Talk:The Salvation Army

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Life issues[edit]

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)[reply]

That editor was correct in removing it, because it was a copyright violation, being copied verbatim from the very website it cited. Contributions to Wikipedia must be original, not copy-pastes from other websites. Elizium23 (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a copyright violation because the source isn't protected by any of these rights. Do some research. What Wikipedia encourages is not to use primary sources but we can use them if we don't have better ones.Mistico (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, that is nonsense. There is a clear copyright notice on the cited website. Wikipedia is not allowed to use copyrighted material in this fashion. We are permitted to use primary sources by paraphrasing them and making short quotes properly attributed, not by copy-paste of entire paragraphs from them. Please do some research. Elizium23 (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Salute[edit]

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)[reply]

Their salute is one finger pointed toward Heaven with the palm facing outward. The other fingers don't point at themselves or anyone else. Perhaps you're confusing it with a different one or two-fingered salute. --WPaulB (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about statistics[edit]

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)[reply]

Just for clarification, soldiers are full members who have taken a covenant to the Salvation Army. Adherents are those who attend the Salvation Army but have not taken the soldiership covenant. They do not wear the Salvation Army uniform but attend and support it.
'Adherency' is a form of membership of The Salvation Army which varies from country to country. It never requires the full acceptance of Salvation Army regulations that 'soldiership' (full membership) requires, but in many countries the adherent signs a Certificate of Recognition.
http://www.salvationarmy.org.za/index.php/our-faith/soldier-s-convenant
http://www.salvationarmy.org.za/index.php/our-faith/adherent-membership

--WPaulB (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RE: the Biblical view of homosexuality.[edit]

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)[reply]

I had to remove what you added. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your belief, but it is not in the citation and this is not a message board so we have to go by what happened and what the citation says. --Sonic2030 (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT removal[edit]

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)[reply]

Purpose? It provides information to people who are looking for it. That's the basic idea of an encyclopedia.
If it's not NPOV, tag it or rewrite it. If it's not appropriately sourced, tag it or find sources. If it's outside the scope of the article, split it off into a different article. If it weren't notable, or if it were inappropriate stuff about a living person, or if it were junk unrelated to the article, (vandalism), then you could get rid of it. But you don't get to just remove information because, for political reasons or any other, you don't want people to be able to get that information from Wikipedia. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT removal[edit]

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)[reply]

Try learning policy. "Pinknews" and "Samesame" fail WP:RS, on several counts. Furthermore, unless the stories can be found in mainstream sources, the presence of these items in the article also fails WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. This stuff is naked POV-pushing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a comprehensive catalog of every single occasion when a gay person had his feelings hurt. Belchfire-TALK 20:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The soruces were fine your reasoning not so much. Looking at your edits you seem to have a NPOV issue with LBGT edits. Please stop your NPOV edit war and either be a good active editor or please remove yourself from issues you have problems with. --Sonic2030 (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a simple matter of Wikipedia policy. Please review the policy I cited and describe how your sources comply. I can see from your last edit that you have a flagrant pro-LGBT POV. If we evenly apply your own logic, perhaps you shouldn't be editing this article. Belchfire-TALK 20:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your rationale appears to consist of half-truths. You removed many reliable sources along with the unreliable ones. Care to explain that? For example, you removed a link to a story from CTV News and its corresponding content,[2] as well as a link to ABC News (Australia) and its content.[3] Perhaps you were hoping nobody would notice? Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This edit by Belchfire is misleading, it says "rm unsourced material and material concerning an obscure incident involving a single bell-ringer". Yet it says according to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, "The charity's website describes marriage as heterosexual by definition, and a previously published document called on homosexuals to embrace celibacy as a way of life." TFD (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's misleading about it? I removed unsourced content from one section of the article, and some trivia about a bell-ringer from another section... exactly like the edit summary says. Belchfire-TALK 08:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary for your comment was "suggest you pay no attention to false allegations made by other editors". In fact I read your edit and you misrepresented that you removed a factual statement by a respected news source commenting on a Salvation Army policy. You have clearly expressed your opposition to LGBT and may be correct in whether the issue of the bellringer deserves weight. However, it would be helpful if you do not provide misleading edit summaries and stick to actual policy. If your interpretation of policy is accurate then there is no need to mislead us about the edits of other users. TFD (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should clarify: "other editors" was not referring to you - that time.
So anyway, how was anybody supposed to know the statement is in a source (IF it is)? As you can clearly see in this diff [4], it wasn't footnoted. It was all by itself, with no citation after it, and I'm not responsible (nor is any editor) to go chasing after the source for a snippet of content that isn't properly footnoted.
Thus, the edit summary stands: the material was unsourced. I didn't misrepresent anything. Belchfire-TALK 08:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added some of the information back that is mainstream and has plenty of referances, minus the part without the footnote I see. Seems WP:CON is meet from the majority above as well. --HelferLad (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality and The Salvation Army[edit]

