Talk:Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence

message: Working a bit on the history.  Note the story on how they acquired the original habits seems to have several variations.  I also note they were quickly replaced by ones they made themselves. I'm relying on the Wilcox book as it is recent and scholarly.  We also seem to have more about the context than about the order's own history. Erp (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Balancing Perspectives: The introduction presents an emphasis on the criticisms against the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, using strong language like "anti-Catholic" and "hate-group". These should be presented as views held by specific groups, not as universally accepted facts. Equally, the positive views on the Sisters should be given due attention to maintain a balanced perspective. I have made some changes to reflect this.
Emphasis on Controversy: There's substantial focus on the Sisters' disputes with Christian, particularly Catholic, communities. While these are significant, they might be overemphasized in the introduction. It would be beneficial to underscore their charity work, LGBTQ+ activism, and use of satire. They should not be defined by their opponents, but their critics' opinions should be made known as well.
Citation Review: It's essential to verify that all contentious statements are appropriately cited with credible sources. Particularly when specific critics, like the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, are mentioned, the sources need to be reliable. (For example, direct statements or official publications from the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights could be used as sources for their criticisms.) In other words, the claims or criticisms made by these groups should be backed up by sources that are well-respected, accurate, and unbiased in their reporting.
Also, whenever controversial or potentially inflammatory statements are included in a Wikipedia article, such as calling a group an "anti-Catholic hate-group", it's particularly important that these statements are supported by reliable sources to avoid spreading misinformation or bias.
It's crucial to present a balanced, comprehensive view of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in the introduction. Given the provocative nature of their work, it's unsurprising they attract controversy and criticism. Still, it's vital that any Wikipedia article doesn't inadvertently contribute to misinformation.
At the time of this writing, criticisms of the Catholic Church are given a single sentence at the end of four paragraphs. Given their history, this is an act more charitable than any recorded in the Bible; but given the sensitivity of the topic, the vastness of the idea of "The Catholic Church," and the context of being an Encyclopedia entry, it's also common sense. 
Just as we shouldn't start the entry on the Catholic Church heavy with its criticisms and its critics' voices, we shouldn't do so for the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Such an approach could yield an unbalanced understanding of any group and particularly, in this case, would overshadow the Sisters' mission and the essence of their organization.
Every perspective, including those of the Sisters' critics, deserves fair representation in this article. However, leading with such criticism can unintentionally mischaracterize the group. An appropriate balance could be to upfront acknowledge the controversial aspects of the Sisters' activities, then delve into specific criticisms in a distinct 'Criticisms' or 'Controversies' section. 
As a neophyte editor, I recognize there might be potential issues with this approach, such as it inadvertently facilitating a pile-on of criticisms. However, it's equally crucial to avoid aggregating these criticisms in the introduction, as it currently stands.
My main concern for this is the potential impact on AI-driven information retrieval systems, like Bing's, which will interpret a front-loaded criticism as a definitive categorization of the group as a 'hate group.' Earlier today, Bing looked at this article and decided definitively that OPI was a hate group, because someone here confidently wrote that as fact and cited a Fox News article, in which it was an opinion stated. This contributes to the spread of misinformation much more quickly than even a year ago, as information here is being scraped and presented to others elsewhere as fact. This is a huge problem.
The community may need to consider these newer challenges, presented by AI algorithms' interpretation of article structures, and adjust editorial practices accordingly for fairness and accuracy. 2600:1700:A2C6:500:E4ED:A46C:8A33:CCEC (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: IP 2600, thanks for your comment and your concern, but it's probably not an AI issue at all. Wikipedia is a top website worldwide, and not only Bing but also Google often use basic information from the lead in their search result snippets. Unfortunately, there is a newbie POV editor active at this page, and even though their edits are being reverted, Bing, Google, and other crawlers pick up changes to the page rapidly and show them to searchers, at least until their POV edits get seen by some other editor and reverted. This is just normal web-crawling, not an AI issue. That doesn't mitigate the damage you describe, but just wanted to let you know what is happening. You can help, by removing such unsupported statements from the article, as soon as you see them. Thanks again for raising your concerns. Mathglot (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction criticisms, web scraping concerns 

message: @Thegodfathero Let's avoid an edit war and discuss here.  Your description of the SPI as an "anti-Catholic hate group" represents the viewpoint of a vocal minority. It is an opinion rather than a factual description of the group. This opinion is discussed in depth later on in the article, and does not belong in the first paragraph. Removal of this line does not constitute vandalism, however, I trust you are acting in good faith and therefore will not reverse your edit immediately so that we can discuss first. Bear of Tomato (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your good attitude, but I'll revert it immediately. There is no need to discuss clear violations of policy first; much less when this is their third try. The insertion of unattributed, unquoted, opinion by a non-neutral advocate into the lead sentence of an article which involves living people does not require discussing first. This brand-new editor deserves some slack, like all new editors do, but in their 16-edit career at Wikipedia, over 25% of their edits are trying to stuff their "hate-group" point of view into this article, and they already got the patient responses the last two times they tried it. Now, they just get  immediately reverted, not so patiently, along with a (still patient) edit-warring warning on their Talk page. If they try it again, they may get admin action. Mathglot (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for stepping in. I'm a novice editor myself and tend to be overcautious. I'll revert such edits immediately in the future. Bear of Tomato (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism and "hate group" description 

message: The infobox is specific to the San Francisco organization; however, the article deals with the greater movement which is made up of many autonomous groups.  Should the infobox be adjusted to be specific to the movement?  Or can we otherwise make things clearer? Erp (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My inclination would be to broaden the infobox, or perhaps make a section for the SF org and move the box there. -sche (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction between SPI the San Francisco group and SPI the wider movement isn't very clear in the article 

message: The following text has been copied from the former to-do banner, Talk:Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence/to do, which as Mathglot pointed out is entirely out of date; if any of it still needs to be done, tackle it; otherwise, this can be archived in due time. -sche (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  2009 to-do list 

message: Yeah, yeah, I know, I should just SOFIXIT myself, but like everyone I have limited time, so I'm commenting here in case anyone wants to beat me to it, help, or express opposition: now that the news cycle has (long) moved on and the fervor of recentism has died down, let's examine how much of the excessively detailed moment-by-moment account of the Dodgers game (currently given a whole section of the article) is actually given weight in the overall coverage of the Sisters (WP:DUE, WP:10YT). -sche (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  TYT