Talk:Integrity USA

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

On 15 May 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Integrity USA scandal in The Episcopal Church to Integrity USA. The result of the discussion was moved.

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

United States: Kentucky This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky (assessed as Low-importance). Christianity: Anglicanism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Low-importance). LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Organizations This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

this page is blatenly Biased,please fix it. I would fix it myself but my own opions would proboly just make it worseTjb891 21:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree...this page needs major cleaning.--Lord Balin 03:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Almost the whole page is lifted from http://www.integrityusa.org/WhatIsIntegrity/index.htm the orginisations own website. I can have a go at rewritting it but Im not really a fan of their position so it might be a bit biased the other way. Also does anyone have anything on organisations that go the other way (ie anti gay (or should it be pro hetrp;))) and their opinions?

CaptinJohn (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

The beginning of this article states "Integrity USA (1974-2019) was a nonprofit organization..." Although Integrity USA is a deeply troubled organization (as noted in the article), it still exists. Click here to see the latest news. John Clinton Bradley (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Depending on the time of day when you log in, Integrity USA is either an extant organization doing hyperlocal organizing, or extinct. Who knows which is which? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcd504 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

WP:ActualCOI Agaulnashings12 (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Constructive criticism given in a civil, respectful manner is a vital part in a collaborative project like Wikipedia, and it should be welcomed rather than discouraged. Wikipedia values contributions from everyone—novices and experts alike. It is important to listen to readers who find an article biased, confusing or unconvincing. They might not have the expertise to fix those problems, but the fact that they report them probably means that an article needs improvement. Agaulnashings12 (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

From Episcopal News Service article:

According to IRS filings, Integrity had $516,152 in net assets at the start of 2013 and had been taking in well over $200,000 per year for the preceding several years. By 2015, the last year it filed a full return to the IRS, Integrity reported $134,029 in net assets. That year, it reported just $54,574 in revenue, but $225,225 in expenses.

I think this information on missing $400,000 needs to be edited carefully.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pemberlies (talk • contribs)

The word "abuse" has been repeatedly added to the lead section, in tandem with a link to Anglican Communion sexual abuse cases. I tried to remove the abuse article from the "See also" section, since there is not a single allegation of it against this group, and its presence is unhelpful. I also tried to remove "abuse" from the lead section, as it's a bizarre way to describe financial misconduct. It was immediately restored, with a Wikilawyering defense on the grounds of a Wiktionary definition. I don't use the term WP:POV pushing lightly, but a single-purpose account seems determined to turn this into an article about a scandal, rather than a WP:NPOV article about the group.

This article was also linked in the "See also" section of Anglican Communion sexual abuse cases, by the same editor. Why? Storchy (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

"Abuse" should not appear in the lead. It's barely mentioned in the article, and what is mentioned in the article isn't accurate. The sentence reads: "On November 25, 2019, following her published statement defending the abuse by Integrity's leadership, Integrity USA's president resigned, citing the need to spend more time with her family." The word "abuse" never actually appears in the source; it appears to be SYNTH, or perhaps POV-pushing. A much better word choice would be "mismanagement", which actually appears in the source. -- Kbabej (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've done some more work on removing other WP:SYNTH within the article, along with some unsourced claims and some off-topic sentences about a board candidate's political career, and some more general edits for what I hope is a more neutral tone. Do you have any further recommendations? Storchy (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

You've done a good job with cleaning this up! Kudos. I don't have any immediate thoughts. --Kbabej (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

The author’s claim that there are no sexual misconduct allegations concerning the operations of Integrity USA is, sadly, inaccurate. I advise caution regarding the manner in which this article continued to be edited. Pemberlies (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm all for caution with serious allegations like sexual abuse or sexual misconduct, especially about living people. You're claiming that there are sexual misconduct allegations: have you got reliable sources to verify this? Storchy (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Can you provide a reliable source for that claim, @Pemberlies? Nothing in the article or the current sources on the page suggest any sexual misconduct. And agreed - we need to use caution, but not in the way you're positing. Sexual misconduct allegations are very serious, and should absolutely not be included without reliable sourcing. --Kbabej (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

If a section about sexual misconduct allegations within the operations of Integrity USA is eventually published (if and when the information becomes more accessible,) it would be best to make that section independent from the financial misconduct allegations. Each would be serious enough to merit its own section.

The claim that there are no sexual misconduct allegations concerning the operations of Integrity USA is, sadly, inaccurate. I advise caution regarding the manner in which this article continues to be edited. Pemberlies (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

And you will still need reliable sources to verify your claims of "sexual misconduct".

Regarding your re-addition of claims of "homophobic slurs", please see WP:RSOPINION, which says "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person..." Blogs are not a reliable source. Storchy (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

How about a published statement by Integrity USA's President regarding the comments published on November 15, 2019? Pemberlies (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Post it here please, and we can all have a look at the reliability of the source, and what it actually says. Storchy (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

No, deleted Facebook posts are not regarded as reliable sources on Wikipedia. Please don't use those again as sources for contentious claims, especially about living people. Storchy (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kbabej: I've tried to do some more cleanup today for neutral tone, and would be glad to hear your thoughts on it.
At the moment most of the article is a detailed account of the misconduct allegations late in the organisation's lifetime, sourced mainly by one journalist from the official EC news outlet. There's almost nothing about what happened in the organisation from 1974 to 2019. It would be good if more content could be added about the actual work they did as an organisation, and I'm hoping to add more of this. However, as a straight British man, American LGBT Christianity is not something I'm very familiar with, so it will take some time for me to do this. Since you're from the US, I'd be grateful for any help you can offer. Thanks, Storchy (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

https://storage.googleapis.com/wzukusers/user-29408920/documents/19a3bc34a9fe4781a5f7f6639669963b/Treasurer's%20Report%20for%2019%20May%202020%20reviewed.pdf Pemberlies (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Pemberlies, that is not for WP to determine. That would fall under original research. --Kbabej (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Pemberlies, I asked this on your talk page but you have not replied. Do you have a connection with this article or topic? Your entire WP editing experience has been focusing on this area. --Kbabej (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Pemberlies: You've re-added Category:Misconduct by Christian clergy. I can see nothing in the article about misconduct by clergy. To whom is that category referring?

You've also re-added Episcopal Survivors Network to the external links. Again, what's the connection? Storchy (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Storchy, I removed that. There isn't a connection. The Episcopal Survivors Network pdf is talking about sexual abuse and related issues, not financial mismanagement. --Kbabej (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply