Talk:Personal Freedom Outreach

Deleted page
This article was rightly deleted because PFO is a non-notable organization. It was recreated with most of the same information as before except this time it was made to look as though the organization had a rich history of being respected for its works, when the truth is that only a couple of individuals with the same identical beliefs as PFO have ever said anything positive about them. PFO believes that anyone that disagrees with their interpretation of what they believe to be "The Bible" is a cultist -- and that is fine, but it doesn't make them notable.

I have removed the information that comes only from biased sources, unfortunately this leaves a garbage article with only the PFO website as a source to tout how great it is.

The supporters of PFO (presented previously in this article as "scholars") are clearly biased individuals that have the exact same agenda as PFO, eliminating all versions and views of Xianity that differ from their own -- which again is fine, but it doesn't make these supporters "scholars" and it doesn't mean we should use them as a reliable source for information about PFO, a group they support without reservation.

If and when these individuals are cited by 3rd parties that are reliable sources, then we can say they are noted scholars and that PFO is notable.

PFO is not notable and should be deleted from Wikipedia again. Vivaldi (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * PFO has been laudably evaluated in International Journal of Frontier Missions, which is rendered by Google scholar. The reliability of the authors in these articles are backed by the journal. PFO also includes respected scolars like Norman Geisler on its Board of Reference.
 * Claims that PFO and sources that give them recognition believe any one who disagrees are cultist should be sourced and specified.
 * Under the section Standards and credentials, this passage was deleted without explanation: "PFO is a member in Evangelical Ministries to New Religions and has cosponsored a conference where they adopted a comprehensive manual, establishing guidelines in theology and ethical conduct for member organizations of the countercult network." Without the passage, relevant information is omitted, and the following sentence, "The standars are inspired by the Lausanne Congress in 1974," becomes meaningless.
 * I would like to know exactly which claims are controversial in the passages deleted here. --Jonund (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested edit

 * Edit request declined. – S. Rich (talk) 08:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see the email below. Feel free to use one of Kurt Goedelman's previous edits as what changes we are looking for and update them in a manner that fits within Wikipedia's guidelines. One of the main items that is incorrect is PFO's relationship with EMNR. It has been over a decade since PFO has had any kind of relationship with EMNR. Also wondering if a paragraph/section on PFO's funding can be added (not sure why it was removed). Thanks in advance for your assistance!

67.221.227.38 (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Micah Goedelman

From: Wikipedia informatio​n team (info-en@wikimedia.org) To: Micah Goedelman Picture of Wikipedia information team From:	Wikipedia information team (info-en@wikimedia.org) Sent:	Mon 2/24/14 8:25 PM

Dear Micah Goedelman, Well I'm not surprised. As soon as someone starts using tags to over-emphasise the name - it's going to die! We have a manual of style, and that is just not allowed, also all the section headings were removed, making one horrible page. I shall refer you to paragraph 2 of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us_-_Subjects, and then let established editors make the changes for you. Yours sincerely, Ron Jones -- Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/ --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on https://www.wikimediafoundation.org/ 24/02/2014 14:50 - Micah Goedelman wrote: > To Whom It May Concern, > > The majority of the information found on the Personal Freedom Outreach page > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Freedom_Outreach) is incorrect and > outdated. When the Director of Personal Freedom Outreach (Kurt Goedelman) has > edited and updated the page in the past it is shortly changed back to a previous > and incorrect edition. Over the past few weeks we have received communication > from a few supporters inquiring with Personal Freedom Outreach if the information > on the page is correct. Because the current information on the Personal Freedom > Outreach Wikipedia page is incorrect it is causing confusion with some of our > supporters and is causing the organization frustration for the false information > that is supplied on this page. > > Therefore we are acquiring what must be done to update the page with the correct > information Kurt Goedelman has supplied so that it is not reverted to incorrect > information? Thank you for in advance for any assistance you may provide and I am > looking forward to a response. > > Micah Goedelman

Is the Quarterly Journal a scholarly journal or self-published?
I am of the view that the Quarterly Journal published by PFO, is not a self-published source. Specifically, I am trying to use an article that was published in the Quarterly Journal in July 2013 as a reference for the Wikipedia article on William M. Branham. However, my use of the article is being opposed by an editor who states that the Quarterly Journal is self-published.

The editor in question is himself a follower of William Branham, someone who believes Branham to be inerrant, so I am not surprised that he is opposed to anything that looks at Branham's life and ministry with a critical eye.

So the question is - is the Quarterly Journal a source that can be used as a reference in a Wikipedia article? I believe that it is but how does one establish that? Taxee (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Go ahead! TQJ is not self-published. It is listed as a scolarly source by Google scholar search. Furthermore, they have been laudably evaluated in other scholarly sources. As for what constitutes self-published sources, Identifying_reliable_sources notes that if the writers are professionals in their field and what they write is subject to the full editorial control of the publication, they are acceptable sources, even if the publication had been published in a blog format. --Jonund (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)