This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Salvation Army 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 |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Camp Sunrise page were merged into The Salvation Army on 16 March 2015. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I restored the section of Life issues which was refractored, without any previous debate, by a non-registered user. All are welcome to help improve the article but I would like to remember that important parts of the article can't be deleted or refractored without a previous debate. In what concerns to the Life issues section I think it makes sense to have a single article about their stances on abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty, because they are important questions for nowadays Christian denominations and that is the common standard use at Wikipedia. It also should be noticed that the non-registered user deleted, without any explanation, the stance on the death penalty. Mistico ( talk) 19:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The official website really shows that their content is copyrighted. So, I guess the article needs some sources, since their stances on life issues are now totally unsourced. I am also restoring part of their stance on the death penalty. Mistico ( talk) 21:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why the same text should be repeated twice about abortion and euthanasia. I am merging the text into one I until someone can provide acceptable sources. 81.193.222.169 ( talk) 21:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I found this source about their official stances on life issues: [1]. I think it is a Reliable Source. 81.193.222.169 ( talk) 21:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Their salute is 1 finger pointing toward heaven and 3 fingers pointing back at themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.122.215 ( talk) 04:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I will grant that the statistics given about number of congregations, members, and ministers was perhaps a year out of date. However, I object to the removal of these numbers rather than just updating them from the reference given. The new number given, 22 million+ ministers, is patently inflated. There is no way it can be true. The Army's own numbers give the following statistics: corps: 15,765; officers: 17,070; soldiers: 1,132,823; adherent members: 181,901. I assume here that "corps" refers to congregations and "officers" refers to ministers. What I don't understand is the difference between "soldiers" and "adherent members" and why they differ by a factor of 10. By contrast, the new reference given says: 'worldwide ... 22 million officers, employees, adherents, and program participants.' That is clearly not the number of ministers! That is an inflated figure which includes all the people they serve in ministries. Please correct the numbers or I will just revert to the old ones, despite their slight inaccuracy, they were better than what we have now, and used a primary source. Elizium23 ( talk) 02:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
-- WPaulB ( talk) 13:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I had made a change to the body of the segment headed "LGBT Issues" The original text implied that the Bible condemns homosexuals in their life on Earth to be put to death. I have yet to see a verse suggesting this. 174.93.114.129 ( talk) 01:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The entire section about homosexuality should be removed. What purpose does it serve? At the very least it should be severely shortened. There is no reason for the largest section in the entire article to be about LGBT issues. It just gives more ammunition to people who claim that wikipedia is merely a tool for political activists. (user - not a regular editor or a salvation army member, just someone looking for information, 5/28/2016) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.51.61 ( talk) 00:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I reinstated several pieces someone removed under the guise of WP:RS. Some of the Cits are the S.Army themself so not sure how or why they think removal is right? Let alone this has been in the news and affected the SA around the world. -- Sonic2030 ( talk) 14:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
It may make more sense to create a new article about Homosexuality and The Salvation Army to focus on these issues. Viriditas ( talk) 00:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the enormous list of recipients of the Order of Distinguished Auxiliary Service should be removed. It just doesn't look right here. Maybe it needs it's own article? Theroadislong ( talk) 19:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The infprmation in the Aust section has been edited down to the referances. What is there now is supported and factual. Resaltador ( talk) 19:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Does that mean it's a church? Shouldn't it say clearly somewhere to clarify that? GreaseballNYC ( talk) 15:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
El Ejercito de Salvacion es conciderado por si mismo como un "movimiento" que en teoria forma parte de la iglesia universal cristiana, tal vez por esto no encuentre la palabra iglesia de forma textual. El Ejercito de Salvacion no se limita solo a ser una iglesia, su mision abarca algo mas (como por ejemplo la ayuda social). Espero que aclare G algo (Quienes son estos salvasionistas de General (R) Shaw Clifton) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.135.71 ( talk) 02:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The website "Truth Wins Out" is not a reliable secondary source and cannot be used to back up assertions in this article. Please do not add it as a source. Elizium23 ( talk) 17:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Should it be time to add a section regarding the Ray & Joan Kroc Corps Community Centers? These Centers are notable since they are fitness/rec/community/performing arts Centers as well as The Salvation Army traditional churches. Joan Kroc gave The Salvation Army the largest philanthropic gift to a charity in US history to build these: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4006823/ns/us_news/#.UxLBuvldUXs.
