Talk:Antioch International Movement of Churches

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

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

"Consensus version"

The version you reverted to is not a "consensus version." On Wikipedia, "consensus" means discussion among multiple editors leading to general agreement, not solely a single editor reverting and calling it "consensus." Issues like River Church Banff and the section headings have not yet been discussed, and no consensus has been reached. In line with WP:BRD, potentially contentious changes should be discussed before making bold reverts. WP:BOLD advises us editors it is important for us to take care of the common good and avoid making disruptive or reckless edits. I welcome input from other editors on this matter.

Section headings

I agree that excessively worded section headings can be an issue, and I’m open to simplifying if that’s the concern. However, MOS:OVERSECTION is a structural guideline policy not a content exclusion policy. The presence of discrete subheadings do not by itself create undue weight; it becomes problematic only if the amount or prominence of coverage exceeds what reliable sources support. I don’t believe the subheadings in question rose to that level, though I’d be happy to discuss rewording or restructuring them. In my view, MOS:OVERSECTION does not justify removing accurate, well sourced headings entirely.

River Church Banff

On River Church Banff, I agree that an article should not go into excessive investigative or narrative detail, and I’m not advocating for that. However, over-compressing the material risks under representing what reliable sources identify as a very notable issue connected to Antioch’s affiliate structure and senior leadership. Banff is not a "recent" Antioch affiliate, it's been part of the Movement for 9 years to the date the article had been published. The inclusion was already a brief, factual summary of the River Church Banff case and consistent with WP:DUE and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. This incident received sustained coverage from multiple independent, high-quality sources (The Times, The Press and Journal), involved senior leadership responses who should be named, and directly resulted in an OSCR regulatory inquiry. That regulatory action establishes notability beyond a purely local crime and creates a documented connection to Antioch’s wider network.

That said, I can propose this:

In 2025, a youth leader at Antioch affiliate River Church Banff was convicted of "sexual activity with an older child" while grooming a 14-year-old boy. The Press and Journal and The Times reported that the church's senior leadership, lead pastor Rob McArthur and founding elder Joe Ewen, had been aware of the behavior for several months before the family and police were notified. Parents of the victim said the church leadership repeatedly downplayed the allegations, and The Times reported that the boy's father was told to "back off" when he raised concerns. One "church worker" said the church had mishandled the allegations. After the victim’s family approached Antioch Waco in 2023, McArthur and Ewen issued a joint apology. Media coverage highlighted the congregation’s formal link to the Antioch International Movement of Churches, identifying Antioch Waco as River Church Banff's “mother church,” receiving staff salaries through the United States organization, and hosting missionaries sent from Texas. Following media reporting, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator opened an inquiry into the church's trustees. HonestHarbor (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

We tried a few versions of this, we didn’t reach a consensus, so we revert to the stable version before our attempts and discuss here. This is how Wikipedia works. The sources don’t report “grooming”. Why would you propose that language? Why is it important to you to put a bunch of names in the summary? Why do you say “coverage highlighted” when it was mentioned one time in one report and was definitely not a focus? Why should this incident receive more words than the Haiti relief efforts you just cut down? Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Reverting to a prior stable version while discussion continues may have been appropriate if there had been lengthy substantive discussion and no clear agreement aftering review from multiple editors. My concern is that discussion on scope and framing of River Church Banff and the section structure was still emerging when the revert occurred, without any editorial discussions. I’m not disputing referring to a stable baseline temporarily when no consensus stalemates occur, but I do want to clarify that this does not itself establish "consensus." That remains an open question for discussion here.

The Times does use the word "grooming" in the sentence: "They claimed that concerns about grooming were repeatedly “downplayed” ​by leaders." Using the same term, attributed to the source, reflects the reporting rather than introducing editorial language.

The sources also explicitly name individuals. I'm open to with leaving out Middleton's name, for the purpose of word count reduction, but Rob McArthur and Joe Ewen are senior Antioch-linked leadership figures whose actions (or inactions) are a significant and central part of why the incident was reported as a sustained church governance and safeguarding failure rather than a vague stand alone failure. Joe Ewen is listed on Antioch Waco's staff of external advisors making this a significant profile insight story regarding Antioch's senior leadership practices. The internal decision to dismiss concerns can be directly attributed to McArthur and Ewen. Naming senior leadership where reliable sources do so is consistent with neutrality and precision, not undue emphasis.

Media "coverage highlighted" Antioch Waco because it was indeed explicitly highlighted and significantly relevant to an Wikipedia article about the Antioch International Movement of Churches. On phrasing “media coverage highlighted,” my intent was not to suggest that the Antioch connection dominated all reporting, only that it was explicitly noted and relevant to an article about the Antioch International Movement of Churches. Moreso, the incident received sustained, independent reporting from multiple outlets and resulted in regulatory action (OSCR inquiry), which distinguish it from routine local crime reporting and are relevant to assessing due weight.

When balancing sections, source strength and coverage depth matter. The Banff story is a lot more significant and covered than Antioch's Haiti relief efforts. Banff sources recieved multiple coverage from independent outlets, sustained over a long period of time, named leadership for accountability, and involved a formal charity regulator inquiry. By contrast, the Haiti relief material is largely sourced to The Christian Post, which is a religious advocacy outlet. It can be useful for brief, basic, factual descriptions, but it limits how much prominence that material can reasonably be given relative to issues covered extensively by independent sources. I’m not suggesting removal of the Haiti content, only that source strength and coverage depth matter when balancing sections under WP:DUE. HonestHarbor (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Right, we revert to the last stable consensus. Just following policy here. Try to AGF.

The sources do not use "grooming" in their own voice, but mention that "grooming" was a concern of the parents. Can you explain why that detail--which was not in the source's voice--is so important to you to include?

The sources contain many details. They also contain the responses from the relevant church. We don't include every detail that occurred in one instance in one church in worldwide network of dozens of churches since that would be UNDUE--a point that I have repeatedly made to you. Your proposed edit is UNDUE, just as the details of the chruch's statement in response to this incident are also UNDUE.

To me, "media coverage highlighted" suggests that it was a main theme of the coverage, or that it was at least heavily emphasized. Since it was not, I think that it doesn't belong in our article.

The proposed sprinkling of many subsections is also clearly out of step with WP style guidelines, and I oppose that suggested change on that basis alone. The POV character of the edit was also unacceptable.

As for the Haiti story, some of your edit was good. But I think it's CP is a fine source for getting a sense of what Antioch is trying to do with its international efforts. To that end, I'd suggest including the number of homes built and the reason for choosing that specific community. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, To clarify, the River Church Banff deletion was not a "consensus version," as it had not been discussed or agreed upon by multiple editors. Reverting to a non-consensus version first without discussion is not considered consistent with gaining WP:CONSENSUS. Editors should be bold, but not rash. BRD does not encourage reverting. Try to revert only when necessary. WP:ONLYREVERT states reverting tends to be hostile, per WP:BADREVERT do not revert an edit as a means of showing your disapproval of the edit summary. When discussions of proposals to delete articles, media, or other pages end without consensus, the normal result is the content being kept.

The use of the word "grooming" is accurate, appropriate, and multi-sourced. This wording is a non-issue. In addition to The Times, the Press and Journal also describe Middleton's repeated sexual behavior as "grooming" multiple times.

If you remain unconvinced, I can suggest an alternative:

In 2025, a youth leader at Antioch affiliate River Church Banff was convicted of "repeatedly sexually touching a 14-year-old boy."

The initial proposed edit summarizes the events concisely; it does not include every detail in the sources and therefore is not UNDUE.

In order to clarify the wording, I propose Media coverage "noted" instead of "highlighted." Adjusting "highlighted" to "noted" further avoids implying editorial emphasis.

Regarding international coverage, the Christian Post can be used sparingly to illustrate Antioch’s broader activities, but numerical details or exhaustive reporting on every project would risk undue weight. I agree it’s not always appropriate to include than every detail such as collections of specific numbers.

Separate subsections help distinguish this notable event from the broader international activities of Antioch, making the article clearer for readers looking for specific topics. Proper headings allow for easier navigation in a long article with multiple international branches and events.

For these reasons, I believe the material I proposed can be retained as it is a concise, properly sourced, and neutrally-worded. As always, it would be good for @Starship.paint to chime in. A potential request for comment would also help ensure the community agrees on the due weight and presentation. HonestHarbor (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

We obviously needed to talk about how to include this material on the talk page before we could come to an agreement about how to include it. This is just basic Wikipedia editing 101. I didn't do anything wrong or even unusual here. I am trying to work with you. I would recommend that you try editing some other pages to see that this is how it normally works on wikipedia.

I see that the word "grooming" is attributed to claims made by various people, concerns various people had, and at one point the P&J says they found evidence supporting these concerns. That's different than a report that grooming occurred. The accurate statement of what this person was convicted of is "sexual activity with an older child." Why would you not want to report accurately what she was actually convicted of?

I think your proposal includes undue detail, as explained above, and you're not being responsive to my point. Can you explain why the reponse of the church in their statement isn't due but all the negative stuff and inaccurate summaries of the conviction are supposed to go in our article? I haven't heard your explanation of that yet. My own view is that both the details you want to include and the response from the church are undue, and we should try to treat this as what it is: a single incident at one of many dozens of worldwide churches that are part of our subject in this article. That means we should keep it relatively brief.

