable secondary sources where possible, and primary sources for straightforward facts per WP:PRIMARY. Material should have a direct and substantive connection to the article and reflect an informative, structural, historical, or thematic aspect of topics that are likely to be of interest to readers.

These affiliate changes are verifiable and sourced directly from the organizations involved, meeting WP:PRIMARY standards for straightforward facts. Including such information within the Antioch article is consistent with Wikipedia’s policies on relevance, verifiability, and due weight. The edit is brief, neutral, and proportionate, and provides useful context without undue detail or speculation.

I am not suggesting a overabundance of facts, the edit is proportionate to its significance. I am not suggesting or implying that any affiliate was “held back” by Antioch. That is neither in the sources nor reflected in my neutrally worded edit. I agree we should avoid any unsourced interpretations. Changes in affiliation are notable because they shape Antioch’s historical composition and footprint. It's a talking note that All Peoples is a large and growing network, which helps establish why this particular disaffiliation carries significance in its own right. This information is relevant to documenting the scope and evolution of the Antioch movement itself, without speculation on causes or motives. HonestHarbor (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Changes in affiliation ... shape Antioch’s historical composition and footprint" is not something we are getting from a source. If that were in a source, I'd agree that it was relevant to establishing this material as DUE. But it's not sourced, it's just your opinion. And again, I disagree with your repeated assertions that this is "direct and substantive". That's what's at issue. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I misunderstood your questioning. I thought you were asking me to explain why I believe including this fact is relevant and notable for Wikipedia, and I shared my reasoning accordingly. According to Wikipedia guidelines, it’s ultimately up to editors to decide what is relevant and notable based on the sources available not for the sources to explicitly state why it is notable.

That said, I appreciate your point that we must avoid unsourced interpretations. My intention in talk was to summarize the significance implied by reliable sources about these affiliation changes, not to insert personal opinion. What I'm proposing on the article itself sticks strictly to what the sources say, focusing on documented facts rather than broader implications. HonestHarbor (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should stick to (reliable) secondary sources. If secondary sources do not mention the content, then it is not proven to be important or WP:DUE. starship.paint (talk / cont) 15:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WNG source does mention All Peoples Church was an Antioch church. Since it's a reliable secondary source, it's reasonable for a brief mention in a "Former affiliates" section. HonestHarbor (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if WNG is that reliable, but I am alright with mentioning this content once paraphrased The church’s parent organization, the Antioch Movement of Churches, in 2022 commissioned the church as an independent church-planting movement. This content does not seem controversial. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for engaging on this. I agree that secondary sourcing is always preferable. Since World News Group does explicitly state that All Peoples Church was part of Antioch and then commissioned as an independent movement in 2022, that gives us a reliable secondary source for at least a brief mention. I’m fine with paraphrasing. HonestHarbor (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: I don't understand why we would have a "former affiliates" section in our article; nothing like that is demonstrated as important in sources. If the two of you insist on this random detail, the way to include it is to add it to the end of the current origins section, so that the end would read: By 2019, Antioch had started 28 churches in the US and had 80 teams in 40 countries internationally. In 2022, Antioch commissioned All People's Church in San Diego as an independent chruch-planting movement. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My thought in placing it in a "Former affiliates" section was that it would give readers a clearer picture of Antioch’s organizational history, since affiliation changes can affect the scope of the movement. I prefer to keep it there. That said, I’m not wedded to the section title or placement.

If consensus is that the information is better incorporated into the end of the intro or origins section as you suggest, I’m fine with that approach too. A key point for this seemingly random detail is simply that Antioch’s commissioning of All Peoples as an independent movement is reliably sourced and a relevant part of Antioch’s historical development. HonestHarbor (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shinealittlelight: - actually I agree that a Former affiliates section is weird. The content should be merged somewhere else. What you proposed is better than what is there currently. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did manage to find a secondary source via wng.org noting that after being part of the Antioch International Movement of Churches, All Peoples Church was “commissioned” in 2022 as its own church-planting movement. This fact alone is appropriate for a straightforward entry in creating a Former affiliates section. https://wng.org/sift/san-diego-narrowly-approves-large-church-building-project-1742236115

Additionally, there is significant coverage of All Peoples San Diego’s efforts to get approval for a large mega-church building project starting as early as 2018, while it was still affiliated with Antioch. Multiple news outlet sources (cbs8, fox5, Daily Aztec, and others) document local community responses around the project. This content would make a valuable addition to the Impact on local community section.

2020 cbs8 news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ilm9EAm4SUE

2020 fox5 news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcJVLMWS5hU, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wJ_1oLfzeg

2021 Daily Aztec: https://thedailyaztec.com/103791/news/save-del-cerro-residents-against-mega-church-development/

2022 cbs8: https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/del-cerro-residents-fight-proposed-mega-church/509-8303e295-78d6-410e-9fba-ffff57f86d6d

And reports continue after 2022... HonestHarbor (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I mean it looks like these sources don't mention Antioch. I think the story is UNDUE and tells us little of interest about Antioch, which is the topic of the article. Let's see what Starship.paint thinks. There are lots of sources of reliable info about Antioch that are UNDUE. For example, I see the Baylor Lariat reported that they sent 100 college kids to a missions conference. That seems undue to me. It's just normal church stuff, not really interesting enough to include, not really illuminating about the topic. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first source notes that All Peoples was an Antioch church, I think that's a fact we can acknowledge. For most of the building project’s timeline, and the remaining coverage documents community impact tied to an active affiliate of the Antioch Movement of Churches network, which is relevant to illustrating the scope of Antioch’s activity. The commissioning as its own movement in 2022 is a clearly sourced change in affiliation that also informs Antioch’s historical composition.