The latest Kroc Center, the 27th, will open in Norfolk, VA on April 29th, 2014, and will be a 92,000 square foot facility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauve.sean ( talk • contribs) 05:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
In January 2014, I determined that the original English variety used in this article was American English, and tagged it appropriately. In May of that year, Metsfreak2121 changed this tag to British English with no rationale and without updating the date or notifying me. Koavf created a corresponding editnotice for British English in September. Now we have a real confusion. The article is written in American English, and has been since its creation. It is arguable by WP:TIES to change to British English, however, TSA is an international organization and its leadership has moved far past the London-based org of their roots. Just look at the current makeup of the High Council of The Salvation Army. So I think WP:TIES is an invalid rationale in this case and we should instead be looking at WP:RETAIN to retain the original English variety used at article creation. However, there is still a small problem. The editnotice still says British English. I have issued an edit request to change this, but I just wanted to make sure that WP:CONSENSUS was still in favor of American English usage here. Thank you. Elizium23 ( talk) 18:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
'Organization' is US English, with a 'zed' ('zee'). 'Organisation' is British English, with an 's'. The main reason why the Salvation Army' article is designated for UK English is surely because the SA originated in the UK back in the 19th century. As we all know it is now a global organisation having reached out to (almost) every corner of the earth from its London origins. But that's no reason why it should alter its identity by having another kind of English used in general tittle-tattle. After all, we (the Brits) 'invented' the lingo by jingo!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.233.49 ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 1 February 2015
User:Tsasouth (who appears to be the IP user 50.207.11.29) has repeatedly reverted multiple user's edits which removed website links from the infobox. I don't know why the user is so upset about a trivial matter, because they haven't provided any reason for opposing the edits. Can someone change the page protection? -- Hazhk Talk 16:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
In the interest of full disclosure, the email I received is here:
8:33 AM
Dear Winkelvi, I am the <position redacted for privacy> for The Salvation Army. We appreciate your support and effort in keeping our wiki page updated and free of cyber vandals. However the changes made were by Official Salvation Army personnel. We would like for this information to remain.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me directly at <email address redacted@for privacy>
Thank you!
<name redacted for privacy>
<position redacted for privacy>
The Salvation Army
As I stated at the SPI for the User:Tsasouth account, I think they are just totally unfamiliar with Wikipedia, how it works, and the fact that the article on The Salvation Army is owned by Wikipedia and they don't have special rights or privileges in regard to it. Hopefully, discussion with them will take place at the Tsasouth talk page during the edit warring block so we can discuss and help them better understand policies and guidelines. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Although this article concerns a worldwide organisation, it was founded in Britain in 1865 by a British Methodist preacher, and is still headquartered in the UK (it waited another 15 years before opening up in the US). Although not a major issue, I do think this should be in British English, rather than the current American variant. – SchroCat ( talk) 10:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Even if you have checked that the Salvation Army is specifically Protestant why would you need this detail in the lead? Britmax ( talk) 21:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
... takes out reference to the Salvation Army using the bible and the fact that the organisation welcomes everyone regardless of bias. I regard this as as his attempt to start an edit war because for the article to be factually accurate it needs to advise readers that the Army doctrine is based on the bible. Being an administrator of wikipedia doesnt give you the right to behave like a Jihadist. Adrian816 ( talk) 00:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
In the summary box, top right where there’s the logo I want to add “sacred text: bible”. what wikimarkup code do I need to use for that special section of the page? A person from a different religion may not know this fact. thanks Adrian816 ( talk) 23:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
If this discussion is still open, I suggest it would be worth specifying which version of the bible, and the preferred translation used in meetings. tim.wilson.online ( talk) 01:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
is the infobox metadata tag of sacred_text not recognised? My edit doesnt seem to have been processed for "sacred_text = Bible" in the infobox metadata section at the top of the source code for the page
Adrian816 ( talk) 23:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
..... so will an administrator please verify citation of source and remove "warning unsourced content" banner. thanks Adrian816 ( talk) 14:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Here's some text I added to the article "Work with people at risk of exploitation continues to this day, with a specialist team." followed by a link to the official website. What I want to do is have the words "specialist team" as a link to the website (html code allows links in text where the link is underlined). Is that accepted style, or is the present layout more appropriate? Please advise what help pages to look at. Thanks Adrian816 ( talk) 15:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
The Salvation Army has a verified twitter account @salvationarmyuk, how do I cite it in a reference?
