Talk:The Salvation Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Salvation Army article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] POV Prose?

The language needs to be a little de-biased. None of the facts are biased, just the prose. Like "The Salvation Army is, and has always been, first and foremost, a Christian Church." Kent Wang 21:19, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I am a former Salvationist and still (mostly) support the beliefs and work of the Army, but I read this article and couldn't help but think that it was written primarily by someone in the Army's PR department. Good facts, but lots of assumptions made. When I get a few spare minutes someday, I'll come back and see what I can do to work on it. cluth 04:49, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
_alot_ of refrences needed

I changed some of the sentences so the grammar was a little better. I hope i did not change anything really important to the article. Also, I think the "mission" paragraph in the history section should be removed, as their already is a "mission" section.Xunflash 19:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bands, music, etc - not a mention??!!

No mention at all of bands - yet surely this is one of the best-known characteristics of the SA?? Could a knowledgeable person not add a paragraph on this, please? Nevilley 23:15, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've reinstated my edits. If Christians don't like them Christians should try and refute the logic. Barbara Shack 13:50, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I will continue to revert your edits. I don't like them but I am not a Christian (stupid assumption, Barbara). This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or a student debating society. Don't try to show off your "logical" skills by trashing an article: it is not allowed here. Understand? I am bored with trying to explain this to you, so I won't any more - but your stupid, unencyclopedic additions to the article will continue to be reverted. It's an encyclopedia - do you not understand that??? --82.35.17.203 21:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm an atheist and I totally agree with the above user. This is an encyclopedia. Kent Wang 22:50, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why are you so abusive without daring to give a name??? Barbara Shack 15:45, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why am I so abusive? - well, I was prepared to discuss this with you politely and tried to do so. You ignored these efforts and continued with your existing behaviour, which in my opinion was itself abusive of what this project is supposed to be about. So as far as I am concerned, you started the abuse. You be polite and co-operative and I will too.
without daring to give a name - you are mistaken: you mean without choosing to give a name. "Daring" has nothing to do with it and a guess at my reasons for this choice, or an attempt to goad me, is not going to work. If you do not like wikipedia's policy of allowing anonymous edits, then I suggest you campaign against it. As the project stands, however, I am quite within my rights.
In summary, I am sorry if you felt abused, but I did too, first, by you, for the reasons which I have detailed. And it did appear to get your attention in a way which my previous polite attempt did not: I am surprised that you do not appear to sense how your statement about Christians above could itself be offensive. I am quite happy to work with you but only if it is on a basis of co-operation and mutual respect.82.35.17.203 15:21, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

December 14, 2005. I've again made some changes, that never seem to last through an edit by Wiki editors. I deleted the line about William Booth leaving the New Connexion for two reasons: 1. it is out of chronological order, and 2. it is more appropriate for the Wiki entry on William Booth. I've deleted the paragraph on homosexuality for two reasons: 1. it isn't accurate. The official position statements of The Salvation Army are not against homosexuality but homosexual practice (I've tried to make this distinction in an earlier edit but was over-ruled), and 2. it is not a major aspect of The Salvation Army. If SA views on homosexuality belong here, then, for example, so do its pro-life views, as these certainly affect more people in the world than the former views. posted by Stephen Court, December 14, 2005.

The Salvation Army also has (had?) it's own music publication house I believe, which may be worth a mention. There are several well known (in Army circles) lyricists and composers whose music is used in musical journals specific to the Army. There are even people who write musicals specifically for the Army about itself. http://www.gowans-larsson.com/ is one. Perhaps there can be a subpage to describe the music. As a note to the bands section on this page, my history recalls hearing that to appeal to the public in the taverns, they converted the lyrics to popular pub songs or locally-known tunes to Christian lyrics. I'll see if I can cite this.--WPaulB 18:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prophetic Reminder -- of what?

I don't understand this sentence:

As a prophetic reminder to the rest of the Body of Christ, the Salvation Army decided not to practice baptism or to celebrate the Lord's Supper in any form.

Maybe it's steeped in Salvation Army doctrinal terms? I know what baptism and the Lord's Supper are ... but what exactly did cessation of these activities prophesy, and what did it remind of? Jdavidb 20:45, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi- I wrote that. It comes from The Salvation Army's non-sacramental stance. The Christian Church practises those two sacraments (Lord's Supper and water baptism). The Salvation Army doesn't. Part of the reason is what it would call a prophetic reminder to the rest of the Christian Church that those sacraments are merely an outward sign of an inward experience. Reference: Eugene Pigford, Sacraments chapter in SALVATIONISM 201, a training guide for Salvationists, 1999.). posted by Stephen Court, December 8, 2005.
Hi- It is December 10, and it has been removed again, with no explanation. Why? Stephen Court, December 10, 2005.

[edit] Bell-ringing?

Woah, an entire article about the Salvation Army without any mention of bell-ringing and red kettles?!?

Is this article even about what I think it is? (The US Salvation Army that collects money with their, yes, bells?) --Jared [T]/[+] 23:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
You must be a US American (don't worry. It's not your fault) Actually there are 110 other countries in which the Army collects money, most of which don't use 'kettles'.

[edit] Homosexuality Controversy and the Bush/SA-Memo Flap

I made a slight change to the new content on the anti-gay thing. It sounded somewhat POV in the way it was worded, and also repeated, more or less verbatim, text from earlier in the article. However it seemed sensible to keep in the bit pointing out explicitly the paradoxical nature of the concern for some groups and not others. I hope the new edit works. --Fanger 12:45, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Replace "paradoxical" with "paradoxic dogma" and you've struck it on the nose. It's important to note, that as with quite a few other religions/denominations, individuals don't always make up their own minds on issues but rather follow the dogmatic beliefs which church officials pass along. It's the "cost" of being part of a church in a lot of cases. --ABQCat 03:58, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Salvation_Army&diff=6530042&oldid=6503347

In their revision of 22:24, 11 Oct 2004, 209.53.208.34 removed a whole paragraph about homosexuality, healthcare and New York City. There was nothing put in this Talk page or in the edit summary to explain it. There may be a perfectly good reason for this para being taken out but to do so without explanation looks potentially dishonest. If you feel this para should go, please explain why and if necessary provide sources. It may be that it is better to explain in the article - if, say, that was the policy but is no longer, then the change in policy might be interesting. But simply to take out a huge chunk with no explanation is not really done.