I agree about not using CP for exhaustive reporting of evrery detail, but I think a sense of what their project was in Haiti is DUE, and so I'm advocating inclusion of the fact that they sought to build 100 homes in an underserved community. That's a pretty short descrpition, and it seems to give a sense of what they were up to. You disagree?

The subsections were unaccetpable stylistically, cutting the article into tiny pieces. They were also clearly negative POV. I'm just repeating myself here, you're not being responsive. The manual of style is not policy, but we do try to accord with it because it makes sense. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for laying out your concerns. I think it’s important that we ground our approach directly in Wikipedia policy.

My concern is about characterizing the reverted version as a “consensus” version. As WP:CONSENSUS explains, consensus requires active agreement reached through discussion. In this case, the full omission of the Banff material had not been established through talk page discussion or agreement among multiple editors; it was simply a prior version that existed before this dispute arose.

More generally, policies such as WP:BRD emphasize that in good-faith content disputes, discussion and incremental adjustment are preferred over repeated reversion, particularly where edits contain potentially encyclopedic material.

Multiple reliable sources, including The Press and Journal, independently use the term “grooming” in their own reporting, not only as attributed concerns. That makes it attributable encyclopedic content. That makes the term attributable encyclopedic content under WP:V and WP:RS. That said, in the interest of precision and neutrality, I have already proposed compromise wording that avoids the term entirely and instead relies on precise conviction language. The Times explicitly states Middleton was "convicted of repeatedly sexually touching a 14-year-old boy" which is improves accuracy.

From a Wikipedia policy perspective, including numerical detail from the Christian Post risks WP:DUE violations, as it gives undue weight to a single local detail within a worldwide organization. Likewise, removing subsections solely for stylistic preference disregards MOS:HEADINGS, which allow subsections to improve clarity and navigation in long articles.

At this stage, it seems our remaining disagreements seems to be about degree rather than principle especially how to balance precision, attribution, and brevity. If we’re still talking past each other, I think it would be productive to invite additional input from other editors, such as @Starship.paint or open a RFC to get wider community input on due weight and wording. HonestHarbor (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I stand by what I said above and I agree we are at an impasse. The precise conviction language is as I said above, "sexual activity with an older child", so your suggestion, and any report that uses a different phrasing than that, is inaccurate or paraphrasing where we should be as precise as possible per WP:BLP. I agree about getting other editors involved; I'm happy to wait for Starship.paint, who seems to have told you he was going to be along at some point. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources describe the conviction using similar language. The Times reports that Middleton was "convicted of repeatedly sexually touching a 14-year-old boy" and elsewhere "convicted of sexually touching the teenager." The Press and Journal likewise reports that she was “convicted of sexually touching the young teenager” also "14-year-old boy she was later convicted of sexually touching."

While The Times also uses the phrasing "sexual activity with an older child," the source provides the more descriptive conviction language in the first sentence of its reporting. Under WP:BLP and WP:V, it is appropriate to summarize the conviction using wording that is both accurate, clearly supported by multiple reliable sources and properly attributed.

The precise actions which lead to Middleton's conviction is stated in the original source. "repeatedly" is an appropriately worded measure of precision.

To address concerns about precision and to avoid disputed terminology such as “grooming,” I propose the following compromise wording: In 2025, Lauren Middleton, a volunteer youth leader at River Church Banff (an Antioch affiliate church in Scotland), was "convicted of repeatedly sexually touching a 14-year-old boy" and placed on the sex offenders register. According to The Times, the conduct involved inappropriately stroking the boy beginning in 2022.

This wording uses conviction language that appears across multiple sources, attributes descriptive detail explicitly, and keeps the summary brief and proportional, in line with WP:DUE and WP:BLP. HonestHarbor (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

What was the legal charge she was convicted of? Answer: sexual activity with an older child. That's in the sources. That's what she was convicted of. I notice you didn't answer why the church's response shouldn't be included. Details that are also undue in my opinion, but which should be in the article if we are giving all the details: she was accused of touching his thigh, and she was sentenced to 200 hours of community service. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the RfC below to be re-structured per my concerns about a neutral opening prompt before I respond there, but as a threshold matter, I'd like to observe that your positions are not mutually exclusive: we can (and should) describe the precise charge the part was convicted of; we also can (and should, to some extent) include the description of the acts which formed the basis of that conviction as they are found in the WP:RS. This is not a zero-sum determination and there is room for both the title of the formal charge and the attributed verbiage describing the criminal conduct that led to that conviction, with both contributing a form of accuracy and context. I also would tend to regard the Church's response as a critical part of the coverage. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Arguments for inclusion:

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

Arguments for removal or trimming:

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

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

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

• Comment:, since I am here in response to the FRS notice for the RfC above, I will also contribute a perspective on this editorial issue. Before I do that, however, and seeing as I am the first to respond, I think I should advise you HonestHarbor, that unlike your prompt for the previous RfC, where a respondent understandably praised you for the neutral wording for the prompt, you haven't really achieved that here. Most all of what is included in the "Rationale" section of the prompt is argumentation from your perspective, and for your position, and belongs in your !vote, not the prompt. It's permissible to, as you did in your last prompt, provide a short summary of the positions advanced in previous discussion, provided you give reasonably equal airing to the outlooks of the differing sides to the dispute. In this instance, your arguments are both way too large and mostly or completely advance your take on the editorial issue, and this generally not consistent with WP:RFCNEUTRAL Since I am the first respondent and caught this issue before lodging my own view, this is easily remedied: I suggest you simply re-edit prompt and move those contents to a separate !vote post, and then we can proceed normally. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

  Noting for the record that the present prompt is the version amended by HonestHarbor (for which I thank him), and which I believe is now perfectly consistent with WP:RFCNEUTRAL. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support @SnowRise Thank you for your guidance. I support including the proposed wording because it is accurately sourced, neutral, and provides proportional coverage. Including senior leadership names is justified by reliable sources and relevance to church governance. The summary reflects the significance of the incident while remaining concise.

Rationale: (River Church Banff Incident)

• Accuracy and sourcing: This wording reflects precise conviction language as reported by multiple independent, reliable sources (The Times; The Press and Journal). Using terms like "repeatedly sexually touching a 14-year-old boy" ensures clarity and adherence to WP:BLP and WP:V, avoiding language like "grooming" while still summarizing the reported behavior.

• Naming senior leadership: Including Rob McArthur and Joe Ewen is supported by WP:BLP and WP:V because they were explicitly named in multiple reliable sources, their actions (or inactions) are central to understanding the incident, and they directly relate to Antioch's church governance and accountability context. Omitting their names would reduce the precision and context necessary for neutral coverage of a notable incident within the organization.

• Attribution of critical claims: Phrases like "betrayed," "downplayed," and "cared more about protecting the public image of the church" are all clearly attributed to the parents, which satisfies WP:BLP.

• Proportionality and due weight: The summary is concise, neutral, and proportional, consistent with WP:DUE and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. The section avoids narrative over-detail while reflecting the significance of the incident, including the OSCR inquiry, which elevates the event beyond a routine local crime.

• Contextual relevance: Including details about Antioch Waco’s affiliation, staff salary connections, and missionaries clarifies the wider organizational context, which is relevant to readers understanding the governance and accountability structures of the Antioch movement.

(Subsections)