cite web | url=@salvationarmyuk | website=www.twitter.com or is there a "cite twitter" ?
Adrian816 ( talk) 22:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Add new website for Inclusion and LGBT policy, something to do on my PC, editing Wikipedia isn’t iPad friendly
https://www.salvationarmy.org.uk/inclusion
Adrian816 ( talk) 20:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
is this text for the website:
Official website www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn
but that relates to the official website for the North America country only, not the worldwide Salvation Army organisation. The worldwide Salvation Army website is https://www.salvationarmy.org
Please advise how to get the official website on the page template changed from the country of USA to the Global website Thanks Adrian816 ( talk) 02:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
In the section Structure, organisation and expenditures is a paragraph starting "The most recent statistics for membership". I'm wondering if Wikipedia supports display of statistical data as rows and columns of numbers in a spreadsheet or tablular format? I'm wondering if that's a better way of displaying the data than paragraphs of text. What help pages would I need to read please for creating numerical tables (rows and columns of data with row and column heading text). Thanks Adrian816 ( talk) 19:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Do not move - Keep "The Salvation Army" as titled per majority consensus. Nicholemacgregor ( talk) 20:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The Salvation Army →
Salvation Army – Per
WP:THE.
Chicbyaccident (
talk) 16:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.
Mahveotm (
talk)
11:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Note that this RM was closed as no move by an editor who had participated in the debate (although they failed to sign their contribution) and opposed the move. They stated it was "per majority consensus". It was seven oppose to five support. Of the opposers, one has made no other contribution except to this debate and one is an IP. At least three of the opposers seemed to misunderstand Wikipedia titling practices as they claimed we wouldn't state "I worked for Salvation Army" (or whatever). No, we wouldn't, but if we followed this logic we would put a definite article in hundreds of thousands of our article titles that do not currently have them. Maybe this should have been closed as a no consensus. But it certainly should not have been closed by an interested party as a consensus. Just to point out to anyone who uses this discussion as any form of precedent. It's not. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Note that the editor who closed this RM followed the guidelines of Wikipedia after more than the required time had elapsed. Wikipedia advises that an editor who has contributed to the debate not close the RM as the intentions may be misconstrued, but there is no sense in leaving open an RM for weeks on end. Nicholemacgregor ( talk) 17:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I am doing some section sorting. My rationale is that we should really first describe what the Salvation Army (SA) is today. Then we can describe its history. Then the "Organizational structure". Then the "Symbols" and stuff. For somebody who wants to know what it is, you should first describe its clergy and facilities and stuff like that. That is what the SA is today. It is a modern Protestant church with an emphasis on charity work. It has modern worship services. It has its thrift shops. It provides a service to the community with homeless shelters and Adult Rehabilitation Centers and such. That is what the article should lead with.-- Sa57arc ( talk) 21:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Britmax: Changes from "LGBT" to "LGBTQIA+" represent a broader community
I'm not going to undo your reversion without discussion, but believe the change back to "LGBTQIA+" is more appropriate / inclusive.