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)[reply]

Maybe. How about now we leave the small parts that are in it and see if this gets bigger? If it starts to take up much more and gets more mainstream then may need to leave a small blurb here and then build off later? I've seen more and more of this on the news until the school shooting in the states seems to have taken it off now though. --HelferLad (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honours section[edit]

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)[reply]

Actually it could be drastically reduced to just those 5 or 6 recipients who have their own articles.Theroadislong (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Let's reduce it to a list of "notable recipients". If the Order itself is notable, then a new article can be a possibility. Elizium23 (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel as though the honors section should be longer. Would it make sense to add why The Salvation Army has been awarded these honors?Gracewhidden (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aust Section[edit]

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)[reply]

Actually it is not. You have reverted my changes in which I removed information definitely not supported by any source and copyedited for capitalization and other errors. Please self-revert, or I shall proceed to WP:EWN to report you for 3RR violation. Elizium23 (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support Elizium's edit to this version: [5] Federales (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...except that version was sourced only to a dead link. So I've fixed the link and put back the parts you removed that were properly sourced, adding extra reliable sources including the SA themselves. Which is what should have been done in the first place, instead of edit-warring. Black Kite (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First line?[edit]

The Salvation Army is a Christian denomination and international charitable organisation organised in a quasi-military structure.

Does that mean it's a church? Shouldn't it say clearly somewhere to clarify that? GreaseballNYC (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reliable secondary sources[edit]

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)[reply]

Sources are not required to be secondary, although it is usually preferred. In any case, I added a better source. - MrX 18:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Section For Ray & Joan Kroc Corps Community Centers??[edit]

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)[reply]

English variety - American or British?[edit]

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)[reply]

According to the 'edit' page this article is written in the English language's 'mother tongue', i.e., British English. So why are there still many examples of the US version.

'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

The editnotice is wrong and I'm trying to get it changed. See above. Also, please stop edit-warring and refactoring TALK PAGE comments. That is disruptive and will be met with blocks. Elizium23 (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: Changed. Let me know if you need any further help. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editwarring and sockpuppetry[edit]

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? -- HazhkTalk 16:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hazhk This is not an attempt at editwarring nor sockpuppetry as you've stated. I am an employee of The Salvation Army (as stated in my message to you), making updates and changes on its behalf. I've also stated, "if you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me via the email provided". --User:Tsasouth — Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tsasouth: Whether or not it is an "attempt" at edit-warring, repeatedly making the same edit after it is repeatedly reverted is edit-warring. Persistently repeating the same edits in the hope that others will eventually give up and let you have your way is not a constructive way of settling disagreements: if you believe you have good reasons for your edit, please explain them here. You say that you have invited other editors to contact you "via the email provided", but I have no idea where or when you said that: certainly not in any edit made with the account Tsasouth, and I have no idea what email address you are referring to. In any case, it is unhelpful to expect editors to email every other editor they wish to communicate with, and that is what Wikipedia has talk pages for. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email received from Tsasouth[edit]

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)[reply]