• Subsections and structure: Additional subsections improve clarity and navigation in articles covering multiple events, locations, or aspects of an organization while remaining compliant with WP:MOS:OVERSECTION; it provides clarity without undue editorial emphasis or narrative bias. HonestHarbor (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support with caveats. I believe that the OP has demonstrated that the content generally adheres to policy, but I'm not a huge fan of the selective one-buzzword quotes, properly attributed or not: those statements could probably be swapped out for one well-chosen fuller quote. Or, honestly, lost altogether: I'm not sure how much of educational/informational value we get out of stating that the victim's parents are pissed. Well, no shit? I think most of us wonder at how such a parent even goes about keeping their understandable rage in check in the manner they have to (in order to avoid further traumatizing their child and to help facilitate justice for them) following such assaults. I can see maintaining some statement of their justifiable anger and criticisms, but its much less critical information than the details of the abuse itself, and institutional responses both within and and without the movement.
  Regarding the RS-consistent descriptions of the criminal conduct and abuse, that is perfectly fine, within the bounds of being consistent with WP:DUE WEIGHT (which some mention surely is here). The argument that WP:BLP requires us to describe criminal and amoral acts only using precisely the label that happens to align with the crime they were charged with is both inconsistent with that policy and in my view, nonsensical. Formal charges are legal terms of art, and are often highly idiomatic, and often employ antiquated or peculiar nomenclature; they are a charging instrument which designate which statutes and causes of action, and their associated evidentiary standards, will be of relevance to a determination of guilt and penalty.
  Even within the courts themselves, these terms of art are not meant to be descriptive: those details are found in the elements of the crime, and in findings of fact and conclusions of law in resulting orders and judgments. Outside of the courts, and especially in the context of encyclopedic language, of all places, the idea of using only the name of charged/convicted crime to describe behaviour that is illegal (but also a lot of other terrible things) becomes even further untenable. If we have multiple RS all confirming a certain description of the abuse by converging on similar verbiage, that's probably due. for inclusion. That said, as I pointed out for the disputants above, this is not an either/or situation: both the formal charge and the more factually specific description are probably appropriate for inclusion.
  I also lean towards inclusion on the McArthur and Ewen statement. Some might say this information presents the movement and its leadership in a bad light merely be association--not that that would be good enough reason itself to avoid inclusion. Others might be more charitable and say it shows a willingness to own up to terrible things that occurred within their religious community. But I don't think it matters how we read the association; its probably minimally relevant for inclusion either way. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
• This is too much detail. It's treating this article like a WP:COATRACK upon which we can hang too much detail. For example, was convicted of "repeatedly sexually touching a 14-year-old boy" and inappropriately stroking the boy are redundant. The bit about Media coverage also noted River Church Banff's formal link to Antioch Waco feels unnecessary: aren't all of the affiliates affiliated with each other, by definition? Would you write something like "Media noted St Mary's Church formal link to the Catholic Church in Rome"? Or "Media noted the local Scouts Club's formal link to the national scouting organization"? I wouldn't. I mean, it's nice of the journalists to help their readers understand what the organization is, but by the time Wikipedia readers get to this paragraph, they should already know that. I also wonder how we can balance the age of the victim with privacy for the victim. Maybe "a young teenager"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose with caveats. I agree with WhatamIdoing above. This degree of detail, and indeed this article has often been treated by single-page editors as a WP:COATRACK for specifically negative fine-grained details about this worldwide movement of churches every time any incident occurs in any of the many dozens of churches. This incident was reported enough that it does deserve mention, but all this fine-grained detail is undue. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• Proposed Compromise Draft (Incorporating feedback from @Snow Rise:@WhatamIdoing:@Shinealittlelight: I’ve drafted a streamlined version that addresses the concerns regarding narrative detail (WP:COATRACK). I have specifically removed the redundancy language and focused on the institutional and regulatory outcomes. In previous talks regarding affiliates, other editors held formal links to Antioch Waco where not valid unless explicitly stated in the source article. Therefore it is important to highlight as the source does mention Antioch Waco's formal linkage and involvement. These were directly reported by The Times and The Press and Journal and are central to the Antioch Movement's contextual governance:
  River Church Banff Incident
  "In 2025, a youth leader at Antioch affiliate River Church Banff was convicted of "repeatedly sexually touching a 14-year-old boy" and placed on the sex offenders register. The Times and The Press and Journal reported that senior leadership, including lead pastor Rob McArthur and founding elder Joe Ewen, had been aware of allegations for several months before the family and police were notified. Parents of the victim say the leadership repeatedly "downplayed" concerns about grooming and prioritized protecting the church’s public image. At least one "church worker" said in private messages that the church had mishandled the allegations. In early 2023, following a direct appeal from the victim's family to Antioch Waco, McArthur and Ewen issued a joint apology. Media reporting also noted River Church Banff’s formal financial and missionary links to Antioch Waco. Subsequently, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) opened a formal inquiry into the church’s trustees."
  Does this version resolve the outstanding objections regarding weight and precision?" HonestHarbor (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  No.

  Here is a numbered list of my concerns, organized sentence-by-sentence, so you will have an easier time keeping track of them.

  1. "In 2025, a youth leader at Antioch affiliate River Church Banff was convicted of "repeatedly sexually touching a 14-year-old boy" and placed on the sex offenders register."
     1. If we give the exact age of the victim, that may harm his privacy. Victims of child sexual abuse deserve every possible effort to protect their privacy. If the words "a 14-year-old boy" appear in the article, we are not maximizing the victim's privacy.
     2. This sentence makes it sound like being placed on the sex offenders registry is the only punishment received by the perpetrator. I think that should be removed.
     3. The youth leader was a volunteer, and this should be stated.
     4. I assumed that the victim was someone that the perpetrator met or worked with in an official capacity through the church. (It would, after all, be rather silly to say "How horrible that church is! One of their members molested someone with no connection whatsoever to their church! The church should have done something to protect teenagers they don't even know!") In light of https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/church-leader-acted-like-girlfriend-of-14-year-old-b5g7ph5ht I am concerned that I'm not entirely wrong.
     5. "Repeatedly sexually touching" sounds like genital contact, and the offense here is literally actions like holding hands.
     6. Alternative sentence: "In 2025, a 28-year-old woman who volunteered as a youth leader at Antioch affiliate River Church Banff was convicted of sexually victimizing a young teenager while visiting and traveling with his family, by holding hands with him, hugging him, letting him touch her hair, and stroking his thigh."
  2. "The Times and The Press and Journal reported that senior leadership, including lead pastor Rob McArthur and founding elder Joe Ewen, had been aware of allegations for several months before the family and police were notified."
     1. When we have multiple sources shouldn't give WP:INTEXT attribution unless there is a reason to doubt that the reports are true.
     2. I'm concerned about the passive "were notified". (Mistakes were made/The passive voice was used/Responsibility was shirked.) Does this mean that the church leadership reported it, but we don't want to admit that, because it might look less bad for them?
     3. Alternative sentence: "Senior leadership, including lead pastor Rob McArthur and founding elder Joe Ewen, had been aware of concerns for several months before they notified the police."
        • My main concern about this is that it appears that the parents notified the church first, and the police second per https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/church-leader-put-on-sex-offenders-register-for-touching-boy in which case, the sentence might be better stated as "After the victim's parents informed the church leadership of the inappropriate relationship, senior leadership, including lead pastor Rob McArthur and founding elder Joe Ewen, did not notify the police as quickly as they should have."
        • It might be helpful if we assembled a timeline of what happened, like "started holding hands in September" and "victim told his mother in January" and "parents informed the church and the police in January" and "church reported to the police in February".
  3. "Parents of the victim say the leadership repeatedly "downplayed" concerns about grooming and prioritized protecting the church’s public image."
     1. See also scare quotes. More generally, Wikipedia articles are not written in news style. UK news media uses this type of single-word quotations often because of media regulations in the UK, but Wikipedia should not try to sound like a newspaper.
     2. I've no particular concerns about this sentence, except that it's kind of in Captain Obvious territory. What parents wouldn't feel like any concern for anything except their child, even ordinary concerns about fairness and not rushing to judgment before you have all the facts, isn't downplaying their concerns?
     3. Also, you know, if the abuse didn't involve the church, then why shouldn't the church be concerned about its image? The perp was a nurse – did the parents report her to her employer, too, and claim that the hospital or whatever wasn't sufficiently concerned about something that happened in the parents' home and not at the hospital?
  4. "At least one "church worker" said in private messages that the church had mishandled the allegations."
     1. "Church worker" should not be in quotations, because that will look like scare quotes to some readers (they call themselves "workers", but church staff doesn't really work, you know?).
     2. The intended meaning of this is unclear. Are we trying to communicate that the organization's staff aren't a monolith, and that there is a diversity of opinion? In what way did this individual believe the mishandling happened? For example, did this person think it was mishandled from a public relations POV? That the church shouldn't have reported it to the police? That the staff should have been informed before the parents? That the staff should have been informed through a particular method, such as calling a special meeting instead of sending an e-mail message, or telling some staff before telling the other staff members? There are a lot of different ways that people think something is "mishandled", and some of them include attitudes like "I work there, but I found out about this on Facebook instead of from the head preacher himself. It's so disrespectful for the leadership not to tell us staff members all the juicy gossip first".
     3. Alternative: I'd just leave this out.
  5. "In early 2023, following a direct appeal from the victim's family to Antioch Waco, McArthur and Ewen issued a joint apology."
     1. This implies a causative effect: They refused to apologize publicly unless and until they were pressured by Antioch Waco. Is that clearly verified by the sources, or would we be misleading readers with a post hoc ergo propter hoc error?
     2. I generally think that issuing an apology is unimportant trivia, and if it has any effect, it tends overall to make the leadership look good.
     3. Alternative: I'd just leave this out.
  6. "Media reporting also noted River Church Banff’s formal financial and missionary links to Antioch Waco."
     1. The fact that River Church Banff is part of the Antioch International Movement of Churches is covered in the first sentence ("Antioch affiliate River Church Banff"), and therefore this is redundant.
     2. The fact that "Media reporting also noted" is inappropriate WP:INTEXT attribution that casts doubt on whether it's true.
     3. This article is not Antioch Waco. Therefore, the connection to Antioch Waco specifically (as opposed to the Antioch international group) is off-topic.
     4. If editors have previously said that they think it's necessary to prove affiliation with a source, that doesn't mean that the proof needs to be directly stated in the Wikipedia article.
     5. Alternative: I'd just leave this out.
  7. "Subsequently, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) opened a formal inquiry into the church’s trustees."
     1. It wasn't until this sentence that I realized that we were talking about Banff in Scotland instead of its much more famous Banff in Canada.
     2. This seems very strange to me, since I'm used to the American system, in which charity regulation (which is largely about finances) is separate from child protection. But it appears that Scottish charities are required to report all crimes and child safeguarding concerns that they hear about, even if it has nothing to do with them.
     3. Alternative: Subsequently, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) opened a formal inquiry into whether the church is meeting its legal requirements as a registered charity, which include promptly reporting all suspected child safeguarding and criminal activities that they become aware of."

