This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Reachout Trust article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is at present (14.05.2007) factual.
Reachouttrust 06:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I am going to attempt to expand the article with material and citations from reputable secondary sources. Smee 04:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
Not sure if this is the way this should be done but have received this email:
I have unblocked your account. I'm not sure why it was blocked - it may be that an administrator thought it was an impersonator of your organisation - or being used for promotional purposes.
What I'd encourage you to do is to make suggestions for changes to the article
on the discussion page of the article. Click the 'discussion' tab at the top - and be willing to work with our users to generate a neutral article, containing only information verifiable for reliable sources.
We generally discourage people from editing articles they are immediately concerned with, because many subjects find neutrality difficult and essentially wish an advert/promotion with all critical material removed. However, if you are willing to work with other editors, it should help them to make a good article, that is fair and neutral.
Yours sincerely, Scott MacDonald
-- Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org
I would like to do this and the email came in response from my complint that the page as it stands now contains some clear inaccuracies that have been picked up from web articles but have not been checked with us.
The two main ones I would ask you to change are:
1. Maureen Davies is not a key person for Reachout Trust – she was an Area Director at one time but she left the organisation over 10 years ago. When they quoted Maureen as a reliable source it was for information she produced not us.
2. We did not publish the booklet Doorways to Danger and had nothing to do with its producing – that was the Evangelical Alliance.
I did not start this page but am very happy to have information about us here but please can it be correct. Thank you. You can contact me via rt@reachouttrust.org should you need to.
-- Reachouttrust 13:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Doug Harris
What is going on here? I see a lot of comments being deleted, and it doesn't appear to be by the editor who made the comments. They're listed as "Personal attack" on the history, which is controversial enough, but reading the most recent entry deleted I don't see anything that would constitute a personal attack. Perhaps it would be more helpful if the editor who feels personally attacked were to respond civilly and concisely? We can remove the whole discussion afterwards, but it is important to bring the discussion out in the open--we don't want personal attacks on Wikipedia, nor do we want "personal attack" to be used in an overly broad way so let's clarify and discuss. Gruber76 12:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
In response to [3].
You are right it is no co-incidence regarding the Reachout Trust article. I had the article on my watchlist because it used to give undue weighting to the BKWSU (something 244 added) when they do, in fact, focus on the LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses primarily. There is only one testimony on their website about BKWSU and testimonies are not even valid citations for Wikipeda. I have no real beef with Reachout Trust. They are really just doing what they were set up to do.
If I notice vandalism on any page I am watching I aim to correct it.
If you check the history you will see that I actually removed some blatant bias against the Reachout Trust [4]. I also reported the vandalism and the user concerned was blocked since he already had a final warning [5].
It was unfortunate that someone then decided to turn the whole article into an advert for Reachout Trust in violation of Wikipedia's policies on self-promotion and using a spam username. I couldn't find any references about Reachout Trust on the internet so I decided to flag the page for what it was, a promotional advert.
Since then Smee has kindly recreated the article with proper references, which is how it should be.
Thanks & regards. Bksimonb 07:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Smee , I realize that the assoication was un intential but in describing the groups both Christian and non-christian that Reachout Trust seeks to minister to, the article seems to be associating Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons with the occult and New Age. Is there a better way to phrase that introductory sentence? I realize that some religious groups choose to categorize Mormons and JW's as "Non-Christian" but that's a separate issue entirely. The way it is worded now, it does seem to imply that they are NOT Christian. I'll see if I can come up with a better wording. In the meantime, perhaps you can do the same. How would you feel about this:
That way you are categorizing the Christian sects by their difference in theology while showing they are different in origin from the New Age and Neo-Pagan movements. Strictly speaking, you could say "Christian sects arising from the 19th century Adventist movement" but that would also include Seventh Day Adventists and Christian Science and I don't know if Reachout Trust specifically targets those groups for evangelizing. I wouldn't want to imply that if they don't. LiPollis 15:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I notice that the word "pseudo" which I presume has the meaning of false. You may not agree with what we do or some of what we say but I take exception to being called pseudo evangelical Christians. We ARE evangelical Christians and I request that the word psudo is taken out.
Thank you.
217.64.121.180 15:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I notice that the word 'pseudo', which was removed earlier, has been put back in to the article.
I object strongly to this as it is not true. We are not a 'pseudo' evenagelacal group; we are Evangelical Christians.
I request that this incorrect word be removed.
Thank you.