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 19:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
that activist critics of The Salvation Army aren't activists for queer, intersex, asexual, or for example enby peoplelooks much more like OR.You have no actual argument here beyond "I just don't like it", which holds no weight in Wikipedia editorial consensus, so I am making the same changes. Apart from the one instance inside a quote, which I assume was an accidental change. -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 22:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This may have been covered in previous discussion, so I am asking first: is there a legitimate reason for the history section to not include past activities such as union-busting efforts on the part of the Salvation Army? This seems like an important part of the history of the organization, helping to illuminate its political and secular activities, and bring into relief its use of funds to further specific political goals that are perhaps not in the interest of those who have been convinced to donate to them in the mistaken belief that such funds will be used solely for philanthropic and humanitarian purposes. As it stands, the "history" section reads more like a PR release from the SA itself. Whateley23 ( talk) 02:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
With regards to colour-coded epaulettes, I suggest mentioning that officers have maroon epaulettes and soldiers have blue epaulettes. When I first joined I wondered what the colour difference meant, and no-one actually explained it to me ... it took me a while to figure it out! However, I don't know if these epaulette colours are used consistently across all territories; I know that there are differences in uniform in different parts of the world. Can anyone please comment? tim.wilson.online ( talk) 01:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Just saw the section on uniform; the uniform described there is definitely not correct for dinner territories eg Australia. Someone with expert knowledge of this topic may want to review and amend. tim.wilson.online ( talk) 01:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
(apologies ... by 'dinner territories' I meant 'some territories'. Swipe text fail!!) tim.wilson.online ( talk) 01:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Central Nova News ( https://centralnovanews.com/stories/613274980-along-with-coins-this-christmas-salvation-army-wants-white-donors-to-offer-a-sincere-apology-for-their-racismand ) and Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit reported on 24th Nov 2021... Salvation Army Wants White Donors to Offer “Sincere Apology” for Their Racism ( https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/salvation-army-wants-white-donors-offer-sincere-apology-racism/ ) Can anyone throw light on the SA's stand on this policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.12.8 ( talk) 13:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Paul Simmons’ “Hazy Shade of Winter”, also covered by the bangles includes :
“Time, time, time See what's become of me While I looked around for my possibilities I was so hard to please But look around Leaves are brown And the sky is a hazy shade of winter
Hear the Salvation Army band
Down by the riverside's Bound to be a better ride Than what you've got planned Carry your cup in your hand And look around you Leaves are brown, now And the sky is a hazy shade of winter”
Based on some of the entries regarding movies this is relevant. I mean I haven’t heard rather version since the 90s but combined they made millions of dollars right? 2604:2D80:A282:1300:F097:9303:D47F:9035 ( talk) 22:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
There may potentially be bias in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EloquentMosquito ( talk • contribs) 09:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I feel that the "in movies" and "in music" sections could be combined into an "in popular culture" section, at least because I can't find anywhere to put the fact that the second-generation Worms games features a weapon called "Salvation Army", which appears as a bellringer hitting a tambourine, marching forwards before exploding. 2A00:23C6:9982:EE01:D826:16EA:E5F:1D88 ( talk) 17:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
My name isPhilip Walter's I would like permission to to enter your property I am inquiring because I am looking to settle in the. Area and have extensive property maintenance experience and would e willing to provide said service in exchange for living on your property 172.58.137.29 ( talk) 14:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The reference for this is tagged as needing to be replaced with a better one, except it never will be because this "controversy" is almost exclusively a manufactured one. Speaking about a "broader public controversy" in Wikipedia's voice is unacceptable as it plays into the narrative promoted by the American right that this is something that was a problem in the first place. It's fine to mention criticisms from the right and attribute them to sources like Fox, but not to use language that uncritically accepts the framing of the "controversy". I believe any reference to a "broader" controversy should be omitted. WP Ludicer ( talk) 11:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Salvation Army 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 |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Camp Sunrise page were merged into The Salvation Army on 16 March 2015. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I restored the section of Life issues which was refractored, without any previous debate, by a non-registered user. All are welcome to help improve the article but I would like to remember that important parts of the article can't be deleted or refractored without a previous debate. In what concerns to the Life issues section I think it makes sense to have a single article about their stances on abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty, because they are important questions for nowadays Christian denominations and that is the common standard use at Wikipedia. It also should be noticed that the non-registered user deleted, without any explanation, the stance on the death penalty. Mistico ( talk) 19:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The official website really shows that their content is copyrighted. So, I guess the article needs some sources, since their stances on life issues are now totally unsourced. I am also restoring part of their stance on the death penalty. Mistico ( talk) 21:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why the same text should be repeated twice about abortion and euthanasia. I am merging the text into one I until someone can provide acceptable sources. 81.193.222.169 ( talk) 21:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I found this source about their official stances on life issues: [1]. I think it is a Reliable Source. 81.193.222.169 ( talk) 21:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Their salute is 1 finger pointing toward heaven and 3 fingers pointing back at themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.122.215 ( talk) 04:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I will grant that the statistics given about number of congregations, members, and ministers was perhaps a year out of date. However, I object to the removal of these numbers rather than just updating them from the reference given. The new number given, 22 million+ ministers, is patently inflated. There is no way it can be true. The Army's own numbers give the following statistics: corps: 15,765; officers: 17,070; soldiers: 1,132,823; adherent members: 181,901. I assume here that "corps" refers to congregations and "officers" refers to ministers. What I don't understand is the difference between "soldiers" and "adherent members" and why they differ by a factor of 10. By contrast, the new reference given says: 'worldwide ... 22 million officers, employees, adherents, and program participants.' That is clearly not the number of ministers! That is an inflated figure which includes all the people they serve in ministries. Please correct the numbers or I will just revert to the old ones, despite their slight inaccuracy, they were better than what we have now, and used a primary source. Elizium23 ( talk) 02:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
-- WPaulB ( talk) 13:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I had made a change to the body of the segment headed "LGBT Issues" The original text implied that the Bible condemns homosexuals in their life on Earth to be put to death. I have yet to see a verse suggesting this. 174.93.114.129 ( talk) 01:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The entire section about homosexuality should be removed. What purpose does it serve? At the very least it should be severely shortened. There is no reason for the largest section in the entire article to be about LGBT issues. It just gives more ammunition to people who claim that wikipedia is merely a tool for political activists. (user - not a regular editor or a salvation army member, just someone looking for information, 5/28/2016) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.51.61 ( talk) 00:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I reinstated several pieces someone removed under the guise of WP:RS. Some of the Cits are the S.Army themself so not sure how or why they think removal is right? Let alone this has been in the news and affected the SA around the world. -- Sonic2030 ( talk) 14:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
It may make more sense to create a new article about Homosexuality and The Salvation Army to focus on these issues. Viriditas ( talk) 00:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the enormous list of recipients of the Order of Distinguished Auxiliary Service should be removed. It just doesn't look right here. Maybe it needs it's own article? Theroadislong ( talk) 19:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The infprmation in the Aust section has been edited down to the referances. What is there now is supported and factual. Resaltador ( talk) 19:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Does that mean it's a church? Shouldn't it say clearly somewhere to clarify that? GreaseballNYC ( talk) 15:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
El Ejercito de Salvacion es conciderado por si mismo como un "movimiento" que en teoria forma parte de la iglesia universal cristiana, tal vez por esto no encuentre la palabra iglesia de forma textual. El Ejercito de Salvacion no se limita solo a ser una iglesia, su mision abarca algo mas (como por ejemplo la ayuda social). Espero que aclare G algo (Quienes son estos salvasionistas de General (R) Shaw Clifton) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.135.71 ( talk) 02:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The website "Truth Wins Out" is not a reliable secondary source and cannot be used to back up assertions in this article. Please do not add it as a source. Elizium23 ( talk) 17:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Should it be time to add a section regarding the Ray & Joan Kroc Corps Community Centers? These Centers are notable since they are fitness/rec/community/performing arts Centers as well as The Salvation Army traditional churches. Joan Kroc gave The Salvation Army the largest philanthropic gift to a charity in US history to build these: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4006823/ns/us_news/#.UxLBuvldUXs.