  Overall, I think that the two things that would most help editors write this paragraph are:

  • Find a neutral way to describe the inappropriate conduct fairly, so that it's neither made to sound too bad (e.g., implying genital contact; implying that it happened at official church events) or too minor (e.g., "just" a hug).
  • Figure out who said what when (e.g., who first told the church?).

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  Per request, I replaced the specific age with the clinical term "minor" and listed the specific physical acts to protect the victim's identity while ensuring the nature of the conviction is not misconstrued as more graphic. The draft establishes that the victim was "from the congregation," confirming the relationship was formed partially within the church environment. I replaced the passive "were notified" with active phrasing to clearly assign responsibility for the reporting delay to the named leadership. I eliminated all single word "scare quotes" and replaced them with neutral, clinical summaries of the reported mismanagement. I retained the Waco connection because the family’s direct appeal to the "Mother Church" headquarters triggered the local apology. The affiliation is a functional fact of the story. Also adopting precise phrasing regarding "legal safeguarding and obligations reporting allegations of abuse" to anchor the incident in regulatory fact.

  Compromise Draft: "In 2025, a 28-year-old woman who regularly volunteered as a youth leader at Antioch affiliate River Church Banff was convicted and placed on the sex offenders register for sexually victimizing a minor from the congregation. While attending the church and traveling with his family the woman reportedly held hands, hugged, let him touch her hair, and stroked the minor’s thigh. Senior leadership, including lead pastor Rob McArthur and founding elder Joe Ewen, had been aware of the physical touching for several months before they notified the police. The victim's parents alleged that leadership minimized concerns of grooming to protect the church’s public image, while internal messages from a church worker described the matter as mismanaged. Ewen reportedly expressed a desire for the allegations to “disappear” rather than be disclosed to authorities. Media reporting highlighted the Banff church’s formal financial and missionary links to Antioch Waco. Following an appeal to Antioch Waco, McArthur and Ewen issued a joint apology for the church's handling of the allegations. Subsequently, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) opened an inquiry into the church’s trustees regarding their legal safeguarding and obligations reporting allegations of abuse."

  I believe this version fully addresses structural and tonal concern. It represents a fair, policy-based compromise that addresses all outstanding objections regarding weight and precision.

  Does this version resolve the outstanding concerns so we can proceed to a close? HonestHarbor (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  @HonestHarbor, which source says that these behaviors happened "While attending the church"? AFAICT all of these events happened "While visiting the family in their home or while travelling with them" and none of them actually "while attending church". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  Here's a version that I think would be adequate:

  "After a 28-year-old female volunteer was convicted of inappropriate behavior with a minor in 2023, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator opened an inquiry into Antioch affiliate River Church Banff in northern Scotland about whether they were fulfilling their legal duties around child safeguarding and obligations as mandatory reporters of suspected abuse."

  Here are the qualities I value in it:

  • Nothing identifiable whatsoever about the victim.
  • Nothing remotely like he said/she said.
  • Nothing based on subjective perceptions (a parent felt like someone was downplaying the accusation – but that doesn't mean that the parent's feelings are true, because emotions and perceptions can be real to the person without being true in reality).
  • Nothing blowing up a one-off frustrated private comment into publicly shaming an individual (Have you truly never wished that a problem would just disappear?).
  • Nothing that can lead to fairness complaints, such as saying that senior pastors saw her hug him and said nothing to the police or anyone else for months, when it is equally true that his own parents saw her hug him in their own home and also said nothing to the police or anyone else for months.
  • The only thing of lasting significance to the organization (=the subject of the article), aside from whatever gossip may be spread (and Wikipedia should not be a part of spreading gossip), is that the organization may be faced with some regulatory problems. Therefore, I think that this is the most important thing to say, and should be the focus of the paragraph.

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  Your latest proposal redacts a significant amount of essential, well sourced content. After reevaluating the sources I have recomposed a draft that focuses on institutional facts and strengthened aspects pertaining to senior Church leadership and governance decisions. I trimmed some of content to address your concerns and the more descriptive nature of Middleton's sexual activities with the minor. The length of the paragraph is proportional to the gravity of the event a criminal conviction, widespread coverage, and a national regulatory inquiry. It is essential to describe the specific administrative actions and the named accountability that make this an encyclopedic matter of the Movement's governance.

  Updated Compromise Draft: "In 2025, a 28-year-old volunteer youth leader at Antioch affiliate River Church Banff was convicted and placed on the sex offenders register for sexually victimizing a minor from the congregation. Senior leadership, including lead pastor Rob McArthur and founding elder Joe Ewen, had been aware of the physical touching for several months before notifying police. According to media reports, the church established a secret "watch group" to monitor the volunteer but instructed members not to inform the minor’s parents. Internal recordings and messages revealed that McArthur instructed staff to remain silent to avoid "dragging the church down." Ewen reportedly expressed a desire for the allegations to "disappear" rather than be disclosed to authorities. The victim's parents alleged that leadership prioritized the church’s public image over the minor's welfare; the victim's father alleged they were told to "back off" when raising concerns with the leadership and later testified that the church refused a request to separate the minor from the volunteer and lacked a formal safeguarding policy. Following a direct appeal to Antioch Waco, McArthur and Ewen issued a joint apology for the church's handling of the matter. Media reporting highlighted the Banff church’s formal financial and missionary links to Antioch Waco. Subsequently, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) opened an inquiry into the church’s trustees regarding their legal safeguarding and obligations reporting allegations of abuse."

  This draft is based on documented administrative actions and words, not subjective perceptions:

  • Institutional Accountability: Removing the names of McArthur and Ewen ignores the fact that they are the senior officials who issued a formal, public apology for the church's handling of the matter. Naming senior leadership when their specific actions (and apologies) are a matter of public record in high quality sources like The Times.
  • The "Watch Group" is an Objective Fact: The establishment of a formal (albeit secret) monitoring group is a documented administrative action by the church. It proves the leadership recognized a risk but chose an internal "workaround" rather than following legal safeguarding protocols; this is not gossip, it is the core evidence of the OSCR's investigative inquiry.
  • Audio Recorded Evidence: The inclusion of McArthur's directive to "not speak" in a public setting is based on an audio recording. This is a factual record of a leadership mandate to suppress information, which directly addresses the transparency aspect of movement governance.
  • Public Record: McArthur and Ewen are the individuals who managed the "watch group" and issued the public apology. Senior leaders who take public, documented actions (especially regarding legal/regulatory failures) are not anonymized.
  • The "Waco" Link: The fact that an apology only occurred after an appeal to Antioch Waco, the headquarters, proves the functional hierarchy of the Antioch Movement. This makes the Waco link highly relevant to the article’s subject (the Antioch movement) rather than being "off-topic."
  • Legal Mandate vs. Parental Emotion: The OSCR inquiry is into the trustees' legal obligations. Highlighting that leadership withheld information from the legal guardians ("Watch Group") provides the necessary context for why a regulator, not just a disgruntled parent, is investigating the charity's trustees.

  The details regarding the lack of a safeguarding policy and the secret watch group are not trivia; they are the documented failures that triggered a formal inquiry by a national regulator (OSCR). To redact these facts would be to present an incomplete and non-neutral account of the movement's oversight and governance. HonestHarbor (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree that the sentence I have proposed redacts any "essential" information whatsoever.

  1. I saw a newspaper article claiming that the apology was private. If it's public, where is a copy?
  2. I haven't yet seen anything in any Wikipedia:Published source about a "watch group". Where is your source? Why is this literally the first time you have mentioned the existence of this alleged group? Did this group, assuming it existed at all, have any substance more formal than asking a few people to keep an eye out for a little while and see if they believe anything improper is happening?
  3. Where is a source saying that the audio recording was in a public setting and not (e.g.,) an ordinary staff that is not open to the general public?
  4. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. It is an encyclopedia. It does not exist for the purpose of punishing people whom you believe acted wrongly, even if you call that punishment the "public record" or "accountability".
  5. Read Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fact that an apology only occurred after an appeal to Antioch Waco does not prove that it happened because of an appeal to Antioch. Furthermore, that alleged "functional hierarchy" (sounds like something an attorney planning a civil lawsuit would care about) needs to be proven by sources, not by your beliefs.
  6. How could the leadership "withhold" information from the parents about what was happening in the parents' own home and on the parents' own holiday trip?

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  I support WhatamIdoing's proposal above for the reasons stated. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  1. Private or public record can be corrected or specified if so desired. Per WP:V, the accessibility is secondary to the reliability of the reporting. Since The Times and other RS published the action of the apology, it is a verifiable administrative fact.

  2. The Press and Journal noted a secret "watch group"

  3. See #1

  4. These details are not "punishment"; they are the specific administrative facts that explain the current regulatory response and investigation into the church's trustees. Redacting these from the record would result in an incomplete and non-neutral account of the institution's governance.

  5. The "joint apology" issued by McArthur and Ewen was reported by multiple outlets (The Press and Journal, etc.). We are documenting the occurrence of the apology as directly reported by the source. The source states an apology followed after an direct appeal to Waco.

  6. The logical conclusion of how leadership would know before parents would indicate some sexual activities took place during church activities. The existence of a "secret watch group" and the instruction to withhold information from the parents was reported by The Press and Journal (and The Times) following the criminal trial. This is a documented institutional action, not a subjective perception. HonestHarbor (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

  Overall, WhatamIdoing's proposal reflects the level of detail appropriate to one event at one of the many dozens of affiliates of this worldwide movement. We need to remember that our topic here is the Antioch International Movement. This incident was pretty well covered and the coverage mentions Antioch a few times, and so some mention of the incident merits inclusion in our article about Antioch for that reason. But we should include the level of detail that seems appropriate to an encyclopeidia article about the movement, not a news story about the River Church or an article about the incident itself. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

  In detail:

  1. Your proposal says "McArthur and Ewen issued a joint apology". To "issue" an apology means that the apology itself was made public. Mind the gap between "they apologized" (which could have been public or private or both) and "they issued an apology" (which is a claim about them making a public apology). If the apology itself was private, then we shouldn't say they "issued" an apology.
  2. Thank you for the source. From that source – the only one? – it appears that the church took steps to make sure that the victim and perpetrator were never allowed to be alone at the church. And when they did finally report it to the police, the police said that it didn't appear that any crime was being committed, so the report had no practical benefit. Reporting earlier probably would have had the same response, or even worse.
  3. Having read the source in #2, I find that the allegation that "McArthur instructed staff" is factually inaccurate. That secretly recorded conversation (something that would be illegal in my jurisdiction, BTW) was a meeting with the victim's mother, not just the staff. Also: Telling staff to keep their mouths shut is an absolutely ordinary thing to do for sensitive topics. IMO staff should have been told to keep their mouths shut so that they wouldn't say stupid things about the victim. Loose lips sink ships, and they expose innocent victims, too.
  4. Wikipedia:Don't be evil#Wikipedia must not be evil either. Putting someone's name in Wikipedia to record for decades to come that they once said something unpopular is a punishment. The reason they call this kind of behavior gossip instead of lying is because it's true but of no apparent relevance to the reader.
  5. Yes, an apology happened after a direct appeal to Waco. But the way you've written this, your paragraph implies that it happened because of a direct appeal to another church. We can't have an implication that the apology happened because of the parents complaining to another church; that's a violation of Wikipedia:No original research, which prohibits "implying" things that are not directly supported by a reliable source.
  6. Thanks for that source. It confirms that the church took some steps to protect the victim and that the evidence the church had (even after four or five months of watching the two) did not demonstrate any crime.

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone for your comments. It appears we have reached a stalemate regarding WP:WEIGHT and the appropriate level of detail for this section.

While recent comments have moved into subjective interpretations of the church's actions and personal opinions on the reporting, I maintain that the specific administrative facts in the latest proposed compromise draft, specifically the absence of a safeguarding policy, the internal "watch group", and the directive of silence, are essential for a neutral account. These are the core findings established in court and documented by multiple Reliable Sources (The Times, Press and Journal, Third Force News).

Omitting these details provides the what (the apology) while redacting the why (the institutional failures), which creates an imbalanced and sanitized record. Furthermore, the direct involvement of Antioch Waco headquarters, leadership, and a Founding Elder in the resulting apology confirms this is a matter of Movement-wide governance, not merely a localized event.

As the discussion has reached an impasse and moved toward re-litigating the facts of the case rather than the application of policy, I will let my previous arguments stand. I will move this to Wikipedia:Closure requests for a formal, neutral determination. HonestHarbor (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you're trying to write this without understanding the verifiable facts. For example:

• You say here: "specific administrative facts...specifically the absence of a safeguarding policy"
• The source you link above says "River Church Banff updated its 2019 child safeguarding policy in 2023."

So according to the newspaper article, there really was a safeguarding policy, and had been for at least three years before this event started. But you have claimed here that there was no safeguarding policy, and you claimed above that they "lacked a formal safeguarding policy" and another time about "the lack of a safeguarding policy".

If you are following Wikipedia's policies, you should not be making this same mistake multiple times.

This is not the only instance in which what you propose does not seem to match what the sources say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

It has taken a while for me to figure out what actually happened, probably because most of the sources are WP:PRIMARYNEWS and only give piecemeal descriptions of events. Here's what I've got so far:

• 2019:
  • Church adopts or updates their child safeguarding policy.
• 2022:
  • Victim's family were members of this church. Perpetrator and her family were also a member of this church, and she volunteered with a youth program there.
  • Victim's family befriends the perpetrator and frequently (weekly?) invites her to spend time at their home.
  • 28 August 2022: Victimization begins. This victimization is seen by a fellow church member who does not tell the parents (or possibly anyone) at the time.
  • 16 September 2022: Church leadership notices that the perpetrator seems overly friendly with the victim, and quietly organizes a group of people to protect the victim at the church by ensuring that the perpetrator is never alone with the victim. Church leadership has no evidence of a crime and does not report it.
    • This effort to protect the victim at church was successful, as all of the offenses took place in the family home and while on holiday with the family.
    • OSCR says "there is no strict legal requirement to report such an event".
  • 16 September 2023: The youth pastor's wife speaks directly to the perpetrator about being overly affectionate, such as hugging or leaning on kids.
    • Church leadership does not speak individually to the victim's parents about their concerns. The church claims they spoke to the victim separately, but the victim does not remember any such conversation happening. Parents say that all communication from the church about the church's concerns were general statements and vague warnings.
  • 23 September 2022: Church leadership holds a meeting for all parents on appropriate relationships, speaking generally about the need for children to be protected. The parents did not make the connection between this general information and the behavior they were seeing between the perpetrator and the victim.
  • ~December 2022: Seeing nothing wrong with the perpetrator's behavior, the victim's parents invite her to join them on a family holiday. This is the first time the parents become suspicious of the perpetrator's overly affectionate behavior.
• 2023:
  • 21 or 23 January 2023: The church member who saw the inappropriate behavior in August 2022 tells the mother.
  • 27 January 2023: Perpetrator's mother tells victim's mother that she may pursue legal action against people spreading rumors about her daughter on grounds of defamation of character.
  • 30 January 2023: Victim's parents contact a (non-police) charity about the victimization.
  • 2 February 2023: The church leadership reports the perpetrator to the local police, who look over the total lack of evidence of any crime and dismiss the report as not seeming to involve an actual crime. Church immediately shares the police response with the parents.
  • Early February?: Father requests that the perpetrator be barred from the church when the victim is present. This request is refused. Church leadership questions whether the victim needs this accommodation.
  • 8 February 2023: Mother meets with church staff, and feels like the leadership cares more about the perpetrator's family than about the victim's family. Church trustee says he feels caught between two warring families.
  • 12 February 2023: The parents report the perpetrator to the National Crime Agency, who look over the evidence the parents present and recommend contacting the police.
  • 13 February 2023: The victim tells his mother that the touching had become sexualized. The victim says that he believes the perpetrator is unaware of how her behavior affects him.
  • 14 February 2023: Church leadership officially approves updates to its 2019 child safeguarding policy.
    • Barnardo's recommends reviewing these policies every year, and Children First recommends reviewing these policies every three years. However, a "review" need not result in any change the policy, so being a "2019" policy doesn't mean that the policy wasn't reviewed, was not in force, etc.
  • 14 February 2023: The police open a formal investigation.
  • c. 22 February 2023: Mother has a meeting with church leadership to complain about their behavior. The pastor is concerned about gossip and division. This meeting was secretly recorded by a church employee. In the words of a statement later published by the church, "When a legal investigation started we advised the people who attend the church not to make general comments on what was now in the hands of police."
    • The pastor is presumably also aware of the threat from the perpetrator's mother to sue anyone who says anything against the perpetrator, so warning staff away from gossip is a way to protect them.
    • Remember, at this point in time, they have knowledge only of the perpetrator hugging and leaning on each other. The police had told them just three weeks ago that nothing the church leadership had seen was evidence that any crime had been committed.
  • 10 March 2023: Perpetrator is arrested and charged with sexual assault.
  • April 2023: Parents complain to Antioch Waco.
  • April 2023: Someone at Antioch Waco has one conversation with one person at River Church Banff. That person and the head pastor send a letter of apology "to the parents" on 20 April "for any hurt that our actions have caused during this process".
  • June 2023: Victim's family have left the church. Pastor asks them why they are apparently spreading rumors that the youth program is still unsafe.
    • It is of course understandable why the parents believe the program is unsafe; their child got hurt! It would also be equally understandable if the remaining innocent volunteers found this insulting.
• 2025:
  • January 2025: Perpetrator, who denies all guilt, is convicted of a lower-level sexual offense, with a maximum penalty of 12 months in jail.
  • March 2025: Perpetrator is sentenced to 200 hours of community service, having her name put on a sex offender registry, and given a non-harassment order. There is no prison time.
  • September 2025: Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator opens an investigation, because the church did not report the incident to OSCR. However, legally, the church was not required to do so.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, WhatamIdoing for taking the time to compose a detailed timeline, I now see it provides a much clearer administrative picture of the February 2023 reporting window and the 2019 policy baseline. Also Shinealittlelight for the feedback.

I have revised the proposed draft to strictly follow this timeline and policy feedback. I have removed the “Waco” causality and the single-word quotes, and I have updated the text to reflect the 2019 policy and the clinical nature of the OSCR inquiry.

