Talk:Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence/Archive 1

message: The sentence deleted was: According to legend, The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence were placed on the Papal List of Heretics by the Pope upon his visit to San Francisco as a result of their public exorcism of the Catholic Church's dogma, hypocrisy, guilt and shame.
I've been trying to think of a way to reword this to make it encyclopedic, but I don't think there is one.  It isn't just that it's untrue (there is no "List of Papal Heretics"), it is phrased in a way that implies the Catholic Church is dogmatic and hypocritical, and spreads guilt and shame.
The SPI may believe this, but I don't think anyone would claim that it is more than an opinion.  If the line had said, "The SPI believe that the Catholic Church is..", then that would have at least been worded neutrally, but the fact that (1) I don't know this for sure (not being a Sister) and (2) the main point of the sentence is factually false means I can't provide an NPOV translation.
I see from the history pages that members of the SPI contribute to this article & talk page.  Please feel free to clarify or discuss what should go in here, but please don't replace the sentence I have deleted until it has been rephrased neutrally and verifiably.
: ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 17:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed "List of Heretics" sentence

message: FredrikM: What is this "Papal List of Heretics"? Is there such a list? Where can I read it? I've tried googled it but I found only references to The Sisters. 
The miracle of the internet is that internal group items that aren't password protected can be seen by anyone. There used to be a heretic list which is still believe to be in use listing artists, politicians, businesses and others including activists like the Sisters. Once it was referenced publicly the link was disabled, the list removed and, of course, its existence denied.
:'Papal heretic' is a term used by some protestant groups to denegrate popes - i.e. heretic and papal. I can't see any reference anywhere to it being used in this context. A citation should be provided to back this claim up. 82.153.96.176 10:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Heretics ref 

message: :GuyIncognito 08:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the Oxford English Dictionary be good enough?  I used that to change the definition in Nun and added the page's first citation.  In a footnote I added the fact that the OED also included two older definitions of nun a courtesan and a Pagan priestess.  Unfortunatley I couldn't keep that bit in the page in spite of the gold-standard source.  So much for Wikipedia is not censored see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The nun page currently promotes a Catholic Church view of nuns and anything different just doesn't fit. --Simon Speed 20:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmph.  Both of those definitions fit here! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sisters Dis-Inclusion in Nun Category 

message: I remember meeting Sister Mary Power-Hungry Bitch at the Castro Street festival in SF in the early 90s.  --AStanhope 15:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister Mary Power-Hungry Bitch 

message: I am a former member of two different singing groups in San Francisco, the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus and the Pacific Gay and Lesbian Singers, in which I sang with the original Reverend Mother of the SPI, Bill Graham. I've always found it more than a little amusing that his given name was the same as that of the prominent evangelist, and, as appropriately, the rock promoter. There are a lot of stories I could tell, but none of them are encyclopedic at all. :-( Glad to see the SPI included here, though.—Chidom talk  23:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Reverend Mother Bill(y)? Graham 

message: I've just removed the Joke religions category.  This category contains beliefs like the Flying Spaghetti Monster which are not intended to be believed in and organisations like the the Landover Baptist Church which are not intended to be taken seriously but only to be mocked.  
The Sisters clearly use humour, but are quite serious about their stated aims. Even their opponents do not claim that the Sisters don't stand for what they say they do.  Their opponents object to the Sisters message, and even more so, how they choose to promote it. So the SPI are a humorous organisation but not a joke one.
Also they are not a religion, but an order of nuns.  From the Sisters website, they can be seen to include members with a variety of religious beliefs including Christian.--Simon Speed 18:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal from Joke Religions Category 

message: Umm... None of that is about the Sisters.  Shouldn't it all be in his article, not here? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha.  The whole thing can probably be shortened to about a paragraph, though, since the article should focus on SPI, not Hormel :)  It'll need a reference, too. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Hormel 

message: I think these are in rough chronological order but not sure what importance I would put on them, just knowing that it would be good to reference them somewhere for future inclusion. I know the list is hardly complete but is more notable marks potentially for the article. 
 La Klubstituta Ala Oasis/Prop 215/Med Marijuana
 The Condom Saviour Consecration and Vow
 Three Mile Island Protest
 Gay Bingo(s)
 Dog Show in the Castro (with Shirley MaClaine (sp?))
 Sistericus
 STOP the Violence Campaign
 Sister Sam and The Queer Army
 Burning Man festival
 Consisterly Conspiracy archive show
Benjiboi 05:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other items to be referenced 

