Talk:Samaritan's Purse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Expansion & NPOV
The article could use more info considering the size of the christian relief organization.-User:Falphin
- There should also be mention of the strong and widespread criticism of the oepration. Andy Mabbett 11:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think that necessitates the use of the neutrality disputed warning. HybridFusion 00:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Given that I dispute the article's neutrality (in fact, it's the most biased piece I've ever seen on WP), why not? Andy Mabbett 09:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- The only bias here is your own. There isn't enough of an article yet for your accusation of bias to be warranted. HybridFusion 00:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Given that I dispute the article's neutrality (in fact, it's the most biased piece I've ever seen on WP), why not? Andy Mabbett 09:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think that necessitates the use of the neutrality disputed warning. HybridFusion 00:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
there are maybe 8 sentences in that article 5 of which are concerned with who runs it. what is wrong with you people. .... or maybe they've already cut all of it out. thanks, my first thought was.. this doesn't explain enough about the operation at all.
Please ad some more information and sources on the activities and criticism here. Thanks.--Nemissimo II 16:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Here are a couple of sources: [1] [2]. The thrust of the criticism was that in the past, SPI appeals omitted to mention its evangelical agenda, especially in relation to Operation Christmas Child. There was also some controversy [3]over the anti-Islamic comments by its president, Franklin Graham. 86.142.250.235 19:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have added some material with links regarding the controversy surrounding Samaritan's Purse. Alexbacik 09:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like some more information on what parts of the article contradict the NPOV guidelines; from what I can see, the article itself is factual and neutral, even if the organization is controversial. Assuming I haven't heard any objections in the next couple of weeks, I'd like to remove the disputed tag.SD CA 20:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- As I've heard no objection and since editing has proceeded as normal, I have removed the NPOV tag.SD CA 15:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Since the edition of the Expand tag (Jan. 2007), the article has been expanded significantly, with information from related topics merged into this article. I've removed the Expand tag - unless there is significant desire to keep it - and I believe that editing and additions can continue as normal.SD CA 15:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merging in Projects
I would suggest that we move the contents of the various project articles directly into the main body of this article, given that both the parent article and child articles require expansion. This would also help to consolidate discussion of controversy and neutrality.SD CA 20:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have moved the bulk of the contents from Operation Christmas Child into this article and I am proposing wiping the old article text and creating a redirect.SD CA 21:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have archived the Talk:Operation Christmas Child page. There is much good discussion on the controversial nature of the program, including relevant sources, some of which have been worked into citations within the article. -- SD CA 17:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have moved the contents of Prescription for Hope into this article and created a redirect under the old name. I have begun reformatting effort. See "Prescription for Hope" section for more information. -- SD CA 20:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] External Links Clean-Up
I have cleaned up the external links section as it was getting a bit crowded, primarily with links to organizational web sites and sub-sites. Each division of Samaritan's Purse is linked to in the info box at top, and the sub-sites (OCC, WMM, etc.) are easily located within the parent sites. I have also removed links to articles about Samaritan's Purse - both criticism and support. Journalistic sources (pro and con) can be cited within the "Criticisms" section in support of a relevant fact - I don't think we want to start piling up lists of pro and con articles in the external links section. I have left several links to differently branded SP web sites (Turn on the Tap) and web sites with related content. Please add any discussion of this clean-up here.SD CA 16:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Prescription for Hope
The contents of this section merged from PRESCRIPTION FOR HOPE do not cite their sources and are general advertorial / informal. I have attempted a clean-up of the language in this section, but a lot more work could/should be done. -- SD CA 20:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)