1048:, 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:
535:
243:
222:
332:
311:
443:
453:
416:
191:
912:. I can understand your frustration, and now believe that I see that you are objecting to the link to the perceived attack (I'm not trying to judge it one way or another by saying "perceived," I'm just trying to be civil to all parties at this point.) Here's a mild joke: Please don't revert this posting for linking to an update that links to an update you believe to be a personal attack. :)
342:
931:
I know it rankles to leave text up that you find hurtful. Please trust the process, and know that the
Knowledge (XXG) crowd is composed primarily of intelligent people with a calm perspective. They (we) will generally see the fallacy in an ad hominem attack and such a statement will reflect more on
921:
So, Bksimonb, I hope that I'm illustrating something here for you by my fumbling around. By removing the edits you felt as personal attacks you're making it difficult for someone outside of the disagreement to determine what's going on. Trying to decipher what has and hasn't been removed, who said
662:
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
1012:
It was unfortunate that someone then decided to turn the whole article into an advert for
Reachout Trust in violation of Knowledge (XXG)'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
733:
enough, but reading the most recent entry deleted I don't see anything that would constitute a personal attack. Perhaps it would be more helpful if the editor who feels personally attacked were to respond civilly and concisely? We can remove the whole discussion afterwards, but it is important to
1092:
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
988:
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
757:"there is a rule on the wiki that says you should be nice and helpful to newcomers not slap them down". There is also a rule about usernames that are names or organisations or websites. The user is offered a chance to change that username when blocked. Again this statement assumes bad faith.
715:
I hope you accept my reasoning below for pulling the article etc. It is done according to
Knowledge (XXG)'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
1113:
I notice that the word "pseudo" which I presume has the meaning of false. You may not agree with what we do or some of what we say but I take exception to being called pseudo evangelical
Christians. We ARE evangelical Christians and I request that the word psudo is taken out.
843:"Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against disabled people) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse."
772:"you registered a user called Reachouttrust and simon immediately put in a complaint to have them banned on the usual sorts of accusations". I made no accusations other than that it violated Knowledge (XXG)'s username and article policy regarding self promotion.
898:
Thank you for a little bit of the background. What you'll see in my comment is simply (to paraphrase myself) that I see a lot of reversion and the most recent reversion was marked as "personal attack" when the specific text doesn't appear to support that
963:. Thank you so much for your understanding and useful advice. I agree that is the best thing to do now. I would really appreciate it if you could check back and comment on this thread just so I know it's not just me. Thanks and regards
682:
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.
675:
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.
153:
941:
If possible, I'd love to hear Green108's response, here, to your statements. As I've mentioned it's very difficult for me to comprehend what Green108 has been saying with the edits and reversions that have gone
544:
426:
658:
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.
831:
I keep deleting this because it is one of many attacking posts. I no longer see engaging in them as a constructive use of time or energy. Please see mine and Green108's contribs for a broader picture.
791:"its funny how of all the thousands of articles he chose yours". It was on my watchlist for historical reasons. If you check the history you will see my activity on this article. Judge for yourself.
652:
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.
766:"they monitor, try to control or remove information about the Bkwsu from the internet". Utterly false and unproven allegation and again puts forward the notion that I am acting in bad faith.
729:
What is going on here? I see a lot of comments being deleted, and it doesn't appear to be by the editor who made the comments. They're listed as "Personal attack" on the history, which is
734:
bring the discussion out in the open--we don't want personal attacks on
Knowledge (XXG), nor do we want "personal attack" to be used in an overly broad way so let's clarify and discuss.
1218:
549:
1213:
1093:
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.
989:
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.
775:"it happened so quick i did not think you even did anything , the wiki logs dont show it". That's because it is an admin op. An admin must have seen that it was a valid report.
712:. 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.
147:
754:"we have had problems with them doing so as a way to control articles". Who is "we"? Who is "them"? Trying to control articles? False allegation and assuming bad faith.
398:
778:"i am not surprise to discover a Bk acting in this way as i am also being targetted by them". Negative generalisation. How does "...not (sic) surprise to discover a
1193:
388:
79:
627:
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
1154:
Hi Doug. The word was inserted by an anonymous IP account a few days ago. Apologies for not spotting it straight away. I've just undone the damage. Regards
525:
479:
1198:
1188:
846:"Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme."