message: Do you mind if I do some copy-editing on the new stuff as I'm able? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, please avoid wholesale deletions - if there is any glaring plot flaws let me know as I had a bunch of things deleted by a spambot so I easily could have screwed something up.Benjiboi 00:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 23 additions 

message: You'rre not really supposed to change previous discussions... Just FYI :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 12:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: apologies, I was trying to add some organization and felt the "go girl" - well, not sure but it didn't feel right. I was treating it as email and simply shouldn't have. I've read up on modifying discussions and will aim to do better from here on in.Benjiboi 13:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem!  Perhaps I was a bit .. informal :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  By the way... 

message: I have tagged this article with  because while the article is well-sourced and pretty well-written, unfortunately it has a rather light-hearted tone, and reads somewhat like a promotional piece in parts. Krimpet (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems fair, there is a lot of material to be worked in and then possibly sections to be turned into separate articles as appropriate. Is there any sections in particular that need addressing?Benjiboi 17:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little wary of this sort of tagging, as it can be used to justify a lot of messing about. And a light-hearted approach is one general human mechanism for coping with difficult situations. As an example of what I felt was a little off-target, consider the whole section about the Rainbow Flag. It's mostly material which fits better in a seperate  article, with a brief summary here. And there's a couple of bits of that section which could be read as a promotional piece. Zhochaka 22:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads up, I'll look at that section in a bit and see what is readily presented (and likely free from deletion) I'll also look to promotional tone although that's not always my strong suit to see what can be streamlined out. Benjiboi 22:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-formal tone 

message: I removed the link saying that it was the fastest growing order, as there was no evidence given that it was. The link it cited said nothing of the nature. Secondly, it linked to "Holy Orders", which is Catholic... but this organization is obviously not Catholic. Also, I would hesistate to call these individuals "nuns" and link them to the term, as nun again is a Catholic definition, and these people are not Catholic. See source here. Because of this, I edited the words to phrase "self-proclaimed nuns." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bjford (talk • contribs) 17:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orders 

message: hello, 
this is the foundress mother of the german order here.
i changed the information about the german houses somewhat, as there were minor errors in the names like "Ivenis" instead of "Iuvenis", then there was a wrong date: the berlin house was founded by sister sugarpie as mission of the then heidelberg motherhouse on may 15., 1993, not 1998.
zurich as part of the german-speaking peoples of europe was founded by the berlin sisters in 2005 and became a house in may 2006.
greetings from berlin, germany
mother johanna indulgentia tara maria benedicta o.s.p.i.
the above comment was added byUser talk:78.48.161.115
:Adding user link to comment. Benjiboi 05:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: changed article on german houses, removed two houses which are not acknowledged by the berlin archmotherhouse due to the fact that their founders are excommunicated former members of the order of which one has never reached fpm-status and the other has bought our name in form of copyrights 12 years after the foundation of the order against the consensus of the berlin house fpm meeting.--Erzmutter 20:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. Just because there are inter-country conflicts doesn't change that they are still considered SPI. Unless they are disavowed by the International SPI and forced to reorganize under a new name it should stay. If they have been expunged then a verifiable reference to WP standards needs to be supplied. And then, frankly, they would still be included as a footnote if nothing else. Benjiboi 20:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: changed the entries again, following the wiki standards i suppose, putting in the years and reflecting the newest developments in the former berlin s.p.i. and o.p.i., which have, after fouer years of a schism, reunited in september 2007 as o.s.p.i. - order of the sisters of perpetual indulgence. reference and documents hereupon is given by request to the archmotherhouse.
--Erzmutter 08:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: my last entries were vandalized since i was here the last time. changed again into state of september the 19th. it would be rather nice if we could find a solution here to stop a certain person well-known to the berlin archmotherhouse of always vandalizing entries in the english and german sisters wiki-pages. greetings from germany!
--Erzmutter 18:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it's both a benefit and detriment that anyone can edit here so the best we can do is simply writing good articles to begin with, provide references and then revert any vandalism. Benjiboi 00:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  thank you, dear. at least it is good to know that there are people loke you who really care for the wiki and are willing to help and give support and speak good words which in some moments of frustration can help one to get calm again ... from berlin much love & light to you! :-) --Erzmutter 21:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Order and Houses 