The latest Kroc Center, the 27th, will open in Norfolk, VA on April 29th, 2014, and will be a 92,000 square foot facility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauve.sean ( talk • contribs) 05:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
In January 2014, I determined that the original English variety used in this article was American English, and tagged it appropriately. In May of that year, Metsfreak2121 changed this tag to British English with no rationale and without updating the date or notifying me. Koavf created a corresponding editnotice for British English in September. Now we have a real confusion. The article is written in American English, and has been since its creation. It is arguable by WP:TIES to change to British English, however, TSA is an international organization and its leadership has moved far past the London-based org of their roots. Just look at the current makeup of the High Council of The Salvation Army. So I think WP:TIES is an invalid rationale in this case and we should instead be looking at WP:RETAIN to retain the original English variety used at article creation. However, there is still a small problem. The editnotice still says British English. I have issued an edit request to change this, but I just wanted to make sure that WP:CONSENSUS was still in favor of American English usage here. Thank you. Elizium23 ( talk) 18:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
'Organization' is US English, with a 'zed' ('zee'). 'Organisation' is British English, with an 's'. The main reason why the Salvation Army' article is designated for UK English is surely because the SA originated in the UK back in the 19th century. As we all know it is now a global organisation having reached out to (almost) every corner of the earth from its London origins. But that's no reason why it should alter its identity by having another kind of English used in general tittle-tattle. After all, we (the Brits) 'invented' the lingo by jingo!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.233.49 ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 1 February 2015
User:Tsasouth (who appears to be the IP user 50.207.11.29) has repeatedly reverted multiple user's edits which removed website links from the infobox. I don't know why the user is so upset about a trivial matter, because they haven't provided any reason for opposing the edits. Can someone change the page protection? -- Hazhk Talk 16:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
In the interest of full disclosure, the email I received is here:
8:33 AM
Dear Winkelvi, I am the <position redacted for privacy> for The Salvation Army. We appreciate your support and effort in keeping our wiki page updated and free of cyber vandals. However the changes made were by Official Salvation Army personnel. We would like for this information to remain.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me directly at <email address redacted@for privacy>
Thank you!
<name redacted for privacy>
<position redacted for privacy>
The Salvation Army
As I stated at the SPI for the User:Tsasouth account, I think they are just totally unfamiliar with Wikipedia, how it works, and the fact that the article on The Salvation Army is owned by Wikipedia and they don't have special rights or privileges in regard to it. Hopefully, discussion with them will take place at the Tsasouth talk page during the edit warring block so we can discuss and help them better understand policies and guidelines. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Although this article concerns a worldwide organisation, it was founded in Britain in 1865 by a British Methodist preacher, and is still headquartered in the UK (it waited another 15 years before opening up in the US). Although not a major issue, I do think this should be in British English, rather than the current American variant. – SchroCat ( talk) 10:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Even if you have checked that the Salvation Army is specifically Protestant why would you need this detail in the lead? Britmax ( talk) 21:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
... takes out reference to the Salvation Army using the bible and the fact that the organisation welcomes everyone regardless of bias. I regard this as as his attempt to start an edit war because for the article to be factually accurate it needs to advise readers that the Army doctrine is based on the bible. Being an administrator of wikipedia doesnt give you the right to behave like a Jihadist. Adrian816 ( talk) 00:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
In the summary box, top right where there’s the logo I want to add “sacred text: bible”. what wikimarkup code do I need to use for that special section of the page? A person from a different religion may not know this fact. thanks Adrian816 ( talk) 23:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
If this discussion is still open, I suggest it would be worth specifying which version of the bible, and the preferred translation used in meetings. tim.wilson.online ( talk) 01:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
is the infobox metadata tag of sacred_text not recognised? My edit doesnt seem to have been processed for "sacred_text = Bible" in the infobox metadata section at the top of the source code for the page
Adrian816 ( talk) 23:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
..... so will an administrator please verify citation of source and remove "warning unsourced content" banner. thanks Adrian816 ( talk) 14:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Here's some text I added to the article "Work with people at risk of exploitation continues to this day, with a specialist team." followed by a link to the official website. What I want to do is have the words "specialist team" as a link to the website (html code allows links in text where the link is underlined). Is that accepted style, or is the present layout more appropriate? Please advise what help pages to look at. Thanks Adrian816 ( talk) 15:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
The Salvation Army has a verified twitter account @salvationarmyuk, how do I cite it in a reference?