I have put the paragraph back, and I very much hope that people will continue to keep an eye on this article for balance.

I also modified one other paragraph which I felt was starting to sound a bit like an SA statement. I have a great deal of respect for this organization but I do think we need to avoid sounding like this: it's not very neutral. Also, you can't say "eventide homes" in a UK context: it is pretty much without meaning there.

Regards, Gonegonegone 19:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article still needs watching. Someone changed the NYC bit subtly to make it more like an official SA statement - blah blah blah "in no way effects their decisions" - well that's their PoV would have thought, but not encyclopaedic. I have tried to rebalance it but, like I say, it needs watching. 138.37.188.109 08:22, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What does the healthcare benefits of a homosexual spouse of an EMPLOYEE of the Salvation Army have to do with the mission of the church or the church itself? What is the relevance of even mentioning it? Do other churches pay their homosexual employee's spouse's health benefits? Why would a gay person be working for such an organization, anyway? I wish someone could find out how many gay employee's they have, anyway. Funny they'll help the dregs of society get off booze and drugs but scorn others.

(The above is from 02:16, 3 November 2005 68.44.141.17) Gonegonegone 09:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

(Inserting this between other comments) As a gay person who hadn't come out yet and worked for them, I experienced the policy when I did finally come out. Based on how it happened, my experience was rather gentle comparative to others who have done the same. Just like any other church, their policies are interpreted at a local level because everyone has their own interpretation. Were I still at my original corps, I would have been publicly stripped of my right to wear the uniform by the then officer. When I came out at a different corps, it was a private and compassionate removal. Practicing homosexuals are simply not allowed. if they are not, certainly benefits for their partners won't be considered.--74.122.93.214 18:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I hope you do not mind my sorting out the format of your paragraph. Unfortunately your speacing at the start made it display oddly, with most of the text off the RH end of the screen.
I feel that the New York issue is highly relevant. It doesn't matter what other churches do - this is not an article about them, so, with all due respect, I feel that we can pretty much disregard that element of your question with regard to this article. If you feel it's relevant to the work of other churches, then it is quite simple - you just need to research it for those other churches, and add text to their articles explaining what their policies are and how they are relevant to the work of that church. Returning to the question of this article, of course it's relevant. The SA does undoubtedly fantastic and significant work and (according to the story as it was presented: I am no expert) the conflict between thier policies and those of NYC caused a risk to that work. Given people's perception of the Army and the importance of its work, I would have thought that this was of huge importance. Gonegonegone 09:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi- I'm going to remove it today, December 8 2005, as this seems to be a regional conflict. For those in Europe, Africa, Asia, South America, and so on, it doens't seem to warrant mention. posted by Stephen Court, December 8, 2005.

The NY issue gives insight into the Salvation Army; they believe in their principles so strongly that when their actions conflict with the law they'll withdraw from that jurisdiction rather than compromise.-gadfium 21:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

hi- this is a good point. The official statements of The Salvation Army speak of activity rather than persuasion, though. It might be more accurate to include this clarification. Stephen Court, December 10, 2005.

changed "what some perceive to be "discrimination"". it's discrimination, plain and simple, there's no disputing the semantics behind this. Kechvsf 05:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Salvation Army discriminates. It is a religious institution. As such, it believes that our first amendment's "religious freedom" allows it to discriminate selectively against people. For example, it discriminates against homosexuals in its hiring, promotion, and firing policies as well as in its benefits to employees, employees’ families, sub-contractors, and other agencies. And, it discriminates selectively against those it serves, i.e., the weak, the poor, and the destitute. It is arguable whether a religion may do this u/ our federal constitution’s first amendment “freedom of religion” if other areas of the federal constitution are weighed particularly if federal and/or state law does not allow such discrimination, religious or otherwise.

All that being said, discrimination reaches a higher bar when public (government) monies are granted to religious institutions such as to the Salvation Army. In the past few years, up to and including the present, federal taxpayer monies are granted to the Salvation Army under the guise of “faith-based initiatives.” These are public taxpayer (federal government) funds, not private funds. However, despite receiving public taxpayer money, the Salvation Army continues its selective discriminatory actions against (and prostelyzing its own religion upon) people as afore. And, it claims it can do so under the first amendment’s “freedom of religion.”

Yes, the Salvation Army continues to discriminate against homosexuals and others (and proselytizing its own religion upon people) using federal taxpayer monies! The Salvation Army expressly states that it can continue to do so due to the Salvation Army's religious status under our constitution and its religious tenets that mandate it to discriminate and proselytize as such whether using government money or private money.

In so doing, the Salvation Army inferentially indicates that there is no meaningful Separation of Church and State. In other words with that “wall of separation” gone, a church may meddle into state affairs (through its use of public taxpayer monies) and, in turn, the state may meddle into church affairs as to those public taxpayer monies. Keep in mind, too, that money is fungible. So how much "meddle” applies? Where does it stop? What a mess!