message: Found link for when section is started or event referenced. Benjiboi 07:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Princess Diana memorial 

message: These people are nothing but hypocrites. "Educating on various human rights issues and against hate crimes"? Give me a break! I suppose they don't call their invasion of the Most Holy Redeemer church in San Francisco a hate crime! I guess they're only concerned about what will affect them. The rest of the world be damned, as far as they're concerned.
If I were a member of the "alternative community," I would be ashamed to have these "sisters" representing me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocobear 555 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. What I've read is that they were, in fact, welcomed and embraced at Most Holy Redeemer and that the issue, like others at the church, were being blown out of perspective by folks with their own agendas. If and when the mainstream media reports on the issue perhaps we'll have somewhat neutral sources to cite. Benjiboi 10:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I find it curious that, unlike the pages for more conservative groups, this one contains no section devoted to controversies caused by the group or that the group was involved in, vice ones that are written in such a way as to make those who opposed the group at the time come off as homophobes, bigots, etc.  Nothing on the "Last Supper" poster controversy, or the more recent desecration of a Catholic rite, or anything else the group has done of that nature. I also find it interesting that people on this board are trying to somehow make the SPI somehow not "anti-Catholic" by noting that there are other types of nuns in the world besides those associated with the Catholic Church ... however, those other groups don't use iconic Christian/Catholic robes, imagery, etc.; they have their own distinct look. If the SPI were merely describing themselves as "nuns" but then distancing themselves from the Catholic nuns by developing their own unique look, icons, etc., I could more readily buy that argument.  In the end, it's clear to me that the members of this group (and those who insist on defending them) are the real bigots. Nolefan32 04:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All interesting points but frankly everything they do would seem to be controversial including their very existence so having one section would actually give undue weight to whatever was chosen for that section. The "Last Supper" poster controversy had little to do with this group as they didn't print or authorize the photo, see Folsom Street Fair for who did. As for the anti-Catholic statements I've read elsewhere on wp that the Sisters parody Catholic rites/rituals is more accurate but they are highly visible so they attract much more attention plus in the culture war spectrum they firmly are left-leaning on almost every issue in opposition to the Catholic church so that could be another source of contention. Regardless, there are lots of other nuns in the world who are not Catholic and wp will welcome articles on all of them. Also (and I may be wrong here) I've never seen any Catholic nun in festive drag, make-up and glitter so I doubt there is much confusion on the part of ... anyone! So indeed, as you suggest, they have their own unique look, icons, etc. Labeling them, and I geuss anyone who doesn't agree with you as bigots actually suggests you should check a mirror first, or a dictionary. Benjiboi 10:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the link you provided - "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own." And the SPI have demonstrated what is clearly an intolerance of the Catholic Church.  And to call me a bigot for having called them on their intolerance, perhaps you are the one who needs the mirror.  As for the festival wear, just because they dress up their Catholic nun habits with glitter, etc., they still START with clearly Catholic habits as the basis for their costuming.  As I noted previously, Buddhist nuns, etc., don't borrow anything from Catholicism - they have their own unique style.  But hey, look at the SPI's page here on Wiki, check out the photos - there's even a photo of the SPI mocking Christ himself.  And yet for pointing that out, I'm the bigot. Clearly you are the type of person who feels that anyone who picks on your beliefs is a bigot, but when you pick on others for their beliefs, you're being, what, open-minded?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolefan32 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I can't speak for them but I can say I never ever have seen a traditional Catholic nun look anything like the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence although in their early days (from the back) one might be able to be confused. But wouldn't the beards and the fact they hang around with porn stars in cocktail bars be a sign they aren't trying to emulate the Catholics even if they once did. And even if they were mocking Catholic iconography they are hardly the first ones and even Catholics do many of the same things. Regardless    the Sisters stand up for LGBT people who are still routinely beaten and killed around the world, even in the US - I hope we can agree that killing someone just because they are gay is probably wrong? I think we're a long way from seeing Catholics afraid to hold hands or kiss openly in the streets. When we get there perhaps I could believe the Sisters are bigots instead I see them as getting lots of undue attention from people who think that the Catholic church is somehow threatened by their existence, I'm not Catholic but seems to me they'll punish whoever they can and the Sisters will get more free publicity. If some of that publicity goes mainstream we can even add it to the article. Benjiboi 02:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never once challenged the group for trying to right wrongs done against LGBT people; the fact that you bring it up strikes me as trying to distract from the point-at-hand, that while Wikipedia states that they insist all articles be written from a neutral point-of-view, and while that stance is very much enforced on articles regarding conservative groups, commentators, etc. (i.e., the inclusion of sections regarding controversies and in some cases, separate pages dedicated to such), this group's page (as well as the pages for many other liberal groups) is completely deviod of such and drafted in such a way as to hold them in a very flattering light.  Now personally, as long as all of the positive things you've said the group has done can be supported (and I don't doubt your word, only note that it's also a Wikipedia policy that all entries be backed up with references), I agree that those things should be included. But in the name of NPOV, any questionable behaviors and controversies linked to the group should also be highlighted just as much.  And as far the Catholic habits (BTW, I'm not Catholic, either), it isn't about someone somehow confusing a member of the SPI with an actual Catholic nun (because I do agree with you, that's unlikely to happen), it is about mocking the Catholic church and the church universal. The gay community doesn't appreciate it when non-gays mock them (regardless of whether or not the person doing the mocking ever be taken for a true gay person or not); why should it be expected that the Christian community not be offended by the SPI doing it to them? So yes, regardless of how much good they may be doing for LGBT people around the world, their actions regarding the church reflects a very bigoted attitude toward the church, something this article really seems to try to avoid admitting to. Nolefan32 17:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HYPOCRITES! 