cite web | url=@salvationarmyuk | website=www.twitter.com or is there a "cite twitter" ?
Adrian816 ( talk) 22:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Add new website for Inclusion and LGBT policy, something to do on my PC, editing Wikipedia isn’t iPad friendly
https://www.salvationarmy.org.uk/inclusion
Adrian816 ( talk) 20:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
is this text for the website:
Official website www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn
but that relates to the official website for the North America country only, not the worldwide Salvation Army organisation. The worldwide Salvation Army website is https://www.salvationarmy.org
Please advise how to get the official website on the page template changed from the country of USA to the Global website Thanks Adrian816 ( talk) 02:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
In the section Structure, organisation and expenditures is a paragraph starting "The most recent statistics for membership". I'm wondering if Wikipedia supports display of statistical data as rows and columns of numbers in a spreadsheet or tablular format? I'm wondering if that's a better way of displaying the data than paragraphs of text. What help pages would I need to read please for creating numerical tables (rows and columns of data with row and column heading text). Thanks Adrian816 ( talk) 19:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Do not move - Keep "The Salvation Army" as titled per majority consensus. Nicholemacgregor ( talk) 20:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The Salvation Army →
Salvation Army – Per
WP:THE.
Chicbyaccident (
talk) 16:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.
Mahveotm (
talk)
11:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Note that this RM was closed as no move by an editor who had participated in the debate (although they failed to sign their contribution) and opposed the move. They stated it was "per majority consensus". It was seven oppose to five support. Of the opposers, one has made no other contribution except to this debate and one is an IP. At least three of the opposers seemed to misunderstand Wikipedia titling practices as they claimed we wouldn't state "I worked for Salvation Army" (or whatever). No, we wouldn't, but if we followed this logic we would put a definite article in hundreds of thousands of our article titles that do not currently have them. Maybe this should have been closed as a no consensus. But it certainly should not have been closed by an interested party as a consensus. Just to point out to anyone who uses this discussion as any form of precedent. It's not. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Note that the editor who closed this RM followed the guidelines of Wikipedia after more than the required time had elapsed. Wikipedia advises that an editor who has contributed to the debate not close the RM as the intentions may be misconstrued, but there is no sense in leaving open an RM for weeks on end. Nicholemacgregor ( talk) 17:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I am doing some section sorting. My rationale is that we should really first describe what the Salvation Army (SA) is today. Then we can describe its history. Then the "Organizational structure". Then the "Symbols" and stuff. For somebody who wants to know what it is, you should first describe its clergy and facilities and stuff like that. That is what the SA is today. It is a modern Protestant church with an emphasis on charity work. It has modern worship services. It has its thrift shops. It provides a service to the community with homeless shelters and Adult Rehabilitation Centers and such. That is what the article should lead with.-- Sa57arc ( talk) 21:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Britmax: Changes from "LGBT" to "LGBTQIA+" represent a broader community
I'm not going to undo your reversion without discussion, but believe the change back to "LGBTQIA+" is more appropriate / inclusive.