Tis no wonder that James Madison's first amendment declared that our government not be in the business of “establishment of religion” as well as no prohibition on “free exercise of religion,” and that Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation" between church and state should remain its definition today -- thereby keeping government out of religion, and keeping religion out of government. 12.76.173.101 (talk) 18:13, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Under controversies i added the thing about Bush, his faith based initiative, and the SA internal memo reported by Washington Post that basically says "we will support Bush if Bush can help us skirt the local and state laws that prohibit us from discriminating against gay people". The whole controversies lasted a while, until the tragic events of 9/11 overshadowed them all. I think this is an aspect fo Salvation army that deserves reporting, even if it is not particularly flattering for the organization.--Bud 21:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I see, that some people feel this as important and it might be, that it is for the Salvation Army in the US an important thing. But because the Salvation Army works in 111 countries, it seems to me not the right place to add this controversy. Have you ever thought of opening a special article or so about controversy in connection with the Salvation Army? Or it should perhaps be added to the article which is already started regarding the Salvation Army Western Territoy in the USA. It seems to me, that this would be rather the place to put it. HAMUBA 15:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The Salvation Army's opinion toward Homosexuals, Alchoholics, Drug Addicts and everyone else living in sin, is accept them with arms wide open. But, we do not condone their behavior and we will call a sin a sin. But, we try help people out of their sin via love not discrimination. Joe

If the Salvation army really embrace "sinners" like us with open arms, then they wont make a deal with the Bush administration that would have helped them to skirt local and state anti-discrimination laws. The truth is that the Salvation army want to enjoy US government grants for non-profits organtations while blatantly thumping its nose at minority segments of society by discriminating in their hiring policies. They cannot have it both ways: either embrace the anti-discrimination laws or stop accepting government money.--Bud 07:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The "arms wide open" excuse is, frankly a crock (or red kettle) of shit. Opposing laws which would outlaw discrimination - including laws that would not apply to the Salvation Army because of a religious exemption - is not "love". Neither is equating gays with drug addicts. The behavior of the Salvation Army with respect to laws prohibiting discrimination in housing, for example, in New York City, is disgraceful. - Outerlimits 23:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Why should the Army be forced to hire active homosexuals if they believe that it is morally wrong? Here in Toronto, the Salvation Army has homosexuals work at their hospitals, and even have a gay Toronto counciller on it's board of directers in Kyle Rae. This seems to refelect on the Salvation Army in the United States as much as it does in other countries. SFrank85 15:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The Salvation army has no obligation to hire gay people. However, if they are hanging onto their mission and purpose as a religious organization first and social welfare organization second, then the SA should not enjoy government funding. In the United States, if you receive government money for your work, you are not allowed to discriminate against any segment of society in your hiring practice, because government money is meant to serve all people's welfare, not just people the organization likes. Gay people pay taxes too, so why are our money used to sponsor an organization that refuse to hire or serve our community?--Bud 02:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This article does not contain common criticisms about Salvation Army such as homophobia, e.g. http://angry-biscuit.livejournal.com/529452.html

Can somebody please add more info on these topics to get a more balanced article?--Sonjaaa 06:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a verifible source for that criticism (blogs aren't allowed), then you can add it. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 12:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It's my opinion that this topic is covered generally under "Controversy." Also, the Salvation Army is not homophobic. Homophobia is a fear of gay people. The Sally Ann isn't afraid of them. It just won't employ self-proclaimed homosexuals or allow them to be participating adherents. That's discrimination (for whatever reason), not fear. There are plenty of religions and other societal sects that discriminate this way against other visible and invible minorities. For example, some Roman Catholic churches won't even let people who are not Catholic take communion. I don't see the point in pointing out one organization's very specific issue.--WPaulB 18:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have found several sources. One is : from CBS news (CBS news, hardly biased), another is from the advocate , and finally from New York Times , which all detail the SA's attempt to increase its public funding through Bush's Faith-based initiatives while maintining that it CAN and WILL discriminate against gay and lesbian citizens from employment. If the Gray Lady is not to be trusted ....

As a result, I want a rewrite of the Allegations of controversy section. First, by calling it "allegations" it is trying to cast it as rumor and falsehood. In addition, right now that section makes it sound like a SA press release, which is NPOV. I have added the NPOV tag to the section.

--Bud (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I just found that the entire controversy section has been modified to remove any mention of the Bush/SA incident AND any allegations of homophobia. Instead, the only thing left was the official SA hiriong policy, as though someone is seeking to present only one point of view. So i copied from the old version restored it. --Bud (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I just rewrote the section. I removed the block quote from Sa because it is not necessary and also very POV in the way it is presented. I shortened the section and added another reference regarding SA's threat to close soup kitchens if they are forced to comply with non discrimination laws in NYC.--Bud (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other Critisms/Controversies

[edit] Huxley's Attack

...I hesitate to mention it, as it was... pretty nasty, but it is part of the Salvation Army's history. So, should Huxley's attack on the Darkest England Scheme (part of it here) be added, with appropriate balancing counterarguements?

Please don't think I'm anti-Salvation Army. I do think that, whatever the truth of Huxley's allegations then, they have no bearing on the Salvation army over a century later. At the same time, it is an aspect of the history being ignored. Is it possible to work it in sensitively? Adam Cuerden 20:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section rather scant--abuse in care goes completely unmentioned.

I know it's a harsh subject, but it really needs mentioning. Many of those in the SA's care during the 1940's-1970's were subject to severe abuse, including molestation, systematic degradation, and quasi-slave labour. The Salvation Army has in fact acknowledged this, and has issued an apology: [[1]] For the sake of a balanced article, and in a more abstract way, the sake of the victims, it should be mentioned at least. Pvednes 10:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removals

There's a couple bits that keep getting removed from the controversy section. I'm uncomfortable with removal of negative statemnts without discussion, even if I support most of the Salvation Army's work. Adam Cuerden talk 22:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History or Controversy?