364:
293:
1223:
1208:
515:
1103:
While it's a bit of a wishy-washy wiggle word, judicious application of the word "many" can keep such a phrase accurate yet informative. Be bold!
85:
1178:
283:
487:
1228:
1203:
44:
689:
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
355:
316:
1183:
1173:
30:
1029:
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...)
259:
483:
99:
686:
2. We did not publish the booklet Doorways to Danger and had nothing to do with its producing – that was the Evangelical Alliance.
491:
467:
421:
104:
20:
709:
I have made the changes you requested. I have confirmed that "Doorways to Danger" was indeed produced by the Evangelical Alliance
837:
74:
769:"as the Bks have done for many years in the press in india". Another allegation and also guilt by association and affiliation.
250:
227:
202:
751:"the BKWSU follower reported you" - Using affiliation to discredit and editor. Why is it relavent that I am a BKWSU follower?
168:
65:
135:
1136:
I object strongly to this as it is not true. We are not a 'pseudo' evenagelacal group; we are Evangelical Christians.
534:
836:
I am curious as to why you don't consider Green108's post to be attacking. It clearly violates the following from
109:
129:
860:"Judgmental tone in edit summaries" - an example being ,"BKWSU follower reports Reachout Trust cult informant"
208:
190:
1069:
603:
I am going to attempt to expand the article with material and citations from reputable secondary sources.
125:
1120:
55:
1145:
1006:. I also reported the vandalism and the user concerned was blocked since he already had a final warning
922:
what, etc, etc, becomes very difficult and each atomic edit can't easily be viewed as part of the whole.
696:
574:
363:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
258:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
70:
1057:
788:"and i dare say he will use it against me further". Because I have a right not to be intimidated here.
175:
1016:
Since then Smee has kindly recreated the article with proper references, which is how it should be.
347:
161:
1133:
I notice that the word 'pseudo', which was removed earlier, has been put back in to the article.
854:
1094:
51:
1065:
821:
has a known affiliation with an anti BKWSU activist web site. I don't hold that against him.
141:
730:
458:
1053:
24:
817:"...it is not hard to see have a conflict of interest". Pot calling the kettle black.
1167:
1155:
1104:
1020:
964:
960:
951:
877:
818:
745:
735:
720:
619:
589:
360:
1077:
785:"already Bk simon is attempting to use this as a 'personal attack'". Well it is!
760:"especially when you have a conflict of interest". This has never been a secret.
690:
763:"Bksimonb is a Brahma Kumaris follower and part of their IT team" - Yes. and...
655:
What I'd encourage you to do is to make suggestions for changes to the article
452:
242:
221:
649:
Not sure if this is the way this should be done but have received this email:
448:
337:
331:
310:
1045:
1030:
710:
632:
615:
604:
442:
415:
341:
254:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the
478:-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
474:
1158:
1148:
1123:
1107:
1097:
1073:
1061:
1033:
1023:
967:
954:
880:
738:
723:
699:
635:
622:
607:
592:
577:
1085:
992:
If I notice vandalism on any page I am watching I aim to correct it.
932:
the editor making the statement than on the subject of the statement.
255:
866:"Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another",
1081:
978:
Response to Green108 from BKWSU talk page regarding this article
184:
15:
618:, for bringing some real references to this article. Regards
533:
1052:
Reachout Trust deals with many different groups including
794:"...hammered down by wiklawyering...". Wikilawyering is
1007:
1004:
983:
909:
861:
995:
If you check the history you will see that I actually
160:
472:, a project to improve Knowledge (XXG)'s articles on
748:. Let me explain how the text is a personal attack.
631:citations to reputable secondary sourced material.
359:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
174:
679:The two main ones I would ask you to change are:
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1219:Mid-importance New religious movements articles
1139:I request that this incorrect word be removed.
908:To be clear, the revision I am referring to is
670:
8:
1214:Start-Class New religious movements articles
645:Response from Doug Harris of Reachout Trust
188:
410:
305:
216:
571:This is at present (14.05.2007) factual.
663:good article, that is fair and neutral.
373:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Christianity
412:
307:
218:
7:
1194:Low-importance Christianity articles
500:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Religion
464:This article is within the scope of
353:This article is within the scope of
248:This article is within the scope of
207:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
545:New religious movements work group
268:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Occult
14:
1199:WikiProject Christianity articles
1189:Start-Class Christianity articles
666:Yours sincerely, Scott MacDonald
376:Template:WikiProject Christianity
50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
1224:New religious movements articles
1209:Low-importance Religion articles
451:
441:
414:
340:
330:
309:
241:
220:
189:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
520:This article has been rated as
393:This article has been rated as
288:This article has been rated as
1179:Low-importance Occult articles
1013:it was, a promotional advert.