RfC: Should the language of this British organisation be in British English[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Use British English, per MOS:TIES, MOS:ENGVAR and almost unanimous consensus. --GRuban (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC) Edit notice updated. Fences&Windows 22:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Support the change to use BrEng on this article. – SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How would re-writing this article in British English add to our readers' understanding of the topic?--Adam in MO Talk 03:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's something of a straw man: if we use the MoS to justify inactivity little will ever get done. If the George Washington article was written in British English it would not bar any reader from total comprehension, and yet I'll lay good money that there would be a maelstrom of complaint from US readers over the selection and a change would come quickly enough. Ditto wth a company: If Google or Microsoft had first been written in Br Eng, I can guarantee that there wuld be a switch to AmEng, despite there being no reason that would "add to our readers' understanding of the topic", or the international nature of the two companies. – SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I simply asked a question, good sir, perhaps you would do well with a generous reading of AGF guidelines. It is a valid question, if you are proposing a dramatic re-write of the article, the onus is on you to demonstrate how it would improve the text.--Adam in MO Talk 16:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming GF while answering (rather obviously). To somehow categorise the change as "dramatic" is to over-egg the pudding somewhat: a mild copy edit of less than five minutes would have this in the correct form of English - nothing "dramatic" there at all. Again, it's not anything to do with "improving the text": the language here is inappropriate for a Brtish institution, so a minor change will not downgrade this either. - SchroCat – ''Hapus Dydd Gŵyl Dewi'' (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On face value I tend to agree with Adam in MO's question. IMO, as a large global organization am not sure if the article meets MOS:TIES, and so looking at both the length of the article and its current usage, I would think that MOS:RETAIN means it should stay as is. That said, I can see how a case could be made made for changing it. Perhaps SchroCat can suggest why they think this issue meets MOS:TIES. Jargon777 Leave a message 00:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't see that an organisation 'born' in Britain that has been headquartered there for an unbroken 151 years should be in British English? I'm struggling not to see that as culturally insensitive. RETAIN is all well and good if there isn't a connection (a colour, or a mineral), but if a book or a film was 'born' in one country we have strong MoS guidance to use the 'home' language, not another variant, or the language that American writers want. – SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominally I don't have a problem with the change from American English. However, the organization being born there is not really sufficient for MOS:TIES, IMO. The strongest case that can be made for changing it is that, in addition to current headquarters, is that it used to at one point be called East London Christian Mission and that British Immigrants were responsible for spreading it in other places of the world (such as Canada). But again, I am still not wholly convinced that it meets MOS:TIES. You have to admit, that compared to something like the Queen, which is quintessentially British, the Sally Ann is no longer like that, having a world-wide footprint. My country's first Prime Minister is British-born, but that doesn't mean we use British spelling on that article. As a note, because I've read the comments below/above too, if you use accusative statements with people it doesn't go over so well (for example, your previous reply could be read as implying I am culturally insensitive). My comment was made to encourage you to make a better case for your proposal as the RfC'er for this topic, and not an attempt to try appropriate pieces of history to the American cause (which I am not part of). Jargon777 Leave a message 17:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it an underwhelming argument to say there is no sufficient connection. If, as I say above, Microsoft was written in BrEng, there would be a wave of protests, despite the very international nature of the company. This is no different: an organisation that was 'born' in Britain, founded by a Briton, has an unbroken 150+ history of being headquartered in Britain, an organisation that puts on its international homepage "Good afternoon, welcome to the website of The Salvation Army's International Headquarters in London, UK", is an intrinsically British organisation. As per similar organisations – much like the example of OXFAM below – this should be in British English. Unlike your first prime minister, who based himself solely in Canada for most of his life and acted for that country, the Salvation Army has never been a solely American institution, and the choice of American English for the article is culturally insensitive, regardless. – – SchroCat (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No It should remain as it is, for consistency. The Salvation Army is, like OXFAM, a global organization headquartered in Britain. Their work and their profile is that of a global church and, as such, they do not have a "strong national tie" with Britain.--Adam in MO Talk 16:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain "consistency" in your answer"? Good thing OXFAM's article is in Oxford English. Good thing that the front page of the Sally Army's international website states "Good afternoon, welcome to the website of The Salvation Army's International Headquarters in London, UK". No strong national ties there, then! - SchroCat – ''Hapus Dydd Gŵyl Dewi'' (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could I explain my answer? No, I don't think I will. I have tried, in vain to collaborate to with you. I don't feel that this article meet MOS:TIES. There isn't any thing else I have to add unless you have some better reasoning other than your opinions.--Adam in MO Talk 16:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are unable to explain "consistency", given the huge inconsistencies in your answer, given the inconsistencies in the article (as it is largely already in British, not American, date format), then I guess you have no real answer to as why this rather British organisation does not, as with Oxfam, use British English. One more thing: you have not, by any normal measure "tried, in vain to collaborate" at all. You have asked a question, given an answer inconsistent with the facts, and not gone off: not collaboration at all. - – SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your opinions Schro, I will file them in the appropriate bin. Cheers mate. --Adam in MO Talk 21:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what the point of your reply is, but never mind. – – SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the invitation. I have said all will say on the topic. My opinion, regardless of the content, will not sway consensus either way. --Adam in MO Talk 21:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My opinion is that this article should be changed to British spelling. I think it meets MOS:TIES because of the following reasons:
    • Other articles exist on the Salvation Army for their operations in other countries (e.g. Australia, Canada), which assigns some national identity to the various branches of the Salvation Army.
    • The Salvation Army's history is strongly tied to Britain. For example, it was originally called the East London Christian Mission. It was founded in London, and its international operations continue to be based there. Its High Council is mandated to meet in the UK and continues to be based there.
    • The Salvation Army's international operations are governed by British Law, including provisions in the Salvation Army Act (1980) (see link)
Jargon777 Leave a message 19:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC) (edited for grammar/style 19:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support per SchroCat. This is an English based article so should have English based prose to support that. It's a no-brainier. CassiantoTalk 19:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The Wikipedia rules are clear: see WP:ENGVAR – we are to stick with the variety of English first used in the article, unless there is a subsequent consensus to change. In this case we started with British English ("centres", passim) and unless a consensus can be established for changing to an overseas variant of English the British spelling must be maintained. If we were now starting from scratch, there might have been a case to be made – the Salvation Army having spread its tentacles internationally – for using some other variety of English, but as the article was started in BrE in 2002 there is no admissible reason to change from the original to another variety of English without a consensus for the change. Tim riley talk 19:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't even notice the British spelling on that page when I looked... I must be reading too much American English. This eliminates any need to have a discussion on MOS:TIES. Jargon777 Leave a message 20:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protestant[edit]