message: The whole article seems to think very positively of the Sisters, even throwing the word "so-called" in front of church invasions.  Which if they're not invasions, then what are they?  We need a good criticism section.  If we're going to talk about the "good" things they've done, lets have a section talking about all the filthy, offensive, disgusting things they've done such as mock the religion of others, which to me doesn't make sense.  They're obviously against others making fun of them for being gay, so why do they mock those who have a certain religious belief?  I suppose it's because the Left is all into tolerance and free speech for them and none of that for the Right.
Brad  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.81.47 (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to explain as I don't see "invasion" or "so-called" anywhere in the article. And the fact that you characterize all the filthy, offensive, disgusting things they've done suggests a strong POV which does not work for wikipedia. In any case, as was pointed out in the comment right above this, from your perspective it would seem that the entire article would be labeled one big controversy so that's not going to happen. Benjiboi 02:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is written in a strong POV, which you criticize Brad of.  Yet, it seems to be working for wikipedia since the article remains. JorgeK.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.141 (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His comment didn't state that and I didn't read that meaning into it although perhaps I should have, I was focusing of his assertion "even throwing the word "so-called" in front of church invasions" which isn't in the article. Regardless I believe this parallels the same sentiment as the above conversation which I responded that I tend to agree and even offered some examples that could be used. Benjiboi 18:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, somebody removed the section about them going into the Catholic Church.  It was definitely there, obviously, because I read where they called it a so-called invasion.  And I don't see anything in here about them going into the Church.  WHICH brings me to my next point... basically the only criticism in this whole article has been removed which proves that this article is way too pro-sisters.  And also I did label the things they've done as filthy and disgusting, but if I were to write an informative article on them, I wouldn't label them as that.  Basically, just because I have a certain opinion of them, doesn't mean that I'm not able to identify and remove bias, no matter what side of the aisle it comes from. - Brad  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgj08 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the article is a bit POV-ish and unencyclopedic in tone, particularly in the lead.  But the truth is they are a solid, respected institution in San Francisco.  Though they dress provocatively and act out in silly but harmless ways, they are thoroughly integrated into the fabric of political and social life.  They have audiences with the Mayor and they're a bit of a political force themselves.  To assume otherwise and complain that they are taken seriously, without sourcing your objections, is a lot more POV-ish.Wikidemo 04:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this statement is this isn't "Wikipedia San Francisco" nor are they limited to that one locale. They have been noted in the wider world and in the wider world they are not necessarily as respected. This might be a tad obscured by the way this is written. Do I think that will change? No. Do I think I will be blasted for even saying this? Yup.--T. Anthony 04:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I basically agree. I think their reception in San Francisco is mirrored in some cities but unlikely in all; and frankly each group does there own thing, I've seen little evidence of coordinated campaigns. One way to deal with that is to write a section for each city they are in or even better write a good criticism section which I've started to collect material for but got sidetracked by ... ta da ... some anon IP vandalizing the Sister Roma article on anti-Catholic grounds. I rather doubt you will get blasted for stating your opinion on the articles deficit and will defend your right to express the same. And frankly welcome it, articles can be improved through constructive criticism. Benjiboi 07:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd probably not be informed enough to do a good job on it. I've never actually met or seen one of them, or seen anyone who's seen them, and only know of them because of occasional mention in the media.--T. Anthony 08:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I'll support your efforts regardless and there's a lot to be done on this article. Benjiboi 08:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As for the leded sentence genderfuck is directly quoted from a book speaking about the Sisters. I know the communion incident to which you refer and you may wish to get a full (and possibly more accurate) version of the story before rushing to judgment against me or the subject of this article. Two Catholic Sisters attended Mass at their church in full festive habit. They were welcomed by the congregation (so hardly were invading anything and were never asked to leave so also never disrupted) and indeed had communion from the high holy officiant (apologies for not knowing his name/title). Some visitors from out of town uploaded a video (so no, the Sisters didn't take a video of themselves) of the drag nuns taking communion. Once the video was uploaded and complaints filed an "official condemnation" was set forth. I'm quite confident that this will all come out in more mainstream news but as of yet that's pretty much the story. Part of the missing background was that this was the same church that got into trouble for "allowing" The Sisters naughty bingo fundraiser. As well in that incident the church members themselves weren't at issue it was church officials from elsewhere putting pressure that caused it to become an issue. So, if and when we can present a balanced and referenced version of the event then by all means add it. If it's any indication of past events it will simply make the Sisters more cult-hero-like for all the free publicity the Catholic church gives them. Hopefully this addresses the majority of your concerns but we can revisit the rest if needed. Benjiboi 07:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article seems to hold the Sisters in very high regard 

