Talk:Samaritan's Purse

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Samaritan's Purse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gothamist[edit]

@Rhododendrites: I object to the employment of Gothamist as a source for something contentious such as this. It's a glorified blog. Please find a superior source, ASAP. Elizium23 (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gothamist is WNYC as of a couple years ago. It's pretty solid. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Objection unequivocally withdrawn. Thank you for informing me. The old WP:RSN archives were misleading, to say the least. I apologize, because I failed to investigate the site's "About" and "Staff" pages and masthead, or I would've known it's NPR. Elizium23 (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Assuming this discussion is about the same thing) I have moved the sentence to the talk page here:
According to Gothamist, volunteers are required to adhere to a statement of faith, agreeing to a definition of marriage as "exclusively the union of one genetic male and one genetic female" and acknowledging that "[God] will banish the unrighteous to everlasting punishment in hell."[1]

References

  1. ^ Offenhartz, Jake (2020-03-30). "Group Behind Central Park Coronavirus Tent Hospital Asks Volunteers To Support Anti-Gay Agenda". Gothamist. Retrieved 2020-03-31.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
I think it could make sense to include this kind of information in the article, alongside other beliefs (though these are relatively standard "evangelical Christian" beliefs, so it is not really unique to this organization).
However, does not seem to belong in the Section about coronavirus (even though it is sourced from an article about coronavirus). If there is some specific event or controversy (newsworthy? encyclopedia-worthy?) about it, in relation to coronavirus, that should be specifically mentioned if the info is to be included in the coronavirus section, and would change the focus (theme) of the sentence. 2601:181:C381:6C80:504E:A24E:E8E5:5DE4 (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - Gothamist has drawn the connection between their current outreach activity and this requirement, but they are really unrelated. It belongs in another section, but I don't see why you've removed it entirely. It is good to have it in the article, and the addition was a good faith edit. I would say that the controversy section should be eliminated by merging it into the "History" and other sections, and the "statement of faith" passage can be added to a more appropriate section, such as "Current activities". Elizium23 (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow. Gothamist has drawn the connection between their current outreach activity and this requirement, but they are really unrelated - it is the sources that determine what's related, not us. The source is specifically about a statement of faith volunteers must agree to at this site, and the significance is tied to the erection of this hospital. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search for more sources shows that this made NBC News, Gothamist (again), USA Today, has triggered comments by NY politicians and even a response from Graham... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, Gothamist reported wrongly. Samaritan's Purse has the same statement of faith required for all their volunteers and staff everywhere. I just verified this at their own website. So the "significance" may be properly tied by Gothamist to be erecting a hospital in the middle of NYC, and it's acceptable for them to draw attention to it here and now, but I stand by what I said: the statement of faith and the COVID-19 response are unrelated and it should not be in that section. Elizium23 (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just visited the Wayback Machine to confirm that the Statement of Faith has contained the same items since before COVID-19 struck. Yes it has. They are worded differently by Gothamist because SP has rewritten them recently, but the tenets remain the same. Elizium23 (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't report wrongly. We now have Gothamist, NBC News, and USA Today all talking about backlash/criticism/concern explicit for Graham's anti-LGBT comments and/or those lines in the statement of faith. It doesn't really matter that the statement of faith is the same one they've always had -- it's an organization entering the spotlight for a particular reason and receiving criticism for it in that context. These aren't sources about the statement of faith broadly or the organization in general; they're sources about this hospital and criticism they're receiving in direct connection to that aid. We go by what the reliable sources say about the subject, rather than find sources to support what we think the article should say. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rhododendrites, are you honestly trying to argue that I shouldn't have looked at samaritanspurse.org and that their own website's information is less-accurate than what's published in a blog post by Gothamist? Elizium23 (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you're saying that because the statement of faith pre-existed the Central Park hospital, that Gothamist was wrong about something. The story here is that when the hospital went up, people were made aware that volunteers there would need to sign a statement of faith saying certain highly controversial things. Whether that statement is the organization's standard statement or a different version isn't really relevant to what the sources are covering. But when an official website and multiple reliable independent sources conflict on a matter (I'm not necessarily saying that's happening here), we should typically go with the latter. For all but the most basic facts, going by independent sources rather than what someone/something says about themselves is a fundamental part of NPOV/V. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here's the thing. I shouldn't have said that Gothamist or you were wrong. I just read through the three cited articles (2 Gothamist and 1 NBC).
Here's the thing. The media has been alerted anew to SP's activities and faith because of COVID-19. They correctly report that "volunteers at the site" and on the project must agree to the statement of faith. It's true that de Blasio and other officials are raising Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about the quality of care at the facility, due to the Christian beliefs of workers there.
But the articles also admit that all volunteers are subject to the same creed. Disaster-relief workers in Texas and Arab countries all must adhere to this one. So what I'm saying is that the proper place for mentions of the statement of faith do not belong specifically in the COVID-19 section. They are general concerns, and it's the same drum being beaten about their faith infringing on their ability to provide relief services.
Here's what I suggest moving forward. We retain a detailed explanation of the "statement of faith" controversy in a general section such as "History" or "Current". We summarize it briefly in the COVID-19 section. Because it does belong there, but it also belongs in the general section, so at the risk of being redundant and having a large passage duplicated, we'll refer back to the full version in an abbreviated passage under COVID-19. Does that sound OK? Elizium23 (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, that sounds like a sensible approach to me. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