Reachouttrust 15:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Reachout Trust article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is at present (14.05.2007) factual.
Reachouttrust 06:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I am going to attempt to expand the article with material and citations from reputable secondary sources. Smee 04:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
Not sure if this is the way this should be done but have received this email:
I have unblocked your account. I'm not sure why it was blocked - it may be that an administrator thought it was an impersonator of your organisation - or being used for promotional purposes.
What I'd encourage you to do is to make suggestions for changes to the article
on the discussion page of the article. Click the 'discussion' tab at the top - and be willing to work with our users to generate a neutral article, containing only information verifiable for reliable sources.
We generally discourage people from editing articles they are immediately concerned with, because many subjects find neutrality difficult and essentially wish an advert/promotion with all critical material removed. However, if you are willing to work with other editors, it should help them to make a good article, that is fair and neutral.
Yours sincerely, Scott MacDonald
-- Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org
I would like to do this and the email came in response from my complint that the page as it stands now contains some clear inaccuracies that have been picked up from web articles but have not been checked with us.
The two main ones I would ask you to change are:
1. Maureen Davies is not a key person for Reachout Trust – she was an Area Director at one time but she left the organisation over 10 years ago. When they quoted Maureen as a reliable source it was for information she produced not us.
2. We did not publish the booklet Doorways to Danger and had nothing to do with its producing – that was the Evangelical Alliance.
I did not start this page but am very happy to have information about us here but please can it be correct. Thank you. You can contact me via rt@reachouttrust.org should you need to.
-- Reachouttrust 13:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Doug Harris
What is going on here? I see a lot of comments being deleted, and it doesn't appear to be by the editor who made the comments. They're listed as "Personal attack" on the history, which is controversial enough, but reading the most recent entry deleted I don't see anything that would constitute a personal attack. Perhaps it would be more helpful if the editor who feels personally attacked were to respond civilly and concisely? We can remove the whole discussion afterwards, but it is important to bring the discussion out in the open--we don't want personal attacks on Wikipedia, nor do we want "personal attack" to be used in an overly broad way so let's clarify and discuss. Gruber76 12:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
In response to [3].
You are right it is no co-incidence regarding the Reachout Trust article. I had the article on my watchlist because it used to give undue weighting to the BKWSU (something 244 added) when they do, in fact, focus on the LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses primarily. There is only one testimony on their website about BKWSU and testimonies are not even valid citations for Wikipeda. I have no real beef with Reachout Trust. They are really just doing what they were set up to do.
If I notice vandalism on any page I am watching I aim to correct it.
If you check the history you will see that I actually removed some blatant bias against the Reachout Trust [4]. I also reported the vandalism and the user concerned was blocked since he already had a final warning [5].
It was unfortunate that someone then decided to turn the whole article into an advert for Reachout Trust in violation of Wikipedia's policies on self-promotion and using a spam username. I couldn't find any references about Reachout Trust on the internet so I decided to flag the page for what it was, a promotional advert.
Since then Smee has kindly recreated the article with proper references, which is how it should be.
Thanks & regards. Bksimonb 07:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Smee , I realize that the assoication was un intential but in describing the groups both Christian and non-christian that Reachout Trust seeks to minister to, the article seems to be associating Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons with the occult and New Age. Is there a better way to phrase that introductory sentence? I realize that some religious groups choose to categorize Mormons and JW's as "Non-Christian" but that's a separate issue entirely. The way it is worded now, it does seem to imply that they are NOT Christian. I'll see if I can come up with a better wording. In the meantime, perhaps you can do the same. How would you feel about this:
That way you are categorizing the Christian sects by their difference in theology while showing they are different in origin from the New Age and Neo-Pagan movements. Strictly speaking, you could say "Christian sects arising from the 19th century Adventist movement" but that would also include Seventh Day Adventists and Christian Science and I don't know if Reachout Trust specifically targets those groups for evangelizing. I wouldn't want to imply that if they don't. LiPollis 15:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I notice that the word "pseudo" which I presume has the meaning of false. You may not agree with what we do or some of what we say but I take exception to being called pseudo evangelical Christians. We ARE evangelical Christians and I request that the word psudo is taken out.
Thank you.
217.64.121.180 15:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I notice that the word 'pseudo', which was removed earlier, has been put back in to the article.
I object strongly to this as it is not true. We are not a 'pseudo' evenagelacal group; we are Evangelical Christians.
I request that this incorrect word be removed.
Thank you.
Reachouttrust 15:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)