Proposed Compromise Draft: River Church Banff Incident

In 2025, a volunteer youth leader at Antioch affiliate River Church Banff was convicted of sexually victimizing a minor from the congregation. Senior leadership, including Rob McArthur and Joe Ewen, had been aware of reports of physical touching for several months before notifying police in February 2023; during this period, the church conducted a discreet internal monitoring of the volunteer without informing the minor’s parents. The victim's parents alleged that leadership prioritized the church’s public image over the minor's welfare. Following the launch of a formal police investigation and a joint apology from McArthur and Ewen for the church's handling of the matter, the church updated its 2019 safeguarding policy. Media reporting highlighted the Banff church’s formal financial and missionary links to Antioch Waco. Subsequently, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator opened an inquiry into the church about whether they were fulfilling their legal duties around child safeguarding and obligations as mandatory reporters of suspected abuse."

I believe this version addresses the concerns raised and finally represents a fair, policy-based compromise that balances the institutional facts with the timeline established here. HonestHarbor (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

It's the "fair" part of this that bothers me. You've selected certain bits that you think should be highlighted, and left out other bits that you think should not be highlighted. We could just as "fairly" write this:

"In 2025, a volunteer youth leader at Antioch affiliate River Church Banff was convicted of sexually victimizing a minor from the congregation. A church member saw the volunteer hugging the minor outside the church, but did not report it to anyone. Although having no evidence of any crime or reportable situation, when her behavior was mentioned a few weeks later, the church leadership immediately put procedures in place to prevent this volunteer from being alone with the minor at church, including offering training to all parents and staff on child safeguarding. The parents, who attended that training, however, invited her have contact with the victim in their home and on a holiday trip with them, which is where the abuse took place. When the church contacted the police about the volunteer's behavior, the police reassured them that there was no reason to involve the police at this time because nothing any church staff or volunteers had seen suggested that any crime had been committed. Subsequently, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator opened an inquiry into the church about whether they were fulfilling their legal duties around child safeguarding and obligations as mandatory reporters of suspected abuse." WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the alternative draft, and I agree that “fairness” can be subjective. What I mean to say, is my goal is to reach a neutral and balanced summary. Our versions aren’t about dueling fairness. More objectively, the contrast between our two versions is that one highlights various documented institutional facts, actions, and the subsequent regulatory inquiry. The other highlights the individual parents' choices and the church's training efforts. It's a fundamental disagreement on WP:WEIGHT. The version you proposed introduces significant detail regarding the private actions of the victim's family and specific hugging incidents. While those are part of the narrative, they risk violating WP:BLP by shifting the focus onto private individuals rather than the more relevant institutional and regulatory response. The cleaner neutral approach, focuses on the undisputed institutional milestones noted in the timeline: The conviction of the volunteer leader ,the period of internal monitoring, the date of police notification, the joint apology for the handling of the matter, the subsequent update to safeguarding policies, and the OSCR inquiry. This avoids the narrative private choices of the parents and the police's initial comments, and the he said/she said. Prioritizing the OSCR inquiry, the criminal conviction, aligns the article with regulatory and legal records, and carry greater encyclopedic weight than the anecdotal accounts of the individuals' private behaviors. HonestHarbor (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Omitting the private actions is an approach that shifts blame away from the "private choices" of multiple individuals and on to the organization. Shifting blame away from where it belongs isn't "neutral"; it's "biased". An individual's private behavior is the whole problem here, and the private choices of several other individuals (e.g., the August witness who apparently said nothing until January) made the problem worse.

I think that your idea of prioritizing the OSCR inquiry is a good idea. I think that what that would really look like is not putting anything in the article until the OSCR inquiry is completed. Imagine what it would feel like if we put "It's all the church's fault that the parents didn't supervise their child in their own private home" in the Wikipedia article, and the OSCR report comes back saying "Actually, once we had all the information together, the church's actions were pretty good overall". Of course I have no idea what the OSCR result will say, but maybe we should wait for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:38, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand your desire to wait for the OSCR report, but articles aren’t written on a wait-and-see basis, it’s a write-and-update process. Since the primary underlying events (the conviction, leadership's involvement, apology) have already received significant documented coverage by several reliable secondary sources, it’s currently notable. “Blame” isn't being shifted; we’re focusing on the subject of this article.

The private choices of parents are important but not as relevant to the Antioch International Movement of Churches, to be specific, the documented institutional events, responses of leadership, governance, the internal monitoring, are. The volunteer is already a convicted public figure. The leadership are public figures. These are matter of institutional record. Even if there is a perception of bias, per WP:POVDELETION, NPOV should not be used as an excuse to exclude properly sourced, notable facts simply because they reflect a "bias" in the real-world reporting.

It's good we agree that the OSCR inquiry’s existence is a significant regulatory fact in itself. If the final report eventually clears the church of misconduct, we will absolutely add that as a neutral follow-up. I would also be happy to offer to add an end qualifier: "As of March 2026, this regulatory inquiry remains ongoing." to my last proposed compromise draft.

If we are still are at an impasse, and neutrality is what we’ve seeking, WP:ClosureRequests for a third party neutral determination may be best. But I think we can agree that a summary can be posted prioritizing the latest verified facts pertaining to the organization. HonestHarbor (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Wikipedia articles absolutely are written on a wait-and-see basis; WP:RECENTISM is to be deplored.
• If "the primary underlying events" are actually notable, then we should have a separate article on them. Did you mean that, after considering everything ever published about the subject of this article, which is an entire "international movement of churches" with 125+ affiliated organizations, the conviction of one volunteer for a low-level sexual offense that took place in the victim's private home, at the voluntary invitation of the victim's parents, is one of the most important things you need to know about the whole "international movement of churches"?
• I agree that the private choices of the parents aren't relevant to the subject of the article, but they are highly relevant to the fact that their child was victimized in their home and under their supervision. This is one of the reasons why I think that saying very little about this event is probably the best route. From what I've read in the reliable sources, a fair explanation of what happened would correctly place part of the blame on the August witness and the parents. It would be unfair and non-neutral for the Wikipedia article to place all the blame on the church leadership and none on anyone else. Therefore we can either place no blame on anyone except the perpetrator, or we can fairly spread the blame to all the people who could have prevented this. (That can be done without naming anyone.)
• If the OSCR inquiry clears the church, we should remove it entirely, not update it with a sentence that effective says "BTW, all the blame we smeared them with earlier in this paragraph was misplaced and unfair of us".

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the detailed feedback. We seem to have a fundamental disagreement on appropriate weight. In my view, suggesting we should "fairly spread the blame" about the parents’ or witnesses’ actions risks going beyond what the coverage supports. Secondary sources reliably focus specifically on the church’s institutional response and the OSCR inquiry. The purpose here is not to advocate fault; our mandate is to neutrally reflect the focus of Reliable Sources. The idea that a notable regulatory inquiry should be "removed entirely" if it clears a subject contradicts the principle of documenting a subject's history. Our goal is to neutrally reflect the focus of the reliable sources rather than advocate for or against any party.

Expanding on Antioch’s operational safeguarding, it is highly relevant to note that internal communications published by The Press and Journal indicated that Ewen sought to avoid a public disclosure of the matter, while the victim's family alleged that leadership prioritized the institution's reputation and showed more concern for the abuser than the victim. Ewen declined to comment on the specific allegations but maintained that the church had sought to comply with the law. This content should be incorporated into the proposal as well.

Joe Ewen is not an isolated local figure. He has been described in Movement materials

as one of three permanent members/prophetic leader of Antioch’s U.S. Oversight Team (the other two being Antioch’s Founder/President, Jimmy Seibert and US/MSO Director Drew Steadman). He is not only the leader, elder, and founder of River Churches, a network of three churches under the Antioch Movement, he is an "external advisor" for Antioch Waco, the headquarters of the Antioch Movement. Ewen is also a board member at Epicentre Church, another church under the Antioch Movement. This incident provides a clear notable, source-backed example of the Movement's International oversight in practice. It is relevant to understanding the incident’s connection to the wider Antioch Movement which should be incorporated at an appropriate level.

We’ve now gone through multiple drafts and iterations, and we continue to disagree regarding the application of WP:NPOV, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:POVDELETION, etc. I believe the most productive step is to seek a Closure_Request to allow a neutral party to evaluate the drafts and the sources. I am confident that a third party can help us determine the appropriateness for this institutional record. Thanks again for the engagement. HonestHarbor (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The sources make very little of the connection to Antioch Waco, focusing instead on the details of this occurrence in Scotland. I believe they make nothing of the connection to the Antioch movement in general. They do mention Antioch Waco, so there's a case that something belongs in our article. But reflecting the weight of the source as it relates to our subject would look like a much briefer text, since the source says nothing or very little about our topic (the movement) and we shouldn't be making connections not in the source. If we are going to include something now, I like something like the proposal WhatamIdoing made above (though I here change the language describing the conviction to the legal charge): After a 28-year-old female volunteer was convicted of sexual activity with an older child in 2023, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator opened an inquiry into Antioch affiliate River Church Banff in northern Scotland about whether they were fulfilling their legal duties around child safeguarding and obligations as mandatory reporters of suspected abuse. That said, I do think WhatamIdoing has a good point about WP:RECENTISM; it might be best to wait and see how the whole thing shakes out. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

That would work. Do you know whether Sexual activity with an older child a 'thing' in Scottish law? I remember seeing it in one of the sources, but there's no Wikipedia article or redirect about it, and it was unclear to me whether that was the thing in the statutes vs the journalist's own description. If it's the official charge, then I certainly favor using that instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Here's are the quotes I see in the sources (boldface emphasis is mine):

1. : In January, Middleton, who is now 31, was convicted of sexual activity with an older child ...
2. : In January, Middleton, now 31, was found guilty of sexual activity with an older child ...
3. : Seven months later, Lauren Middleton was found guilty of the downgraded charge of sexual activity with an older child.