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 19:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
that activist critics of The Salvation Army aren't activists for queer, intersex, asexual, or for example enby peoplelooks much more like OR.You have no actual argument here beyond "I just don't like it", which holds no weight in Wikipedia editorial consensus, so I am making the same changes. Apart from the one instance inside a quote, which I assume was an accidental change. -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 22:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This may have been covered in previous discussion, so I am asking first: is there a legitimate reason for the history section to not include past activities such as union-busting efforts on the part of the Salvation Army? This seems like an important part of the history of the organization, helping to illuminate its political and secular activities, and bring into relief its use of funds to further specific political goals that are perhaps not in the interest of those who have been convinced to donate to them in the mistaken belief that such funds will be used solely for philanthropic and humanitarian purposes. As it stands, the "history" section reads more like a PR release from the SA itself. Whateley23 ( talk) 02:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
With regards to colour-coded epaulettes, I suggest mentioning that officers have maroon epaulettes and soldiers have blue epaulettes. When I first joined I wondered what the colour difference meant, and no-one actually explained it to me ... it took me a while to figure it out! However, I don't know if these epaulette colours are used consistently across all territories; I know that there are differences in uniform in different parts of the world. Can anyone please comment? tim.wilson.online ( talk) 01:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Just saw the section on uniform; the uniform described there is definitely not correct for dinner territories eg Australia. Someone with expert knowledge of this topic may want to review and amend. tim.wilson.online ( talk) 01:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
(apologies ... by 'dinner territories' I meant 'some territories'. Swipe text fail!!) tim.wilson.online ( talk) 01:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Central Nova News ( https://centralnovanews.com/stories/613274980-along-with-coins-this-christmas-salvation-army-wants-white-donors-to-offer-a-sincere-apology-for-their-racismand ) and Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit reported on 24th Nov 2021... Salvation Army Wants White Donors to Offer “Sincere Apology” for Their Racism ( https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/salvation-army-wants-white-donors-offer-sincere-apology-racism/ ) Can anyone throw light on the SA's stand on this policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.12.8 ( talk) 13:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Paul Simmons’ “Hazy Shade of Winter”, also covered by the bangles includes :
“Time, time, time See what's become of me While I looked around for my possibilities I was so hard to please But look around Leaves are brown And the sky is a hazy shade of winter
Hear the Salvation Army band
Down by the riverside's Bound to be a better ride Than what you've got planned Carry your cup in your hand And look around you Leaves are brown, now And the sky is a hazy shade of winter”
Based on some of the entries regarding movies this is relevant. I mean I haven’t heard rather version since the 90s but combined they made millions of dollars right? 2604:2D80:A282:1300:F097:9303:D47F:9035 ( talk) 22:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
There may potentially be bias in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EloquentMosquito ( talk • contribs) 09:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I feel that the "in movies" and "in music" sections could be combined into an "in popular culture" section, at least because I can't find anywhere to put the fact that the second-generation Worms games features a weapon called "Salvation Army", which appears as a bellringer hitting a tambourine, marching forwards before exploding. 2A00:23C6:9982:EE01:D826:16EA:E5F:1D88 ( talk) 17:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
My name isPhilip Walter's I would like permission to to enter your property I am inquiring because I am looking to settle in the. Area and have extensive property maintenance experience and would e willing to provide said service in exchange for living on your property 172.58.137.29 ( talk) 14:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The reference for this is tagged as needing to be replaced with a better one, except it never will be because this "controversy" is almost exclusively a manufactured one. Speaking about a "broader public controversy" in Wikipedia's voice is unacceptable as it plays into the narrative promoted by the American right that this is something that was a problem in the first place. It's fine to mention criticisms from the right and attribute them to sources like Fox, but not to use language that uncritically accepts the framing of the "controversy". I believe any reference to a "broader" controversy should be omitted. WP Ludicer ( talk) 11:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)