Not sure which section this should go in, but to maintain NPOV, this article must have some coverage of the violence and riots that accompanied early appearances of the army in England particularly the riots that took place in Basingstoke and Whitchurch Hampshire in the 1880's. These did lead to questions in Parlament about the Salvationists, changes in the law and some changes in the way that the movement operated. They are both mentioned in General Booths memoirs. Mighty Antar 00:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something Fishy about Charity watchdog Link

The controversy section talks about “charity watchdogs” criticizing the Salvation Army for not being federally required to file 990 forms. The source/footnote that is linked at the end of the sentence however is charitynavigator.com—which makes it a practice not to evaluate religious charities…

Seriously, try it. When you perform a search of the site they are totally upfront, the SA is not a charity that they evaluate and why.

I even perused the site for some sort of general criticism about religious charities not being required to file a 990 and could find none—if it’s there it’s not in a conspicuous place.

Why would the author of this article cite and link to a source for this charity that very clearly states it does not evaluate charities of this nature?

This really needs to be fixed, or a more specific link if one exists or removal of the irrelevant link altogether.72.0.175.144 (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree the link is irrelevant now, but the article must have existed before. The point is that the Salvation Army is exempt from filing a 990 as a religious charity, but they participate in disaster recovery. Other charities that do this are required to file 990s.--WPaulB (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
If the article existed before then a statement to the same effect should exist as part of a philosophy or “mission statement” form charitynavigator.com, or some source with equal credibility should be cited in its stead. As I said, if one cannot be found then that makes the statement of criticism and that portion of the criticism section nothing more than opinion. Also, not a ‘stray’ signature and really unclear why new questions about sourcing were moved to the basement. 72.0.175.144 (talk) 04:55, 12 December

[edit] Bush's Faith Based Initiatives

Seems this article's still lacking any mention of the leaked SA memo of an agreement between SA and George Bush to allow discrimination based on sexual orientation. This really should be mentioned. McDanger 07:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] New Section added - ALOVE UK

2005-01-24 : added a new section on the recent development (at the moment just within the UK) of Alove, which is a new initative within the SA as regards "youth work". - Lurch Kimded

[edit] Activities in Russia?

Perhaps someone who knows better can elaborate on the Russian government's bizarre treatment of the SA, claiming they were a "paramilitary organization."

[edit] "The" Salvation Army

Given that the definite article is part of the organisation's name, should this not be at The Salvation Army? A small point maybe, given the existence of a redirect, but we have, for example, The Beatles rather than Beatles. Loganberry (Talk) 23:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, Logan. "The" is part of the official name of "The Salvation Army". It is what is written on the crest, the shield, and nearly everywhere else the name can be found. This article should be moved to "The Salvation Army".
Neelix 13:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPoV!This article continues to need watching for NPoV!

I feel that this article continues to need watching. The SA obviously attracts strong feelings, both positive and negative, and at various times the article's neutrality has been attacked by people trying to shift it, subtly and sometimes less subtly, closer to their point of view. This process continues right up to now and I guess will for ever. As an ex-user I have no energy for this stuff, but I would like to think that this article deserves keeping an eye on. The people who need to keep an eye on it most are not those who love the SA, or hate it, but those who love Wikipedia and its policies regarding NPOV. I put my faith in the goodwill of those people and wish the article, and all of you, well. Gonegonegone 09:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I did a bit of NPOVing for the most egregious stuff. What do you think about putting a NPOV tag on this? Or a possible NPOV tag? I personally don't have time to NPOV all of it right now. Janet13 03:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Looking at the way it's going, I think an NPOV tag might be a good idea. It's currently reading more and more like it was written by the SA. 138.37.199.199 11:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Article definetly needs watching. Just in the "Beliefs" section I've seen at least 3 comments that are out of line (I've editted out one, and will try to get the others). As a relatively new Wiki user, I've no idea what the critera for having a entry locked is, but is this a candidate? Darkson 22:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As per previous discussions (esp. section 9: This article continues to need watching for NPoV above).Janet13 08:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's actually pretty close - I tagged it based on one particularly bad section but I just NPOV'ed it a bit and scanned the rest -- it looks okay. If others want to read through to check the NPOV and decide to remove the NPOV-check tag, I'm fine with that. :) Janet13 08:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't remove the NPOV-check tag, but I agree with its removal. If there are specific things that are still wrong/biased about the article, posting them (the specifics) here would be muchly appreciated. John Broughton 21:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very US-centric

[edit] Quality ? - Personal opinion

My feeling is that this article has become more and more :-( :-( :-(. It's no more something for a good encyclopedia, it's rather something for people who have different opinions about the Salvation Army and write a bit what they know. E.g.: much of the article is written about one country although the Salvation Army works in more than 100. Example: Work started 1880 not only in the US but also in Australia and Ireland...But here starts already the question: Which one is "worth" to be mentioned and how much? or this: "...In many places across the USA and Canada, The Salvation Army is recognizable in the Christmas season for its volunteers who stand outside...." this has surely not written an expert. He would have known, that this happens all over the world. Surely there are good parts in the article but completely rewrite would probably be the best. It doesn't need a dissertation. More quality than quantity. Take out links which do not work etc. Kind regards

Yes but not all of what you complain is that bad. People tend to write what they know - I too have noticed that some of the internationalism is rather lacking but it wouldn't be such a huge task to revise these bits to be more international. I am much more worried about the way the article gets used, as you have pointed out, to promote different points of view. 138.37.199.199 11:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I already tried to make it more international - but there are sometimes people who do not really realize this. It is really a questions: should I list now only the leader of the Salvation Army in the US (why from the US many people would ask) or do I list all the leaders of all countries or do I simply say: we list the international leader (General) and that's it? HAMUBA 16:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've made a change to the wording of the section that might help a bit. You're right -- it was silly to say the SA had more than 1.4 million members worldwide and then later state that the US has 1.4 million members. I removed the first reference so we can find a correct total for the world instead of basing it off the US statistic. I also remove the leaders from specific countries -- someone could make List of SA Leaders in Country if they really wanted to, but you're right, its nonsensical to only include leaders from specific countries unless something else makes them notable.
I agree that things need to have a world view, but just blinding chopping out the entire section removed some valuable information at the same time, which is why I reverted. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Fixed the statistics -- The US stats are listed in the different sections under people [2] and the international statistics are from 2004 [3] and are somewhat confusing since members may be listed in more than one category -- hopefully the statistics are more accurate the the previous version which appeared to use the US stats for the World. If anyone knows if the 2005 statistics have been published, please feel free to update them. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