Meanwhile, I also see this page stating Scottish law, and specifically defining the crime of Engaging in sexual activity with or towards an older child. So that looks pretty clear to me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I think that's the correct phrase to use, then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• I have removed a request for closure from WP:ANRFC. With only four participants and extensive workshopping of the proposal, no meaningful consensus can be discerned here, and I don't see a need for formal closure. If the workshopped proposals don't lead to an agreement, please launch a new RfC, and try not to post so much during it that it scares off all uninvolved participation. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  In light of this result, I wonder whether the involved editors accept the following variant on the above proposal:

  In 2023, a 28-year-old female volunteer at Antioch affiliate River Church Banff in northern Scotland was convicted of sexual activity with an older child. The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator subsequently opened an inquiry about whether the church fulfilled their legal duties around child safeguarding and obligations as mandatory reporters of suspected abuse. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think that covers the key points. (I believe the conviction date was 2025. Maybe move the 2023 date to the end of the sentence?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose as written. (Summoned by bot) Massively over detailed for a single local event. Despite the lengthy text, one has to work hard to discover that this was a female perpetrator and a male victim. The age (range?) of either is never made clear. I don't know Scottish law, but read 'older child' to mean someone close to the age of consent, which in England is 16 in most circumstances. In fact they were 14, which is not that close at all. Age of victim and age difference to perpetrator are both relevant factors. I read above that the age is not included to protect the boy's privacy, but don't agree with that logic (many locals probably know who they are already, and age won't identify them to non-locals). The church was criticised by a court and by parents for failing to immediately notify authorities when it became aware of the accusations and brief outline of what the incidents were is all we need. As Shinealittlelight says above This degree of detail, … has often been treated … as a WP:COATRACK for specifically negative fine-grained details about this worldwide movement of churches … This incident was reported enough that it does deserve mention, but all this fine-grained detail is undue. ,Pincrete (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I have opened this thread to discuss the implementation of the recent RfC close and edit. While the closer suggested avoiding "excessive weight to direct quotes," the current one-sentence version removes the specific, notable points of the BFN report that the community found to be DUE.

I disagree with characterizing the RfC close as a "weak" conclusion to justify a minimal summary. While the closer suggested we avoid excessive weight to direct quotes, that is a note on style, not a mandate for removal of substance. The current one-sentence version omits the specific, notable points of the report (MLM structure, Antioch survivors) and most importantly, removes the church's response, which is a core requirement for a balanced NPOV summary. We cannot fulfill the RfC's mandate to include the material by removing the most notable facts of the report. A one-sentence summary that omits these details and deletes the church's response is not a neutral implementation of the RfC.

I am proposing the following draft as a compromise that honors both the RfC's mandate to include the material and the closer's suggestion to reduce the weight of direct quotes.

Proposed Implementation: In 2019, BuzzFeed News reported that several former members of Antioch Waco described the church’s structure as resembling multi-level marketing, noting that social and spiritual pressures were used to encourage members to spend more time and money on Antioch to recruit and disciple new members. One former member described Antioch as a harmful and cultic place that does not place the interest of the individuals first. The article also identified a support group for former members calling themselves "Antioch survivors" and noted that some individuals felt unwelcome due to identity-related issues such as homosexuality or opting out of missions. Seibert responded that the church is committed to investing in people and denied that they teach members to cut off contact with those who leave.

I believe this version retains the necessary substance while addressing the concerns raised about quote weight by converting the previous quotes into descriptive prose.

@Snow Rise:@WhatamIdoing:@North8000:@Sincreator: Since you all contributed to the RfC regarding the weight and balance of this specific BFN material, I would appreciate your input on whether this paraphrased draft better reflects the consensus than the current one-sentence summary. HonestHarbor (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I have always thought that "the church's response" was weird. The old paragraph accused them of A, B, and C, and "the church's response" was "Well, we never D". That response only makes sense if they're accused of D.

This suggested line: "One former member described Antioch as a harmful and cultic place that does not place the interest of the individuals first" is weird, because it assumes that "placing the interest of the individuals first" is what a church is supposed to do. @HonestHarbor, do you believe that religious organizations of any type really should "place the interest of the individuals" above things like justice and mercy and honesty? What would that even look like? "Oh, sure, go ahead and cheat on your taxes – be selfish and put yourself first!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The church went through some major changes. Any coverage of allegations must include the time period when the alleged behavior occurred. This is key info; conversely, omitting it makes the material misleading. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

If we are going to try to summarize the quotes of alleged former and current members from that piece in more detail, we shouldn't cherry pick the negative quotes; there are also these:

1. “The people who chose to stay were the more traditional families ... while Antioch always felt young and, like, sexy.”
2. The church’s plan was to move into the neighborhood and “love on them and minister to them”

If there is a consensus (big if, and I don't yet agree that there is) to include more details of what BFN says that alleged former member[s] say about Antioch, then I'd suggest something like: In 2019, BuzzFeed News published a piece about Chip and Joanna Gaines, and explored the effect that the Gaineses and Antioch had on life in North Waco during that period. An unspecified number of anonymous sources that BuzzFeed News described as former members were quoted in the report. Some described the church as youthful and well-intended, while others were critical of Antioch's discipleship practices, claiming that Antioch had inappropriately pressured its members to give time and money to the church. These details seem to me not notable, since this description is true of every single 5,000-person church on Earth. So I don't think it should be included. But if a consensus emerges to include more than the current version, which reflects the above RfC, then this is my suggestion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you all for the constructive feedback. I understand North8000's point that temporal context is vital, and WhatamIdoing that the logic of the church's response needs to be explicitly tied to the allegations. I also took your point that the “interests of the individual” phrasing was “weird” and removed that line. I also took Shinealittlelight's point that the BuzzFeed article had a broader scope regarding the Gaines family and gentrification.

To resolve this and implement the RfC faithfully, I propose this synthesized version. It removes the “excessive weight of quotes” per the closer, adds the requested context, and balances the viewpoints found in the source:

Synthesized Draft: In 2019, BuzzFeed News published a report examining the influence of Antioch Waco and the Gaines family on gentrification in North Waco. The article included retrospective accounts from former members regarding the church's culture; while some described the community as youthful and well-intended, others characterized the environment as harmful and cultic. These former members described the church’s structure as resembling multi-level marketing, alleging that social and spiritual pressures were used to encourage members to spend more time and money on Antioch to recruit and disciple new members. The report also identified a support group of “Antioch survivors” and noted that some individuals felt unwelcome due to identity-related issues such as homosexuality or opting out of missions. Addressing allegations that the church encouraged members to sever ties with those who leave, Seibert denied that such practices are taught and stated the church is committed to investing in people.

I believe this version addresses every concern raised in this thread while retaining the specific substance the RfC and RfC closer found to be DUE. HonestHarbor (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

In an ideal world, the article would contain facts about reality from a source, instead of facts about a source. See WP:MEDSAY for an example of what I mean, and then see if you can re-write this to avoid saying things like "published a report", "The article included", "The report also identified", etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance on WP:MEDSAY, @WhatamIdoing. I’ve revised the draft to remove the meta-reporting and focused instead on the facts of the situation and the specific accounts of the individuals involved. I believe this version is much more encyclopedic:

Revised Draft: In 2019, Antioch Waco and the Gaines family's influence on North Waco has been linked with gentrification. Regarding the church’s culture, retrospective accounts from the period described the community as youthful and well-intended, while former members characterized the environment as harmful and cultic. These former members described the church’s structure as resembling multi-level marketing, alleging that social and spiritual pressures were used to encourage members to spend more time and money on Antioch to recruit and disciple new members. A support group of “Antioch survivors” noted that some individuals felt unwelcome due to identity-related issues such as homosexuality or opting out of missions. Addressing allegations that the church encouraged members to sever ties with those who leave, Seibert denied that such practices are taught and stated the church is committed to investing in people.