message: :Image:Photo Shoot For Halloween 1995 Poster Photo by Brian Ashby.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added use rationale. Benjiboi 13:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Photo Shoot For Halloween 1995 Poster Photo by Brian Ashby.gif

message: These all seem to be in the article already in the table of houses. Do we need to repeat them? Benjiboi 17:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Does wikipedia style guideline condone putting "photo by X" in captions? I have seen such removed under claims of following guidelines, but not ever seen such guideline. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Captions#Credits. MantisEars (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Article now in accordance with same. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I reinserted the one the was credited to one of the Sisters per the same policy. Banjeboi 01:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While it was taken by a Sister, I am not sure that that fact is relevant in this case. I believe the caption guideline exception is more designed to apply to say photo taken by Ansel Adams in an article about Ansel Adams the photographer. I do not believe the photography skills of the Sisters are really relevant to this article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not that big of deal but on an article about a group it does seem relevant when they are self-producing or self-representing as such. I think this would be in the spirit of the policy as well as within the letter of the policy. Banjeboi 03:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo credits? 

message: I've changed the rating to B class from Start as the article has progressed considerably.  There is a lot of (well referenced) information and a fair number of striking illustrations.  Some, at least, of the POV issues have been addressed.  Anyone not knowing about the subject and wanting to learn would find the article very valuable indeed.
That said, I don't think I'd want to nominate it as a Good article.  It reads like some awkward corporate document, the structure is confusing and some of the pictures bear little relation to the section they are illustrating: the whole page could do with a rewrite for style and clarity.  Also I feel that there are still some residual POV issues: the page seems more like a prospectus for the organization that has been corrected for accuracy than an encyclopedia article.
The negative stuff is just my feelings about what needs to be done.  The article has improved vastly since I had anything much to do with it. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  My assessment of this article's quality 

