Talk:Street Pastors

Balance

The article needs to be WP:NPOV, and if it seems favourable to Street Pastors, that's because almost all press coverage is strongly positive!

The Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association (GALHA) raised a concern about Street Pastors going into the Old Compton Street "gay village" of Soho, London, see [1], but this strikes me as partisan and assuming guilt in advance merely by alleged association - it was not (yet) a criticism of SP in practice. As such, it does not seem appropriate to me to refer to this concern in the article. However, I'm providing the citation here in case another independent editor can see an appropriate way to incorporate it. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just reading the introduction it looks more like a promotional pamphlet than a wiki article. It really needs to be rewritten for neutral tone and POV.Gymnophoria (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, please train me. What phrases specifically carry the wrong flavour? The text is based on independent news reports from BBC and the papers; there's barely anything from primary sources, and nothing in the introduction.

Declaration of interest: I was not a Street Pastor when I wrote the article, but I am now, and will confine my editing to clarification (e.g. disambiguation), updating cited stats, or removing promotional-sounding or uncited additions (as I just did). - Fayenatic (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

On further reflection I do not think I need to restrict myself as I am only a volunteer, one of thousands, not involved in management. I will only add material based on WP:RS, not WP:OR. – Fayenatic (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have sought to render this article in a more neutral tone. Perhaps another independent editor could review the flag for neutrality. Thanks. Christianinthelaw (talk) 13:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

@Jftsang: as you have just tagged this article with {{advert}}, please would you give some specific pointers for improvement? – Fayenatic London 22:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of a reply to this request, I have removed the "advert" tag after seven months. – Fayenatic London 20:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jftsang: repeating my request for your suggestions. If you have any sources that are critical of Street Pastors, please provide them. I have also made this request at the talk page of the anon editor who just re-added the "advert" banner, User talk:165.225.80.164. – Fayenatic London 14:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jftsang: for info, I removed the advert tag again. The above anon account is currently part of a banned range. – Fayenatic London 10:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I've put the tag back on. This article is woefully unbalanced for what is a group of preachers who prey upon the drunk and sick in order to proselytize and push their religion while play acting as an emergency service. The article was filled with MOS:PUFFERY, peacocking, weasel words, unsupported attributions and sources being appended at the end of content irrelevant or unsupported by the citations. I've taken a proverbial chainsaw to the article. It's much improved but needs updating as much of the content is decades old. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the tag following a cleanup and re-write. It's much less of an advertising puff piece now. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Street Pastors are a Police Fraud

Telling the truth on the disscussion page because we follow God not the Police. Christians should not follow the law, as that is Judaism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.79.206 (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The comments under the heading Police are unsubstantiated by any evidence, citation or article. This seems to be a personal opinion, which is inappropriate for wikipedia. Christianinthelaw (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Your a lieing Policeman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.79.206 (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2011‎

You are entitled to hold your opinions. However, there are limits in what you should publish here, and I am reverting your edits to the article. As it makes clear that this is a Christian organisation, there is no need to mention specific examples of members of other religions who do not match the entry requirements. The police document that you refer to (part of [2] and http://www.webcitation.org/63pRFBuBa ) refers to a scoping proposal for setting up a similar, but entirely separate, organisation for a Muslim community; in any case "ensuring ‘lay people’ rather than Imams were involved" probably meant "rather than just Imams". – Fayenatic (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Street Imams

Is someone going to add Street Imams to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.79.206 (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)