I'll be cleaning up the article for a while. It's tagged as needing this. There is a suspicious amount of weird criticism. "No good deed goes unpunished" has never been truer than in this article. The tag I placed on the international criticism part (clarification needed) is, well, it doesn't even say what they are criticised for. So that might need a little source-dive to figure out. Also, I meant what I said about eliminating the "Controversy" section in favor of merging the criticism into "History" and other appropriate sections. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Curious to see how you structure it, since structure seems like the biggest problem to me. I noticed someone moved the part about the hospital up to "current activities" for an unclear reason. The titles "current activities" and "ongoing programs" seem rather redundant (and terms like "current"/"ongoing" are WP:WTW). Then there's the Operation Christmas Child section, which is a sole awkward subsection under ongoing programs, and also combines programmatic activity and criticism, but we have a whole other section for controversy that doesn't include it. It's not immediately clear to me what the best way to set it up is. Maybe a brief section on criticism of the organization broadly, moving any criticism of specific programs into subsections about those programs (and, as you point out, expanding on what those programs do to begin with)? I probably don't need to say this, but of course all information about the organization's activities should come from high-quality reliable sources independent of the subject rather than the subject or sources connected to it. I'll stay out of your way while you work on it and come back tonight -- thanks for taking the time. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synth[edit]

@Dashingcavalier: That[1] appear to be WP:SYNTH, why do you think it isn’t and can you demonstrate exactly what in the WP:RS supports this text? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: Can you be more explicit? The two sentences contributed are referenced and true, neither synthesis nor personal opinion. The references make the synthesis, not the wikipedia contribution. I therefore feel the burden of obligation is on you to explain why they are not. The point of this contribution is to document a controversy in 2012-2013 involving the subject of this article, as has been done with a variety of other topics currently in the article.

What does the audit have to do with him being fired for harassing conservative groups which were not Samaritan's Purse? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back: The point of my edit was to state that Franklin Graham accused the IRS of biased auditing, not to state that the auditing was biased. I can label it under a separate heading (e.g., "Accusation of Biased Audit") if you feel it does not fit within the subtopic of "Controversy" where I had initially inserted it.
We can state that, but we weren’t even mentioning Mr Graham before. The first sentence is fine, its just the second thats questionable. If you wanted to add Mr Graham’s opinion along with that first line without the second sentence I think we’re probably ok. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samaritan%27s_Purse&oldid=1209962820"