From reading this article, you'd be forgiving for thinking The Salvation Army started, or only continues, in the US. Is it possible to either have a more "world-view" article, or move much of the material here to a "SA in the US" article? Darkson 23:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Still reads like it's a US church. Darkson - BANG! 19:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is very much biased towards the United States and only has stories or research in the US. Someone needs to make it seem that it is an international organisation rather than just American based. Wiki.user 20:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move parts of the article from International Salvation Army to US Salvation Army

Please take note, that as the Salvation Army works in 111 countries some special articles are open now (also in other languages). The parts which are mostly regarding the USA and which do not touch so much the international Salvation Army should be moved to such articles. So the controversy which is an US theme is also moved to Western. I hope everybody can agree with this. --HAMUBA 16:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree in principle with moving the items. However, these bits don't have anything to do with the Western Territory. I would urge someone from the Eastern Territory to create an Eastern Territory page similar to what has been done with the West, and then we could move the disputed sections there. For now though, I will have to revert your changes HAMUBA as the Refuge is not a Western program. Is there anyone out there who can create an Eastern Territory page? Mcb197 19:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

How about locating these articles regarding the US in a American nation-wide Salvation Army page? I am the one who addded the story of the Washington Post and Bush and i would put it in a section dedicated to US nation-wide controversies, maybe even a specilaized controversy section dealing with anti-gay initiatives within the Salvation Army. --Bud 19:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea Bud. An article about the S.A. in the United States, with a section on controversy would be very appropriate. Is there anyone out there with knowledge and background enough to create a Salvation Army USA page? Mcb197 19:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion/Northern Ireland before Ireland

The Expansion section says the Salvation Army became active in Northern Ireland in 1880; that was however 41 years before Northern Ireland came into being. Activity in Ireland (i.e. the island, presumably) is listed as beginning in 1884. Can someone provide verifiable references for these points, and indeed for the entire section? --Kwekubo 00:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

How did the SA start in Northern Ireland in 1880 (which didn't exist at the time) and only 1884 in Ireland (which covered the whole island at the time). Northern Ireland never existed prior to 1922. --217.67.139.104 16:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't mix

Perhaps I should add once, that it is very difficult if in the article the expression "members" and "soldiers" are mixed. Never mix this up - a member of the Salvation Army is not necessarily a soldier. Members can also be adherents etc. Therefore it is wrong to say that in the US are 400 000 soldiers of the Salvation Army. HAMUBA 10:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the note about uniforms to mention that its not all members, just the soldiers which wear the uniforms. I've also updated the information on uniforms so that its current and reflects the world view, not just the navy worn in the US. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Jareth, this is not true. In the S.A if you're not a soldier then you're technically not a member, you're only an "adherent."

If you go to the glossary terms on this pageyou can see that an adherent is someone who doesn't commit to soldiership. If you're a member then you're a soldier, if you're not a soldier then your "corps" does not refer to you as a member, at least to the higher ups. B rows 23:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected "core" to the proper spelling - Corps - Salvation Army "church" locations are referred to as "Corps." Members are "soldiers" non member faithful attenders (who for various reasons may not qualify for or desire to be "soldiers") can chose to be officially enrolled as "Adherents" or not to be but they are not counted on the official "membership rolls" or "adherent" rolls unless they are specifically enrolled as such. All non enrolled attenders are just that - attenders. 5 March 2007 Tricia

[edit] External links

I just breezed by here but stopped when I noticed the massive External links section. Few of them seem to pass the criteria in Wikipedia:External links's section "What should be linked to". Is there some special reason that I'm unaware of (as an editor unfamiliar with the history of this page) that the article needs so many external links? If not, they should be pared down to just a bare few that link to the major official sites. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image&Page Layout, Mechanical issues

The image layout is a bit funky. Everyone is trying to fix it but it seems one fix breaks it for another person. Can someone with expertise on layout out images please help? — JeremyTalk 23:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The current page layout is bad. On my screen, after the intro there is a giant blank space. Please fix if you know how. ike9898 17:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a relatively trivial issue, but there are a number of mechanical errors in this article which, in a small way, undermine its credibility. I've tried to edit them, but have been prevented from doing so. Perhaps a user with more history could undertake the task. Andrew E. Drake 04:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I only see one edit under your username and it was not reverted. I'm assuming other changes were made under another ID. --Gbleem 16:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mistaken

This article is right about how people mistake for a charity. I almost donated to them, but I was told it was a christian mission. I though it was some kind of large group of social workers trying to save Africa, Asia, or the Middle East. I didn't know the salvation was in the afterlife and not this life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Talib 72 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Well they do do work in thoses areas aswell. SFrank85 22:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
And they are concerned about peoples' wellbeing in BOTH this life AND the afterlife.--Midnite Critic 22:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
It depends on how you define charity. In the US the test is often 501(c)3 tax status however people often donate money to other groups they personally concider to be charities that don't meet 501(c)3 status and I'm sure some 501(c)3 organizations would not be considered charities by the average American or people overseas. I think "mistaken for a charity" is rather harsh considering all the charitable things the group does. --Gbleem 23:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Whether it's a charity in a particular place depends on legal status in that country in which it operates. It is a charitable organization in Canada, meaning it does charitable work, even if it is flavoured with a certain brand of religion, but then again - almost EVERY religion in Canada is a legal charitable organization. There are other non-religious charities, and the definition of charity is relatively wide (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/charities/donors/regulation/1-e.html, http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/rc4108/rc4108eq.html) in some directions.--72.142.182.27 05:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "a" or "the"?

"it is also part of the mainstream Christian Church" Should the be "a mainstream Christian Church"? Why was the article "the" selected? --Gbleem 22:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am also confused by this. It still says "it is also part of the mainstream Christian Church" and I am just wondering what "the mainstream Christian Church" is. 24.75.243.228 18:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Both are correct. Using the indefinite article it expresses the Salvation Army's status as a denomination distinct from other denominations. With the definite article (ie "part of the mainstream Christian Church") it defines its place within the broader spectrum of Christianity, and affirms its connection to other churches. One implies it is similar to but distinct from other denominations; the other suggests it is in (spiritual) unity with other denominations, but is most like the ones that are considered 'mainstream.'CammoBlammo 12:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Except that there is no mainstream Christian Church. There are churches that are considered "mainstream" and thsu there is a 'mainstream christianity", but claiming that it is part of a unified church is deceptive.Kairos (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A church?

I had always heard it was a church even if it does not have a church building. --Gbleem 11:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It does have church buildings. SFrank85 18:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
A church is a place where people worship God; the Salvation Army Worships money. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.41.48.89 (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
Your opinions are appreciated, although a cited source would be better.--WPaulB 05:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC) (I hate it when my computer automatically logs me out...)--72.142.182.27 05:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)--72.142.182.27 05:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] motto

i'm not sure where it should be worked in, but the "Blood and Fire" motto should be somewhere, along with the old symbol that contained it.

Added a bit about the motto and the flag, and moved the picture of the Standard from the "Beliefs" section. Perhaps a picture of the crest (as seen here: http://avenue.org/sarmy/symbols.htm) could be added to the beliefs section to break up the text a little? Darkson - BANG! 19:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Darkson . . . where IS the Crest ? I wanted to find one to make up a plaque for our new building here ! The Blood and Fire also is inscribed on the circlet that surrounds the cross and the crossed swords in the centre of the crest. I tried the link you mentioned without success . . . Also, the Blood and Fire should be in yellow on the flag around the star in the centre. Major David Watson, Mbeya, TanzaniaMajordavid (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Major David, forgive my opinion, but surely you know you can get the crest on the Internation Headquarters of the Salvation Army website, or by searching Salvation Army Crest on Google for images. Also, on all flags I've seen the "Blood and Fire" text is not yellow. It is inside the yellow star with the text in some contrasting colour - usually red, blue or black.--WPaulB (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abstention or prohibition?

The article says, "Other beliefs of The Salvation Army are that its members should completely refrain from drinking alcohol...." Are the official beliefs that it is a sin to drink alcohol (aside from medicinal uses, perhaps) or that it is merely the wisest path to abstain? Compare Christian views of alcohol. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is The Salvation Army evangelical or mainstream?

Is this an evangelical church or a mainstream church? This article says first that The Salvation Army is an evangelical church and then that it's a mainstream church. These can't both be true - mainstream (aka mainline) churches are more liberal than evangelical churches - and the two groups are mutually exclusive. I think The Salvation Army is evangelical, but not being an expert on that denomination, I await a clarification. Tim4christ17 talk 12:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In North America, evangelicals are considered mainstream.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I don't believe that Mainline (Protestant) and evangelical churches are mutually exclusive. Evangelicalism certainly implies a tendency to conservatism, but there are many conservatives in the mainline churches. There are also 'liberals' in the evangelical church. I don't think it's really possible to define the Salvation Army as one or the other — it's (literally) a broader church than that. For example, many Salvationists believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but many don't, and there is no doctrinal creed that requires such a belief.

CammoBlammo 12:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Work in the World Wars

This gets very short shrift in the article. I came to this article through a ref in a book I'm reading, a quote by a British soldier newly liberated from a Japanese POW camp in Borneo, and about to embark on a ship home from Kuching: 'Crowds gathered in the streets to cheer us on our way, although it was hardly 8 o'clock in the morning. We halted at a Salvation Army Canteen: this was a complete surprise. Truly their claim "Where we are needed, there we will go" never was more fully vindicated.' Also, I see from comments above that the article was considered US-centric: still the case, I'm afraid. Jasper33 16:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Para-Military" Rank Structure

The article should address and explain the para-military rank structure of the Salvation Army. I came to this article to learn this information, and it is not clearly explained, though there are refernces to "officers" and "soldiers" without explaining the differences in duties and/or how one ascends the rank structure. I wish someone with this knowledge would contribute.

I know it, I'll get better details from my sister who is a Major with this organization.--WPaulB 05:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The information is out of date, Candidate is the rank given before training college, cadet while in training, lieutenant the first five years, captain after five years, Major after 15. Non commissioned officers are now envoys and territorial envoys (former lieutenant), this since the change by General Shaw Clifton, March 2008 Olterman (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Standardise on non-US English?

The international headquarters of The Salvation Army is at 101 Queen Victoria Street, London, so is there any rational objection to standardising on the use of non-US English spelling for the article? God bless!...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 15:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The Salvation Army para military structure of ranks separates Officers (pastors/leaders) from church members - soldiers.

Within the church membership are various categories of Local Officers - similar to elders in other churches.

For instance in the Young People's Department (junior church) there is a Young People's Sergeant Major, Treasurer, Secretary, Young People's Band-Leader/Master, Young People's Singing Company (choir) Leader. Within the senior/adult church there are similar local officer positions - Sergeant Major, Treasurer, Secretary, Bandmaster, Songster (choir) Leader. Similar posts exist in the Women's Ministry "Home League" (i.e. ladies guild) President, Secretary Treasurer etc.

Within the 'commissioned' (ordained) officer ranks, individuals in training are known as Cadets and on commissioning (ordination) commence with the rank of Lieutenant, advancing to Captain then Major after appropriate length of service and satisafctory review. The higher ranks of Lieutenant Colonel, Colonel and Commissioner are reserved for higher executive positions.

The Salvation Army Ranks system has gone through a number of reviews. In the distant past there were many ranks - I have not the detals to hand but the list was something like: Ensign, Adjustant, Probationary Lieutenant, First Lieutenant, Second Lieutenant, Captain, Senior Captain, Major, Senior Major, Brigadier, Colonel, Lieutenant Colonel, Lieutenant Commissioner, and of course at the "top" the General.

General William Booth was initally called the "General Superintendent" of The Salvation Army - a foundation stone to that effect is/was at the old Salvation Army Corps (church hall) in Brunswick, Melbourne Australia.

Major David Watson, Mbeya, Tanzania Majordavid (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is SA a Cult??

This section has been edited and reverted several times, having been originally created by a non-static IP user who later claimed that it was bogus. There is no point to continuing to revert an entry that has no value to the discussion, nor leaving parts of the discussion without context. I've put the original discussion and the response back. This is not the article, it is the TALK page, where discussion is allowed, even if it's crap. Leave the talk alone.--WPaulB 15:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC) It is a well known fact that some hold the belief that Salvation Army is a cult. As it is my field to carry out investigatory projects in political and religious areas (not separating Church and State, you say, but just hold on a minute and hear me out...), I have taken the SA into my interest, and discovered some interesting and peculiar facts. After much research, I have found my suspicions to be verified by many sources, and they do not remain merely personal views of mine. It is my educated assumption that Salvation Army bears forth many cult-like characteristics, being comprised of what appear to be Satanic practices, deflowering the Christian religion and the practitioners of each Christian denomination. By a cult, I mean not to refer to a group bound together through veneration and sacred ideology, but a vile sect, proving to be false, unorthodox, and extremist. A dear friend and colleague of mine, Dr. Bryan Greenwall (PhD in Investigative Journalism from St. James University of Minnesota) began his career in the field of inquisitive evaluations and assays. According to a report filed by Greenwall, excessive implementation of authoritarian leaders and officials has come up in SA establishments throughout North America. Greenwall took it upon himself to tour the facilities of the SA Family Services building in Ogden, Utah, and uncovered some disturbing documents and rituals. Animal cruelty is a primary practice of the SA, which has been concealed since the mid 1860's, shortly after it was founded along military lines. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) was contacted immediately by Greenwall's request. In the chapel (often included in SA Family Service erections), the cruel and unusual ceremonies commence with the ringing of bells (such as used during Christmas fundraising). The genral public is deceived and lured in to unknowingly support the efforts of the SA cult. Posters are often used in the foyer of SA edifices, offering generous rewards for lost animals, as you may have seen. Instead of being returned to the unfortunate owners, the domestic pets are actually donations for SA ritualistic rites. In the particular case of Greenwall's encounter with the SA, ancient Latin hymns (unfamiliar to Greenwall, but clearly traditional to Christians), were sung gallantly as the animals were slaughtered and burned in a small pit. The motto of the SA ("Blood and Fire") clearly alludes to these illicit acts. In my recent visits to several SA buildings around the West coast and through the Rocky Mountains, I have noticed an unsettling number of razor-wire fences surrounding the back of the facilities. I have also noted heavily barred windows, obviously intended to keep the unwelcome out and secrets in. I persuade you to let my observations mull through your thoughts, and perhaps my insight will discourage you from supporting this conservative and illegitimate foundation. My comments may seem rather radical, but be assured that Greenwall and myself are only looking out for public safety and the wellbeing of society. Thank you for your time! Potatostew22 06:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Ferdinand H. Randolf IV, on behalf of Dr. Bryan Greenwall, PhD.

Is there any chance you could tell us what you mean by any of this? I've been involved in the Salvation Army for over twenty years and I have never seen anything remotely resembling animal cruelty, unless you count using fly spray to get rid of unwanted insects from my office. I have never sung a hymn in Latin, and the only death pits I have had anything to do with were at perfectly normal (human) funerals. I have seen some Corps use bells at the beginning of meetings, but they are only used to call attention to the fact that the meeting is about to start. The term 'Blood and Fire' is a reference to the blood of Jesus and the fire of the Holy Spirit, both of which figure in the symbolism of most other denominations in one way or another. And if bars on windows are a sign that there are evil secrets contained within…
Sorry if I've just been feeding a troll folks, but it's not beyond reason that somebody could actually believe this!CammoBlammo 12:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"My comments may seem rather radical"

They also are very ill-informed, as I and my family have also been a member for decades and none of these suggested rites ever occurred. Two of my sisters were leaders of Canadian west coast/Rockies corps or Family Services, and I certainly saw no pits or razor wire. Also, I can't find the supposed St. James University of Minnesota in a search of Minnesota educational facilities, and thus, no (Dr.) Bryan Greenwall. The only thing true in this article is that some people think it is a cult, supported by crappy unsourced websites and blogs galore. The blogs usually say "it's a cult" without any knowledge of the definition of cult, or just because the SA doesn't agree with a journaller's experiences of faith or expectations of a Christian group. Some of their opinion is modelled on the SA's social controversy mentioned in this article and elsewhere. However, the sites I visited searching for this information don't seem to have any of the comments noted here. PETA's homepage doesn't mention investigating the Salvation Army in it's history on it's website.
We don't edit people's opinions on talk pages, but if there is no St James U in Minnesota, or if there is but no Bryan Greenwall graduated from there (a bit harder to prove without credentials), this whole section is a lie from that poster other than the "people think it's a cult" reference.--WPaulB 02:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My personal Opinion being the one and Only Dr. Bryan Greenwall I am in fact much alive and well and although my ideas are radical you can't help but think it might be truly possible. Think about it every comment dissuading you from believing that it is true are people that work for the salvation army, who wouldn't protect they're company from legal harm that would cause irreparable damage to they're organizations image. It is our chance to finally end the horrors of the SA think of the children think of the animals and in they're own small way they are the culprits for the disappearences for all the cats and animals recently going through towns and neighborhoods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.75.135 (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're alive and well, I'd love to know why your name and organization do not appear in any list, online or off, for universities and colleges. The IP that you are posting from has exactly one real edit that is semi-constructive, the rest are vandalism or "Opinion" like the one above, and two edits to this page come from the same IP - one for "you" and one which was apparently removed (still listed in the special contributions for this IP) that "confirmed" your view, again with no source. Your writing is unsourced rhetoric. Nothing about the SA being a cult will be added to the article if no verifiable and reputable source can be referenced. Original research/opinion doesn't get added to the article.--WPaulB 17:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I deeply apologize there is in fact no Dr. Bryan Greenwall just the invention of a bored teenage mind. My father told me the rumors and my budddies and I got together and wrote a whole lengthy essay on it being a cult none of this is factual and I hope the good people working in Salvation Army will accept my sincerest apologies that I have for them in fact I am proud to say I shop at some of their stores and love all the vintage and wonderful things they offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.31.10 (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Due to the outrageous statement presented here by Mr. Green Wall it is in my honest opinion having just come home from christmas shopping counting more than twenty street corner workers for S.A raising money for whatever cause is important to them. All of these claims are unfounded and based purely on myths not facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.31.117 (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Land Ownership in australia?

I was living in Australia in 2003 and remember an article in the "the Age" (I think). It mentioned that the salvation army was the second largest land owner in australia, only beaten by the federal government! Does anyone have information on this or any financial information on the organisation worldwide? I think that this would be valuable information... - Tim

Hi Tim, I can't say for sure, but I very much doubt this is correct. The Salvation Army in Australia does own a lot of property, but it wouldn't be much (comparatively) in terms of acreage. And there would be plenty of companies and other organisations which would easily have more in the way of buildings, as well. CammoBlammo 13:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War Cry vs Warcry

A recent emendation changes the name of the Army's magazine from 'Warcry' to 'War Cry'. This is fair enough, but the term 'Warcry' is, in fact, correct in some places (for example, Australia). I don't want to change it back though, and I think it would be silly to have a whole section discussing variations in the spelling of magazine names around the world... thoughts? CammoBlammo 13:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to War Cry to reflect the official name in the UK, where the International Headquarters is located and as such, the source of choice from a Wikipedia standpoint? Perhaps a simple note about translated into many languages and sometimes under different names may be sufficient?--WPaulB 17:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added Internal Links

I have added Internal Links to this article. Kathleen.wright5 15:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Now there are a lot of RED links to nothing and so much BLUE that it is distracting to read.--WPaulB 16:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
As in every other article recently with Kathleen.wright5 and "Internal Links Added" in its history - and as I've said in several other places, many of these wikilinks are unnecessary!
So please don't create redlinks (look here) or link every other common word in articles..... Zir 23:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have disambiguated Religous Terms and other terms and added and removed some Links Kathleen.wright5 02:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drug Rehab Legal issues

The Salvation Army has also been known to interfere with the legal issues of those persons who have had contact with it. This would mean that if a person sentenced to a drug or alcohol rehab were to use The Salvation Army to finish his court ordered therapy, The Salvation Army would insert itself into the person's court issue if he ever tried to appeal his conviction. That's not just The Salvation Army, many drug rehabs do the same thing so as not to lose another body. What The Salvation Army has done in San Diego is a prime example, here The Salvation Army even interferes with the sale of dontated automobiles. But again, many drug rehabs use the same tactics; the spread of missions and rehabs across San Diego has been extensively reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.147.234 (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Reformatted!Please read before assuming your post was deleted!

I just "reformatted" the page so that all the same topics would be merged(there were like 6 topics about the gays, and several more about it being very US centric, and two that said the exact same thing about Ireland, and af ew about it's NPOV, for instance). I also changed the name of a few topics to clarify what they were about. I was NOT attempting to delete or remove anything, so if you can't find your topic please feel free to put it back in-AFTER YOU HAVE LOOKED FOR IT! It might be in a different section or just have had it's sections name changed!!!! I do ask that you don't just undo my edit.PLEASE Feel free to comment my talk page to ask if you can't find your comment/edit.Kairos (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] were...

does it mention the Salvation Army pulling it's funding on 2 childrens programs? (one of wich was my school)Altenhofen (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Blocking

All (or almost 100%) of the recent vandalism has come from IPs starting with 79. This block is owned by RIPE Network Coordination Centre in Amsterdam. RIPE also has the entire IP block from 81 and 82, from which IPs are vandalizing pages linked to other Salvation Army-specific topics from here.

I am also willing to bet that user "Just Plain Silly" is also using an IP from that block as his or her edits are consistent with the same vandalizing material, along with editing the user pages of at least one person who reverts the vandalism added.

Can we block this range of addresses from editing this page?--WPaulB (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy: Russia

The controversy section includes Russia twice, both using the same sources. There is an extra sentence in one. The one with that extra makes it look like Russia's decision to allow the group was illegal by the European Commission on Human Rights. The one without doesn't say that Russia changed its mind. I'm not how to tighten this, as I'm not sure exactly what order gives the correct semantic meanings. There is no date that I can see in these articles that indicate Russia changed its mind on its own, or was pressured by Europe.--WPaulB (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)