HonestHarbor (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

All this detail still seems undue to me (the fact that some anonymous former attendees of a megachurch have some negative things to say about it is not notable and not encyclopedic). But if we're going to include more detail, I still prefer my version: In 2019, BuzzFeed News published a piece about Chip and Joanna Gaines, and explored the effect that the Gaineses and Antioch had on life in North Waco during that period. An unspecified number of anonymous sources that BuzzFeed News described as former members were quoted in the report. Some described the church as youthful and well-intended, while others were critical of Antioch's discipleship practices, claiming that Antioch had inappropriately pressured its members to give time and money to the church. What I prefer about my version is that it summarizes the force of the complaints instead of getting into a bunch of additional detail, it contextualizes the report as being primarily about the Gaineses, and adds some appropriate attribution to BFN. But even this shortened version is in my view obviously undue. As I have repeatedly argued, if we were to include this much detail from all our sources, the article would bloat to the point of being unreadable. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that a fairer summary of that source would sound more like "In 2019, BuzzFeed News identified three main factors contributing the gentrification of Waco: the home renovation stars Chip and Joanna Gaines, Baylor University, which brings 20,000 students into town, and the Antioch church in Waco." WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that does seem like the main point of the article, so that's a good point. However, we already have something a bit like that in the "impact on local community" section: In 2019, Buzzfeed News raised concerns about "gentrification" as a result of Antioch and the Gaines' "restoration" efforts, comparing Antioch, Baylor University, and Magnolia (Chip and Joanna Gaines' company) to a "company town" that influences the spread of "power and prosperity" in Waco. A response in The Baylor Lariat, Baylor University's student newspaper, reported mixed reactions to the BuzzFeed News article, including mixed reactions to whether Antioch has promoted diversity enough. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

One other thing: I think my summary here "inappropriately pressured its members to give time and money to the church" is getting the heart of the anonymously sourced complaints, without the parts that are basically unintelligible. Like can someone please explain what the comparison to MLMs means, or what "spiritual pressures" are? (As opposed to what, physical pressures?) Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

"Spiritual pressure" struck me as strange, too. The source says "spiritual incentives and social pressure", but I'm not sure what that means. It sounds like a televangelist saying "And if you give now, you'll get a tax deduction, five seconds of vague approval from the people sitting around you, and an Indulgence for the minor sin of your choice"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOR says "In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages ... Any passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided." This seems like a clear case where avoid is the right call. I tend to feel the same way about "cultic" and the comparison to MLMs. These are "unclear ... passages" that are "open to multiple interpretations". Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the deep dive into the prose, but I’m finding it difficult to reconcile the recent feedback with the earlier guidance.

• On Policy (MEDSAY vs. NOR): Earlier, I was encouraged to move away from "meta-reporting" per WP:MEDSAY to focus on the facts. Now, it is suggested that we not apply WP:MEDSAY and "avoid" the specific terms the source used (like "MLM" or "cultic") because they are "unclear." If we remove both the attribution to the source and the specific terms the source used, we aren't summarizing the report; we are erasing its findings. Replacing "MLM comparison" with "inappropriate pressure" is actually Original Research, as it interprets a specific structural allegation into a general one.

• On the RfC: The argument that this material is "not notable" or "undue" was the core of the RfC, and the community reached a consensus for Include. Re-litigating notability now is not productive. The comparison to Multi-level marketing, the "Antioch survivors" group, and the "cultic" characterization were the specific details found to be DUE.

• On Content: Since a section on gentrification already exists, the focus of this section should remain on the internal church culture and member experiences that were the subject of the RfC.

My revised draft addresses the closer's request to avoid excessive quotes by using descriptive prose, while incorporating the context requested by North8000, WhatamIdoing, and Shinealittlelight. This version is the most neutral, policy compliant path that honors the existing consensus. HonestHarbor (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The RfC conclusion was "to include some form of the material". It is of course possible to include it in a way that makes undue emphasis on details, or (per the RfC close) doesn't use the right "exact wording and extent" or that gives "excessive weight to direct quotes." That's what we are working out here. My own view is that the current version respects the RfC conclusion while avoiding inclusion of undue detail. I can't tell if the other participants in this discussion agree with me. If they don't, then I have suggested that the MLM and "cultic" charges are too unclear to include. We could attribute them, of course, and use exact quotes, but that would be unencyclopedic and weird. We should, per WP:NOR, simply leave these details out since we should in general not rely on unclear passages that are open to multiple interpretations. I agree with your point that "inappropriate" is OR--my mistake. Probably 'critical of discipleship practices' is similarly OR. So if consensus is to include a more detailed summary against my preference, then I'd suggest what I wrote, but omitting the word 'inappropriate' and also 'critical of discipleship practices': In 2019, BuzzFeed News published a piece about Chip and Joanna Gaines, and explored the effect that the Gaineses and Antioch had on life in North Waco during that period. An unspecified number of anonymous sources that BuzzFeed News described as former members were quoted in the report. Some described the church as youthful and well-intended, while others said that Antioch had pressured its members to give time and money to the church. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I feel that I currently do not know the subject, article and discussion history well enough to where I should comment further right now. For now I plan to sit back and let you folks who know it better than me discuss. If more outside input is needed please ping me and I'll take a deeper dive into learning more about the subject, article and discussion history in order to comment further. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• It would be a problem to replace "MLM comparison" with "inappropriate pressure". But the question you should be addressing is whether the source's report of complaints about "social pressure" is fairly described as a "inappropriate pressure".
• The closing summary did not find that the comparison to Multi-level marketing, the "Antioch survivors" group, and the "cultic" characterization were the specific details found to be DUE. The closing summary didn't identify any specific details at all as being DUE. Overall the closing summary leaned against quoting exact words from the source.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Incorporating RfC and Community Feedback: Thank you @North8000: for your valuable input on the temporal context. I have ensured that the "2019" and "retrospective" framing remains central to the draft to address your concern. When you do have time to review the revised draft to comment further on this Former Members topic and the River Church Banff topic, that’d be great!

Shinealittlelight, I appreciate the proposal, I’ve been looking for a way to bridge the gap between the RfC consensus and the recent feedback. My concern with the most recent trimming is that we are stripping the substance that the RfC community originally voted to include. My goal with this revised draft is to ensure we don't summarize away the specific identifiers that the RfC community evaluated:

1. WP:V and RfC Scope: Terms like "MLM" and "cultic" were the central allegations of the BuzzFeed News report and the specific points debated. Including these terms maintain the encyclopedic weight of the source. The source used these descriptors specifically, and we should report them faithfully to satisfy WP:V. This aligns with the existing sociological framework in the article, where sociologist Dougherty notes the "cult-like" intensity perceived by outsiders.
2. Neutrality vs. Omission: Your latest proposal removes the comparison to Multi-level marketing, the "Antioch survivors" group, and the church's specific response to severing ties with former members. These are not minor details; they are the substance of the reporting. Omitting it changes the nature of the reporting.
3. Consistency: We cannot use WP:NOR to justify deleting the source's actual language. If the source uses a specific descriptor like "MLM," using that term is the opposite of original research; it’s faithful reporting.

While it is true the closer did not list every specific term, the RfC was a discussion about a specific set of allegations directly found in the BuzzFeed News report. The community consensus to "Include" was based on the significance of those specific findings, including the structural comparison to Multi-level marketing and the existence of the "Antioch survivors" group. The source specifically draws these structural comparisons. To omit these now is to include the form of the material while removing its substance.

To find a middle ground, I’ve drafted a version that keeps the clinical tone requested. I have removed "weird" wording and incorporated WP:MEDSAY tone as requested by WhatamIdoing. I agree replacing the source's specific descriptor (MLM) is problematic. But replacing "social pressure" is less precise. As SnowRise noted during the RfC, these are the specifics that make the content DUE. I have also integrated the perspective of Sincreator regarding a "low-weight" mention. This draft achieves that by condensing an extensive investigative report into a single paragraph that balances the primary topic of the source (gentrification/community impact) with the specific cultural allegations (MLM structure/survivors' group) that the RfC community evaluated as WP:DUE. To ensure we are implementing the RfC faithfully, I'd also appreciate if @Snow Rise: and @Sincreator: could weigh in for their input on the current Revised Draft.

Revised Draft:

In 2019, Antioch Waco and the Gaines family's influence on North Waco has been linked with gentrification and a "Magnolia Effect" in a community then comprising over 21% Black and 32% Latino residents with a 26.8% poverty rate. A report by Buzzfeed News characterized the intersection of the church, Baylor University, and the Magnolia brand as a "company town" dynamic where religious mission and private enterprise combined to influence power balances over local governance, real estate markets, and social standards in Waco. The Baylor Lariat noted local response to the investigation was mixed; some residents and Baylor staff defended the church’s leadership diversity, noting the inclusion of Black and female pastors. Others, including church-affiliated tour guides, expressed concern over a "white savior mentality" and argued that the church enabled systemic racism through its development efforts. Regarding the church’s culture, while former members characterized the environment as harmful and cultic, retrospective accounts from the period described the community as youthful and well-intended. These former members also described the church’s structure as resembling multi-level marketing, alleging that social and spiritual pressures were used to encourage members to spend more time and money on Antioch to recruit and disciple new members. A support group of "Antioch survivors" noted that some individuals felt unwelcome due to identity-related issues such as homosexuality or opting out of missions. Addressing allegations that the church encouraged members to sever ties with those who leave, Seibert denied that such practices are taught and stated the church is committed to investing in people.

I have proposed a draft that incorporates all the requested context (gentrification, 2019 timeline, praise/criticism balance), balancing the RfC's "Include" mandate, talk page requests, while retaining the RfC's core findings. I'm hoping this version feels fair to everyone. Adding hard data (demographics) and the Lariat’s defense of the church to balance out the BFN criticisms. Is this close enough to a middle ground for us to wrap this up?HonestHarbor (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

What does "to influence power balances over local governance, real estate markets, and social standards" mean? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Generally, Antioch, Baylor, and Magnolia Effect’s strong influence on shaping politics (city boards and commissions), Fixer Upper effect, Christian lifestyle. HonestHarbor (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay. We should find a different phrase instead of "to influence power balances". Maybe something like "religious mission and private enterprise affected local governance, real estate markets, and social standards in Waco"?

Why isn't the university mentioned in the first sentence? (I'd also drop the "In 2019" bit, as this is certainly a multi-year effect.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2026 (UTC)