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)[reply]

The Salvation Army is primarily a religious organization and a charitable organization. Knowing that it is a Protestant Church is very important for understanding what we are talking about. --RaphaelQS (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that it is protestant, and if it is why does that mean that this belongs in the lead rather than the body of the article? Britmax (talk) 11:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article details plainly how the SA traces its Methodist roots and Protestant doctrine. I wasn't aware there is a debate about that. The second lede paragraph covers this adequately. Isn't that enough that mention wouldn't be needed in the lede sentence? Elizium23 (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the lead sentence should describe the subject of the article. The fact that this is a Protestant Church is equally important for describing the Salvation Army as saying that it is a charitable organization. --RaphaelQS (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The recent deletion of my lead paragraph by user kinu on grounds of bias[edit]

... 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)[reply]

I agree with the removal. Not only is it a violation of the style guidelines, but I agree that some of the passages are not written from a neutral point of view and do not accurately reflect the article. I single out "an evangelical part of the universal Christian church", "Its ministry is motivated by the love of God", and "Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination" as passages that do not appear to tie to the full text of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case a rewrite is better than deleting the offending text Adrian816 (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, the intro should say things like "The Army's doctrine is typical of evangelical Protestant churches" and "The Army's purposes are 'the advancement of the Christian religion ... of education, the relief of poverty, and other charitable objects beneficial to society or the community of mankind as a whole'"? —C.Fred (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
…Because that is already in the intro! —C.Fred (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
C.Fred has sufficiently explained the rationale for the removal, indicating why it is both redundant and inappropriate. I have no desire to provide further comment on this matter due to the violation of the no personal attacks policy in your statement. --Kinu t/c 02:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the summary box, top right where there’s the logo I want to add “sacred text: bible”[edit]

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)[reply]

If this is not already the case, do we want to risk every religion putting its sacred text into the box as well? Britmax (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The info box code built in to Wikipedia doesn’t recognise my edit of sacred_text — Bible[edit]

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)[reply]

@Adrian816:, the simple answer is "no". Infoboxes are a type of template and templates only recognize specified parameters. The parameters for this type of infobox are specified at template:Infobox Christian denomination and "|sacred_text" is not among them. Hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've just found this thread. I left a more detailed reply at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Salvation Army page, where Adrian816 (talk · contribs) left a very similar question. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Worship Services section edited to cite source[edit]

..... so will an administrator please verify citation of source and remove "warning unsourced content" banner. thanks Adrian816 (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian816, I am afraid that the "Worship Services" section does not currently contain any cited source. Note that a source must be a referenced to a published reliable source. "Eyewitness" accounts cannot be cited unless they have been published elsewhere in a reliable publication. The address of an institution that might answer inquiries is not a published source. Please add an actual citation to a reliable source that supports the content before removing the warning tag. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to an external website, but the link insertion tool didn't give the result I expected[edit]