message: The article should maybe allow room for the official views and reactions of high-level church officers, which would seemingly be critical of this phenomenon. As of now, the article risks being accused of harbouring an uncritical and favourable bias towards the group. ADM (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unlikely to find NPOV criticism from high-level church officials but I think there has been some articles that put these folks' criticism and mocking of religious institutions in perspective. There is a ton of material to be added and rarely a week goes by that one of the groups isn't written up worldwide so no end seems to be in sight. Also the earliest criticism were also within the LGBT communities whereas now the complaints seem to be centered on culture war divides.  -- Banjeboi 08:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Official reactions

message: AIDS Project Los Angeles, 
ARC Diversified, 
Alliance for the Lost Boys of Sudan, 
AmeriCares, 
American Near East Refugee Aid and that's just the letter A. 1durphul (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those articles inject trademark statements into the lede sentence - likely because it degrades the article. And we have no evidece that all the Sister chapters are 501 c3 and as a large percentage are not in the United States 501c3 wouldn't apply to those regardless. At best we can state they are charitable groups. Absent evidence that all in the United States are 501c3 that really is unsubstantiated original research.  -- Banjeboi 02:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: SPI is a SF based 501(c)(3) charitable organization which also permits (licenses) the usage of their name to other organizations. 1durphul (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are simply mistaken. The SF group likely is a 501c3, and were this article only about that chapter then this would be a different issue. Instead there are dozens of groups in the US and no evidence they are all 501c3; if that weren't enough of a reason there are the non-US groups which might be charities as well but likely not 501c3. You would need reliable sourcing to inject a statement like that into the lede sentence that indicates this is not only true but somehow significant enough to mention.  -- Banjeboi 09:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  501(c)(3) status as noted on other articles about 501(c)(3) orgs 

message: I've been through the 1st 21 footnotes and with 2 possible exceptions they are all unverifiable or just go to a Sisters website, i.e not reliable sources.  2 exceptions: a SF Chronicle article, and a Spero News article (even though I don't know whether it is a reliable source of not). And there's no way to check out the book, ref 1.
In short - terrible sourcing.  Somebody should fix it.
Smallbones (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That claim is simply and outrageously false.  I've just had a very brief look:- there's a BBC news story, more than 1 SF Chronicle story, a Wall Street Journal story, several SF Bay Times stories, the Terrence Higgins Trust site, Time Magazine, several pieces by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, Catholic World News, a press release from Senator Patrick Leahy, gay news organizations and AIDS groups.   And that's not a thorough survey, that's what I got from a quick sampling. I can't check the book apart from it's existence, because I haven't got it, but that's how it goes with books.  I'm not surprised to find such a high quality of sourcing as the article has been the subject of much controversy in the past, resolved by decent (and very politically varied) sources.  --Simon Speed (talk) 09:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of Sources 

message: * Queer Pride Month proclamation cites are to blogs and a dead site. I can't find information to back it up in the San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Bay Times, or Bay Area Reporter. It's a self-made declaration that was primarily unnoticed. How important is it?
* Structure and membership again, not sure why the table in this section is necessary. Have found a cite that says how many there are and in how many states/countries. Anyone want to pitch in to say why this extensive table is needed? Would like to be able to put info in this section into prose to be able to discuss how one joins and what is expected of members. The Sisters' own site addresses this, but it can use an outside citation as well. I would like to know how many members they have worldwide. I'd like to know how much funds other active chapters have raised or any high-profile protests.
* I would like to find cites for the following information:
:* Why the names? Is it written in their bylaws or charter (seriously) how they choose their names and why they do not represent themselves with their given names? Even a cite to say, like Catholic nuns, they forsake their given names for...something else.
:* What is the reason for the whiteface make-up? Why the change from very little make-up when they began?
:* Any commentary by the Sisters themselves on how they see the effectiveness of high camp drag and religious parody in drawing attention to their causes. 
Interested in any discussion. --Moni3 (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections to keep, delete, adjust 

message: It's vandalism, but I found the following amusing and wondered who had written it. It seems to be someone who knows gay porn director Chi Chi LaRue.
and by the same IP, earlier: 
deisenbe (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amusing vandalism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040923141122/http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/03/24/ED80103.DTL to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/03/24/ED80103.DTL
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.sfobserver.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=d1e59accb486a3d7b8467c498ac0d66b
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified