Talk:Scripture Union

Cleanup of Origins

There's quite a lot that needs to be done here. As it currently is, it's badly formatted. If it written as one piece it would be much better. Secondly, it's not been written from a neutral point of view. "It was also so lively, so informal and so very different from the boring sermons they had sat through at the dry-as-dust Sunday Schools they attended normally" is a very clear opinion. Lastly, it contains too much information than is useful or necessary. We don't really need to know all the specifics about the international politics of SU, for example. I don't feel well qualified to do this, so if someone else is knowledgeable about SU there help would be very much appreciated. FlamingGoldFish 17:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I can help

Hi, i think i can help clean this page up i know a fair bit about the history of Scripture Union. I've never edited wiki before so i'm a bit of a novice.

I gather you want: 1. All the dot points on SU's orgins to be merged into one section. 2. The section to be written from a neutral point of view. 3. The not so interesting details about SU's international politics removed.

Let me know if there's anything else and in a day or two i'll have a go at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameistrav (talk • contribs) 00:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go here

I've tried to condense the article and remove some bias, it is now less than a third of it's initial length. If you still think this is too long, replace the NPOV flag on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.75.44 (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Expansion, improvement

I'm trying to expand and improve the article; if anyone wishes to help, please do jump in. aJCfreak yAk 11:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Referencing and amending Origins section

I have tried to rework some of this section to more accurately reflect the account in the two books which I have referenced. The original seemed to have been based in part on an inaccurate page on the organisation's own website which has since been corrected. I would like to try to help develop the article: I work for the organisation and have easy access to its archives. Apologies for any mistakes of discourtesy - I'm new to editing Wikipedia!--Emlynw (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely fine! (There were a couple of minor technical problems in your edit, but that's understandable in your early days of editing.) I've tidied up the two references to the Pollock book (which I don't have, but tracked down a mention on Amazon) and rationalised them into a 'cite book' form (which potentially allows better semantic operations within Wikipedia). I tried to trace the 'P Sitters' book. Admittedly I haven't done much, but Amazon reckons it to be by 'Percy Sitters' - presumably a 'Mr' rather than a Mrs'. (Amazon may be wrong, of course.) Anyway, carry on with what you are doing. It's looking good so far. You say you work for SU: in that case be aware of possible conflict of interest. Wikipedia articles are intended to be objective; my guess is that you are already aware of all this and respecting it. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The author is (arguably!) Mrs Percy Sitters. I was working from the book itself which doesn't name her as author but acknowledges her work in compiling it. As you say, Amazon simply says Percy Sitters. The British Library however says this: 'Author - corporate Children’s Special Service Mission.' I'm not sure which is most helpful from a referencing point of view.

Anyway, I'll try to do some more work on it. As with most organisations SU is more complex than it looks,especially since the history of Scripture Union England and Wales, and Scripture Union International are rather intertwined. If I can think of a way of imrpoving this without it becoming too lengthy or unnecessarily detailed I will.--Emlynw (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)