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)[reply]

@Adrian816: The page you want to read is WP:External links, where it's specifically stated that external links (e.g., links to the official website) should not be included within the text of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to cite an oficial Twitter feed please?[edit]

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)[reply]

There is Template:Cite tweet, but as the documentation says, "tweets are largely not acceptable as sources." If it's more than some uncontroversial detail such as the name of the General, we should use secondary sources instead. Huon (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion LGBT[edit]

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)[reply]

Looking at the infobox in the top right hand corner....[edit]

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)[reply]

Done. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 04:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change the way membership statistics are displayed[edit]

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)[reply]

These should be useful help:table & Help:Basic table markup. However, note Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables#Inappropriate use under prose says "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alduin2000 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 May 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

  • Oppose, this one seems to be a prominent part of the organization's name. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, The Salvation Army seems more like the examples from WP:THE which retain "The" rather than the ones which drop it. "The" is in the logo of the organization and if you look at the organization's own materials, https://story.salvationarmy.org/ for example, it's only left off when the name is being used as an adjective. In every instance I've seen of the name while browsing their web sites where it's being used as a proper noun, "The" is both present and capitalized. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 20:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – per nom. and from the articles I have seen (Local newspapers, NBCNews.com, Fox News, etc.) "the" is generally lowercased unless it's the first word of the sentence. Corky 16:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Bemused: are you honestly offering the article titled Spring cleaning: Here's what to do with that unwanted stuff in section "www.nbcnews.com/better/pop-culture" as a proof what NBC News does? No such user (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. I have never understood why this article is titled in this way. "The" is not commonly capitalised in running text when referring to this organisation apart from by the organisation itself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per The Beatles, it is the common name of the organization as well as what they call themselves (see the registered logo at the front of the article). Running text use in these cases is used after the title and first mention on the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's irrelevant what they call themselves. What's relevant is how the name is used in reliable sources. The Beatles is a completely different case. Nobody would just write Beatles. They would write Salvation Army. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "official name" in WP:THE, the specific guideline cited in this proposal, definitely does not mean "however the authors of secondary sources feel like referring to the topic of the article". Otherwise enough racists doing that thing where they pointedly ignore the fact that Muhammad Ali changed his name would be cause to rename the article "Cassius Clay." We also should not refer to Rohingya Muslims with some name that implies they aren't legitimately people of Myanmar just because the government of Myanmar wants them referred to that way. If "The" appears in the organization's own logo it's not a "noise word" in the context in which common usage is mentioned in the introduction of the guideline. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 11:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read WP:OFFICIAL and WP:COMMONNAME as well. Our naming policy is not dictated by the organisation in question, but by common usage in reliable sources. No reliable source these days refers to Muhammad Ali as Cassius Clay, except when referring to the time when he was Cassius Clay, so that's a spurious argument if ever I saw one. That's about WP:COMMONNAME, not WP:THE in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should read the things you're linking to yourself. Even that essay states "Official names are generally represented in primary sources, such as official websites, album covers, annual reports, press releases by involved parties, and so on..." and "official name" is repeatedly specified in WP:THE. By all means say that you want to reject this religious organization's official name for itself and argue in favor of truncating it—as such a rejection is an available option—but please don't call my arguments spurious when you're clearly cognizant enough of what I'm saying to qualify your statement about Muhammad Ali with "these days" and pointedly ignore my contemporary example involving a religious group. You are tossing around links to policies and essays that explicitly refer to the use of a topic's official name for the title of some articles at the same time you're trying to act as though official names are irrelevant. Flagrantly ignoring the parts of policies you don't like is not the same thing as making an argument supporting your position. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 16:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "The Salvation Army" is the official name. Secondly, it is almost always referred to as "The Salvation Army" in the United States, not "Salvation Army." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholemacgregor (talk • contribs) 02:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opose The Salvation Army is refered to with the word "THE" outside of the UK.
    And? It's not referred to with "The" in the UK, so the usage isn't consistent, ergo WP doesn't impose a "The".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean on Support per GBook search. There are several full-volume works such as Norman Murdoch (19 September 2014). Origins of the Salvation Army. Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4982-0291-6. that consistently lowercase "the". No such user (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. WP:THE is clear, and this is not an exception. The Beatles is not an analogous case (both because band names are subject to their own guideline, and because they aren't referred to as simply "Beatles" the way Barenaked Ladies doesn't have a leading "The", yet [the] Salvation Army often is. We have WP:THE for the very reason that representative and fans of any particular entity are apt to insist on prefixing it with a "The" to make it sound more important ("The National Rifle Association", "The American Civil Liberties Union", "The University of Oxford", and millions of other examples), and the entities themselves tend to do this in their own marketing materials, but it's just a WP:CONCISE problem here, and does not help readers, especially since the version with "The" is going to redirect to the article anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It doesn't matter whether it's prepended with an uppercase or lowercase "the", it's clear that the name is referred to with a "the" in all cases. Nobody will say "I worked for Salvation Army".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No one says "I'm going to Salvation Army." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:2:813:0:0:0:80 (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Their official website is www.salvationarmy.org without the definite article. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, everybody says "The Salvation Army." It would be like saying "States of America" instead of "United States of America." It just doesn't sound right, nor does anyone do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnydepp1776 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of above RM[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Then you ask an uninvolved admin to do it. You do not do it yourself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Glancing through WP:RMCI it does seem that it would have been more orthodox for an uninvolved editor to do the closure, and I personally would have expected a "no consensus" result from the above comments. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 15:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section sorting[edit]

