Talk:Fusion International

Problems
Wikipedia is an information source, as such true and accurate information about particular topics should be left for the publics interest. To continually "edit" the page in order to disguise and sanitize the truth contained within it is to go against the spirit of the organisation. You may not like what has been added to the page, but it is truthful, and important information about this particular topic. Please refrain from further disguising the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wombatmanorsaresad (talk • contribs) 15:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This organisation are a group of evangelists primarily, their mission is to "reach" the world with the born again doctrine of the evangelical church. Secondarily, and as a tool for "reaching people" they deliver community services. Their theology is fundamentalist, believing only in the "Christian God" and that other faiths such as Islam are evil. They continually "re-edit" this page to communicate the image that suits their covert style of evangelism, including deleting relevant organisational history such as the purchase of a Melbourne (Australia) radio station that went broke leaving debts to many supporters; and information from major Australian media outlets reporting on sexual activity between their founder and a young "client" he was "counselling". Would those that continually "re-edit" truthful parts of the organisations history out please cease doing this. Wikipedia is a place for the truth, even if you find it unpaletable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wombatmanorsaresad (talk • contribs) 14:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This article appears to be periodically sanitized, with negative information about the organisation purged. (as wombatmanorsaresad has noted previously) I'll be back to check the page occasionally, but I'm just adding this to clue other editors in. 202.14.247.4 (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, they tried to whitewash their past again - one of the articles that references Mal Garvin's sexual misconduct was still up, and I've found an alternative source for the other. they should both be in archive.org's archives now as well, so replacing them should be simple in the case of them being removed from their original hosting. 121.127.198.206 (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Rewrite
Yes, the current article is appalling.

Disclosure: I am a former member of Fusion, and before that a member of the musos and tech team of TC's.

I think the organisation probably satisfies the GNG, but a total rewrite based on secondary sources is indicated IMO.

I note that several major contributors are SPAs. Editing in good faith I have no doubt! But there is probable COI. Andrewa (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)