I agree that ordinary church events, like attending a missions conference, can be undue. The building project, however, is not an ordinary church event. The All Peoples project drew sustained community attention and news media coverage over several years, which make it more notable than routine activities. I’m fine to pause for Starship.paint’s input on whether it merits inclusion.

Starship.paint, if all these talks are too much to digest or you're too busy, perhaps you could invite other experienced editors to weigh in. HonestHarbor (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been really busy off-wiki, and I still am. I think both of you can see that I've only done three edits since the last editing session where I weighed in here. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the source mentions Antioch, I'm okay with it. It seems that the WNG source does mention it, so we can use what's in there. If the rest of the sources do not mention Antioch, then I am not okay with including content from those sources. It seems that Antioch currently has over 50 churches within it. We are not here to cover every action of all of these churches. We are here to cover what reliable sources connect from one of these churches to Antioch. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:55, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"We are not here to cover every action of all these churches." Totally agreed. And covering this controversy would really not tell us anything about Antioch, which is the point of not including it, even though Antioch receives a passing mention in the WNG source. If we are taking "antioch was mentioned" as the criterion for being DUE, as I've repeatedly pointed out, the article is going to blow up. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright, we can wait for your input. While I agree that we shouldn’t document “every action” of Antioch affiliates, the reason I proposed this one is that we do have a reliable, independent secondary source (World News Group) explicitly noting All Peoples affiliation with Antioch and stating its commissioning as a separate movement in 2022. The affiliation is real, the naming is just historical and semantic. This building project, has received extensive coverage while All Peoples was still part of Antioch, and falls within the period when its activity was directly connected to Antioch’s network. It's a historical event that received significant attention.

I also take your point about scope. To me, the distinction is that this wasn’t a routine or local only church event, but a multi-year, widely reported impact that shaped public perception of one of Antioch’s then active affiliates. That's different from ordinary “church stuff” and more informative about the community impact of Antioch’s footprint. Not every Antioch church has significant secondary sourced stories running about their activities. Its coverage is sustained, documented, and historical. A brief proportionate note seems reasonable without expanding into excessive detail. HonestHarbor (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HonestHarbor: I've now watched or read the articles linked here (2020 cbs8 news / 2020 fox5 news / 2021 Daily Aztec / 2022 cbs8). I did not see Antioch being mentioned. If these sources which did cover this controversy of All Peoples did not connect it to Antioch, why should we list this controversy in Antioch's page? These sources are not appropriate for this article. As for the WNG source that does mention Antioch, it just says that The church’s parent organization, the Antioch Movement of Churches, in 2022 commissioned the church as an independent church-planting movement. It does not say that Antioch has had anything to do with this construction. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All Peoples Church San Diego was an Antioch affiliate since it's inception for 14 years. It was listed in Antioch’s own "Locations" directory https://web.archive.org/web/20200521120604/https://antioch.org/locations/, its lead pastor (Robert Herber) came directly from Antioch Community Church (the movement’s headquarters) after years of service https://robertherber.wordpress.com/about/ and it has been widely described as an Antioch church plant https://robertherber.wordpress.com/2013/10/26/the-story-of-the-birth-of-all-peoples-church-part-1/. The World News Group article further confirms the affiliation and notes its commissioning in 2022 as an independent movement.

Since the building project originated and spanned years while All Peoples was still an Antioch church, the absence of the word “Antioch” in every news article doesn’t invalidate its relevance or connection. It provides insight into Antioch's standard "church planting" strategies. All Peoples received sustained, multi-outlet coverage while affiliated with Antioch, which makes this more than a routine event. A concise, proportionate note would reflect this coverage and provide useful context about the scope of Antioch’s impact on a local community. HonestHarbor (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No source explains how or whether this controversy relates to the Antioch movement, as SSP said. Given this, if we include this in the article, we are injecting an editor's opinion into the article rather than following how sources talk about it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Herber, the founding lead pastor of All Peoples, previously served for nearly a decade at Antioch Community Church in Waco, including roles as college pastor and significantly as the US church planting director for Antioch Community Church in Waco. https://jcgresources.com/2018/04/23/no-to-events/ Multiple sources, including WORLD, have explicitly described All Peoples as part of the Antioch Movement until it was commissioned in 2022 as an independent network.

The church planting project took place while All Peoples was an active Antioch affiliate. It reflects the local impact of an Antioch-affiliated church during that period lead by a pastor who had served as Antioch's US Church Planting Director.

I agree we should be cautious about weight and avoid implications not present in sources, but the WORLD article mentions both the San Diego building project and All Peoples’ origins in Antioch. That makes a brief, proportionate note reasonable and within policy. HonestHarbor (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More stuff you piece together yourself that’s not in sources. Stop doing that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antioch has no doubt planted various churches around the world. Each planted church potentially has its own problems, scandals and controversies. That is a matter for a Wikipedia article for that planted church. It's not a matter for this article about Antioch unless our reliable sources connect the dots and tell us it is a problem, controversy, scandal for Antioch. If All Peoples' originated from the Catholic Church, or the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I don't see why the content would be included either. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:32, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All Peoples was an Antioch church during this coverage. Where I think All Peoples is different is that we do have a reliable secondary source (WORLD) that explicitly identifies it as part of Antioch until its 2022 commissioning as an independent movement, while also covering the San Diego building project. In Antioch’s case, All Peoples Church San Diego functioned as an Antioch-branded “plant” not carrying the Antioch name directly, but sourced as part of the Antioch Movement. Coverage of All Peoples during its Antioch years is relevant to understanding Antioch’s activity and footprint. HonestHarbor (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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]

@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]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Religion and philosophy Society, sports, and culture Wikipedia style and naming When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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]