Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:06, 13 May 2007

Expansion

I am going to attempt to expand the article with material and citations from reputable secondary sources. Smee 04:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, Smee, for bringing some real references to this article. Regards Bksimonb 06:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for acknowledging my work. Where there were previously Zero citations, I have added information in the article such that it is backed up by (14) citations to reputable secondary sourced material. Smee 11:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Response from Doug Harris of Reachout Trust

Not sure if this is the way this should be done but have received this email:

I have unblocked your account. I'm not sure why it was blocked - it may be that an administrator thought it was an impersonator of your organisation - or being used for promotional purposes.

What I'd encourage you to do is to make suggestions for changes to the article

on the discussion page of the article. Click the 'discussion' tab at the top - and be willing to work with our users to generate a neutral article, containing only information verifiable for reliable sources.

We generally discourage people from editing articles they are immediately concerned with, because many subjects find neutrality difficult and essentially wish an advert/promotion with all critical material removed. However, if you are willing to work with other editors, it should help them to make a good article, that is fair and neutral.

Yours sincerely, Scott MacDonald

-- Misplaced Pages - http://en.wikipedia.org

I would like to do this and the email came in response from my complint that the page as it stands now contains some clear inaccuracies that have been picked up from web articles but have not been checked with us.

The two main ones I would ask you to change are:

1. Maureen Davies is not a key person for Reachout Trust – she was an Area Director at one time but she left the organisation over 10 years ago. When they quoted Maureen as a reliable source it was for information she produced not us.

2. We did not publish the booklet Doorways to Danger and had nothing to do with its producing – that was the Evangelical Alliance.

I did not start this page but am very happy to have information about us here but please can it be correct. Thank you. You can contact me via rt@reachouttrust.org should you need to.

--Reachouttrust 13:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Doug Harris

Hi Doug,

I have made the changes you requested. I have confirmed that "Doorways to Danger" was indeed produced by the Evangelical Alliance . I didn't delete Maureen Davies altogether since I don't have access to the references but have attributed Maureen as being the "reliable source". Let me know if it reads OK.

I hope you accept my reasoning below for pulling the article etc. It is done according to Misplaced Pages's policy and not out of self interest, as one other editor suggested. Apologies for any upset caused. At the end of the day we now have a much better sourced article so it wasn't all in vein :-)

Regards Bksimonb 19:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You are correct doug, the BKWSU follower reported you , we have had problems with them doing so as a way to control articles. he also deleted by documentation of this which i think is important and valid

there is a rule on the wiki that says you should be nice and helpful to newcomers not slap them down , especially when you have a conflict of interest just to clarify the above title and Bk simons comments in my own words as i am named in it

Bksimonb is a Brahma Kumaris follower and part of their IT team ,beyond just looking after their servers and security they monitor, try to control or remove information about the Bkwsu from the internet , as the Bks have done for many years in the press in india

the reachout trust has published two articles by an ex-member of the Bkwsu exposing the knowledge and lifestyle..........they were linked to on the BKWSU page someone.......i do not know who or if they were connected........registered a user called Reachouttrust and simon immediately put in a complaint to have them banned on the usual sorts of accusations..........it happened so quick i did not think they even did anythin , their logs dont show it http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=128908455 http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Reachouttrust i reported this to the conflict of interest to the admins , i am not surprise to discover a Bk acting in this way as i am also being targetted by them , already Bk simon is attempting to use this as a "personal attack" ..............and i dare say he will use it against me further if this article is to develop new users have to be helped and encouraged not hammered down by wiklawyering by people it is not hard to see have a conflict of interest Green108 16:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Green108 from BKWSU talk page regarding this article

In response to .

You are right it is no co-incidence regarding the Reachout Trust article. I had the article on my watchlist because it used to give undue weighting to the BKWSU (something 244 added) when they do, in fact, focus on the LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses primarily. There is only one testimony on their website about BKWSU and testimonies are not even valid citations for Wikipeda. I have no real beef with Reachout Trust. They are really just doing what they were set up to do.

If I notice vandalism on any page I am watching I aim to correct it.

If you check the history you will see that I actually removed some blatant bias against the Reachout Trust . I also reported the vandalism and the user concerned was blocked since he already had a final warning .

It was unfortunate that someone then decided to turn the whole article into an advert for Reachout Trust in violation of Misplaced Pages's policies on self-promotion and using a spam username. I couldn't find any references about Reachout Trust on the internet so I decided to flag the page for what it was, a promotional advert.

Since then Smee has kindly recreated the article with proper references, which is how it should be.

Thanks & regards. Bksimonb 07:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• You are most welcome. And a clarification, I requested the page be recreated, but it was not I who recreated it. (I'm not an Admin...) Smee 12:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Inadvertant grouping

Smee , I realize that the assoication was un intential but in describing the groups both Christian and non-christian that Reachout Trust seeks to minister to, the article seems to be associating Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons with the occult and New Age. Is there a better way to phrase that introductory sentence? I realize that some religious groups choose to categorize Mormons and JW's as "Non-Christian" but that's a separate issue entirely. The way it is worded now, it does seem to imply that they are NOT Christian. I'll see if I can come up with a better wording. In the meantime, perhaps you can do the same. How would you feel about this:

Reachout Trust deals with many different groups including nontrinitarian Christian groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Christadelphians as well as the many new religious movements that have risen out of the New Age Movement, Neopaganism, Wicca and the Occult.

That way you are categorizing the Christian sects by their difference in theology while showing they are different in origin from the New Age and Neo-Pagan movements. Strictly speaking, you could say "Christian sects arising from the 19th century Adventist movement" but that would also include Seventh Day Adventists and Christian Science and I don't know if Reachout Trust specifically targets those groups for evangelizing. I wouldn't want to imply that if they don't.LiPollis 15:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)