1:
1229:WikiProject Religion articles
1204:Start-Class Religion articles
798:the meaning of policies. Not
782:acting in this way..." sound?
542:This article is supported by
503:Template:WikiProject Religion
367:and see a list of open tasks.
262:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
1184:WikiProject Occult articles
1174:Start-Class Occult articles
1159:15:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
1149:15:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
1124:15:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
1072:that have risen out of the
271:Template:WikiProject Occult
1245:
824:"welcome onboard". Indeed.
814:them was what I was doing.
526:project's importance scale
399:project's importance scale
294:project's importance scale
1056:Christian groups such as
541:
519:
436:
392:
325:
287:
236:
215:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1108:20:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
1098:15:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
968:16:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
955:16:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
881:13:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
853:Also the following from
739:12:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
724:19:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
700:13:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
593:13:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
578:06:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
490:standards, or visit the
356:WikiProject Christianity
1070:new religious movements
1034:12:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
1024:07:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
671:http://en.wikipedia.org
636:11:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
623:06:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
608:04:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
427:New religious movements
1019:Thanks & regards.
669:-- Knowledge (XXG) -
538:
197:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
876:Thanks & regards
537:
379:Christianity articles
201:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
100:Neutral point of view
1068:as well as the many
1041:Inadvertant grouping
692:should you need to.
468:WikiProject Religion
105:No original research
1058:Jehovah's Witnesses
1003:the Reachout Trust
348:Christianity portal
999:some blatant bias
539:
480:assess and improve
251:WikiProject Occult
203:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
564:
563:
560:
559:
556:
555:
506:Religion articles
494:for more details.
409:
408:
405:
404:
304:
303:
300:
299:
183:
182:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1236:
1066:Christadelphians
508:
507:
504:
501:
498:
492:wikiproject page
461:
456:
455:
445:
438:
437:
432:
429:
418:
411:
381:
380:
377:
374:
371:
350:
345:
344:
334:
327:
326:
321:
313:
306:
276:
275:
272:
269:
266:
245:
238:
237:
232:
224:
217:
200:
194:
193:
185:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1244:
1243:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1164:
1163:
1131:
1043:
982:In response to
980:
647:
601:
583:You're welcome!
569:
505:
502:
499:
496:
495:
459:Religion portal
457:
450:
430:
424:
378:
375:
372:
369:
368:
346:
339:
319:
274:Occult articles
273:
270:
267:
264:
263:
230:
198:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1242:
1240:
1232:
1231:
1226:
1221:
1216:
1211:
1206:
1201:
1196:
1191:
1186:
1181:
1176:
1166:
1165:
1162:
1161:
1130:
1127:
1121:217.64.121.180
1111:
1110:
1090:
1089:
1054:nontrinitarian
1042:
1039:
1038:
1037:
979:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
946:
945:
944:
943:
936:
935:
934:
933:
926:
925:
924:
923:
916:
915:
914:
913:
903:
902:
901:
900:
893:
892:
891:
890:
884:
883:
873:
872:
871:
870:
867:
864:
850:
849:
848:
847:
844:
833:
832:
828:
827:
826:
825:
822:
815:
792:
789:
786:
783:
776:
773:
770:
767:
764:
761:
758:
755:
752:
727:
726:
717:
713:
707:
646:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
600:
597:
596:
595:
585:
584:
568:
565:
562:
561:
558:
557:
554:
553:
550:Mid-importance
540:
530:
529:
522:Low-importance
518:
512:
511:
509:
463:
462:
446:
434:
433:
431:Low‑importance
419:
407:
406:
403:
402:
395:Low-importance
391:
385:
384:
382:
365:the discussion
352:
351:
335:
323:
322:
320:Low‑importance
314:
302:
301:
298:
297:
290:Low-importance
286:
280:
279:
277:
260:the discussion
246:
234:
233:
231:Low‑importance
225:
213:
212:
206:
195:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
25:Reachout Trust
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1241:
1230:
1227:
1225:
1222:
1220:
1217:
1215:
1212:
1210:
1207:
1205:
1202:
1200:
1197:
1195:
1192:
1190:
1187:
1185:
1182:
1180:
1177:
1175:
1172:
1171:
1169:
1160:
1157:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1147:
1146:Reachouttrust
1143:
1140:
1137:
1134:
1129:Reverted Back
1128:
1126:
1125:
1122:
1118:
1115:
1109:
1106:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1096:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1047:
1040:
1035:
1032:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1022:
1017:
1014:
1010:
1008:
1005:
1002:
998:
993:
990:
986:
984:
977:
969:
966:
962:
958:
957:
956:
953:
950:
949:
948:
947:
940:
939:
938:
937:
930:
929:
928:
927:
920:
919:
918:
917:
911:
907:
906:
905:
904:
897:
896:
895:
894:
888:
887:
886:
885:
882:
879:
875:
874:
868:
865:
862:
859:
858:
856:
852:
851:
845:
842:
841:
839:
835:
834:
830:
829:
823:
820:
816:
813:
809:
805:
801:
797:
793:
790:
787:
784:
781:
777:
774:
771:
768:
765:
762:
759:
756:
753:
750:
749:
747:
743:
742:
741:
740:
737:
732:
731:controversial
725:
722:
718:
714:
711:
708:
705:
704:
703:
701:
698:
697:Reachouttrust
693:
691:
687:
684:
680:
677:
673:
672:
667:
664:
660:
656:
653:
650:
644:
637:
634:
630:
626:
625:
624:
621:
617:
613:
612:
611:
609:
606:
598:
594:
591:
587:
586:
582:
581:
580:
579:
576:
575:Reachouttrust
572:
566:
551:
548:(assessed as
547:
546:
536:
532:
531:
527:
523:
517:
514:
513:
510:
493:
489:
485:
481:
477:
476:
471:
470:
469:
460:
454:
449:
447:
444:
440:
439:
435:
428:
423:
420:
417:
413:
400:
396:
390:
387:
386:
383:
366:
362:
358:
357:
349:
343:
338:
336:
333:
329:
328:
324:
318:
315:
312:
308:
295:
291:
285:
282:
281:
278:
261:
257:
253:
252:
247:
244:
240:
239:
235:
229:
226:
223:
219:
214:
210:
204:
196:
192:
187:
186:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1144:
1141:
1138:
1135:
1132:
1119:
1116:
1112:
1091:
1044:
1018:
1015:
1011:
1000:
996:
994:
991:
987:
981:
811:
807:
803:
799:
795:
779:
728:
702:Doug Harris
694:
688:
685:
681:
678:
674:
668:
665:
661:
657:
654:
651:
648:
628:
602:
573:
570:
543:
521:
482:articles to
473:
466:
465:
394:
370:Christianity
361:Christianity
354:
317:Christianity
289:
249:
209:WikiProjects
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1142:Thank you.
1117:Thank you.
1078:Neopaganism
199:Start-class
148:free images
31:not a forum
1168:Categories
1076:Movement,
899:statement.
869:"Taunting"
889:Bksimonb,
812:following
806:them and
804:following
599:Expansion
567:Thank You
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1156:Bksimonb
1105:Gruber76
1095:LiPollis
1084:and the
1021:Bksimonb
965:Bksimonb
961:Gruber76
952:Gruber76
910:this one
878:Bksimonb
855:WP:CIVIL
819:Green108
808:applying
800:applying
796:twisting
746:Gruber76
736:Gruber76
721:Bksimonb
719:Regards
716:vein :-)
706:Hi Doug,
620:Bksimonb
614:Thanks,
590:Bksimonb
588:Regards
497:Religion
475:Religion
422:Religion
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1074:New Age
1062:Mormons
1001:against
997:removed
942:around.
524:on the
397:on the
292:on the
154:WP refs
142:scholar
1086:Occult
1064:, and
838:WP:NPA
265:Occult
256:occult
228:Occult
205:scale.
126:Google
1082:Wicca
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1046:Smee
1031:Smee
810:and
633:Smee
629:(14)
616:Smee
605:Smee
486:and
484:good
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
959:Hi
802:or
780:jew
744:Hi
516:Low
488:1.0
389:Low
284:Low
176:TWL
1170::
1080:,
1060:,
1009:.
985:.
857:,
840:,
695:--
610:.
552:).
425::
156:)
54:;
1088:.
1036:.
863:,
638:.
528:.
401:.
296:.
211::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