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)[reply]

"Criticism by LGBT activists" Section[edit]

@Britmax: Changes from "LGBT" to "LGBTQIA+" represent a broader community

  • Q -- Queer
  • I -- Intersex
  • A -- Asexual
  • + -- Denotes other non-heterosexual identities and orientations not listed

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)[reply]

I'm afraid that you should not assume that these changes are automatically covered by the existing sources. Britmax (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry; I'm not sure what you're saying here. Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The original sources are good for the term "LGBT". A widening of this term requires either further sourcing or a check that the existing sources cover the extra territory, or it falls foul of WP:OR restrictions. Britmax (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, still not clear on what you're saying, but I'm also not going to waste time arguing with you. "LGBTQIA+" is the standard abbreviation now for non-cishet individuals, but I'll leave addressing this to someone else. I don't have the time or the spoons. Unwatching this page.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Britmax: I just picked the first source I saw in the section, this NYT article from 2001, and I see no way in which it would preferentially support a section heading including “LGBT” over “LGBTQIA+”; it does not contain either acronym, and if one of them can be interpolated as having support from it, so can the other.
Is your assertion here that activist critics of The Salvation Army aren't activists for queer, intersex, asexual, or for example enby people? That, while hardly impossible, seems like something which is WP:OR and needs sourcing, not Septegram's change.
“LGBTQIA+” is simply conventional, and the most logical thing to interpret from sources like the NYT. When we write “United States” on Wikipedia, we aren't required to add fifty citations to separately confirm that the statement is individually true of each state—we can just go ahead and write “United States” because it's a conventional, common, expressive, and accurate term, and the same is true of “LGBTQIA+”. (Though actually, I can think of more legitimate objections to “United States” than to “LGBTQIA+”, but those are probably matters best saved for another thread...) --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 05:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is that if you are going to broaden the scope of this you are obliged by the no synthesis rules to either indicate why the existing source already covers this, or find a new one that does. If you do not there is a danger that anyone could make these changes with no support at all. Britmax (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. You are not arguing against WP:SYNTHESIS to say that a citation which contains neither “LGBT” nor “LGBTQIA+” supports one of those over the other, you're just name-dropping policies without caring what they actually say or mean. As the explanatory supplement Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not says, SYNTH is not just any synthesis. Indeed, as I said above, a suggestion that activist critics of The Salvation Army aren't activists for queer, intersex, asexual, or for example enby people looks 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)[reply]

Biased History[edit]

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)[reply]

Sounds like you're knowledgeable on this topic; certainly more so than I. Go ahead and add the information!
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epaulettes[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(apologies ... by 'dinner territories' I meant 'some territories'. Swipe text fail!!) tim.wilson.online (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Lives Matter - BLM[edit]

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)[reply]

In music section[edit]

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)[reply]

Defaced Wikipedia page[edit]

There may potentially be bias in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EloquentMosquito (talk • contribs) 09:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell us where so something can be done about it, if needed. Britmax (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In media section[edit]

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)[reply]

Land owned in backus mn.by the salvation army of ill.[edit]

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)[reply]

Fox News and CRT "controversy" in "Racism guide" section[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Salvation_Army&oldid=1194080563"