Talk:Samaritan's Purse/Archive 1

Expansion & NPOV
The article could use more info considering the size of the christian relief organization.-User:Falphin
 * There should also be mention of the strong and widespread criticism of the oepration. Andy Mabbett 11:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think that necessitates the use of the neutrality disputed warning. HybridFusion 00:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Given that I dispute the article's neutrality (in fact, it's the most biased piece I've ever seen on WP), why not? Andy Mabbett 09:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The only bias here is your own. There isn't enough of an article yet for your accusation of bias to be warranted. HybridFusion 00:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

there are maybe 8 sentences in that article 5 of which are concerned with who runs it. what is wrong with you people. .... or maybe they've already cut all of it out. thanks, my first thought was.. this doesn't explain enough about the operation at all.

Please ad some more information and sources on the activities and criticism here. Thanks.--Nemissimo II 16:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are a couple of sources: . The thrust of the criticism was that in the past, SPI appeals omitted to mention its evangelical agenda, especially in relation to Operation Christmas Child. There was also some controversy over the anti-Islamic comments by its president, Franklin Graham. 86.142.250.235 19:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added some material with links regarding the controversy surrounding Samaritan's Purse. Alexbacik 09:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like some more information on what parts of the article contradict the NPOV guidelines; from what I can see, the article itself is factual and neutral, even if the organization is controversial. Assuming I haven't heard any objections in the next couple of weeks, I'd like to remove the disputed tag.SD CA 20:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I've heard no objection and since editing has proceeded as normal, I have removed the NPOV tag.SD CA 15:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the edition of the Expand tag (Jan. 2007), the article has been expanded significantly, with information from related topics merged into this article. I've removed the Expand tag - unless there is significant desire to keep it - and I believe that editing and additions can continue as normal.SD CA 15:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be good to add the evangelicals zeal to follow the military into Iraq. The article is called "Evangelicals Building a Base in Iraq Newcomers Raise Worry Among Traditional Church Leaders" by Caryle Murphy, Washington Post Staff Writer But I am not sure how to edit wikipedia. It is here: http://www.brusselstribunal.org/index.htm

Merging in Projects
I would suggest that we move the contents of the various project articles directly into the main body of this article, given that both the parent article and child articles require expansion. This would also help to consolidate discussion of controversy and neutrality.SD CA 20:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have moved the bulk of the contents from Operation Christmas Child into this article and I am proposing wiping the old article text and creating a redirect.SD CA 21:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have archived the Talk:Operation Christmas Child page. There is much good discussion on the controversial nature of the program, including relevant sources, some of which have been worked into citations within the article. -- SD CA 17:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have moved the contents of Prescription for Hope into this article and created a redirect under the old name. I have begun reformatting effort. See "Prescription for Hope" section for more information. -- SD CA 20:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

External Links Clean-Up
I have cleaned up the external links section as it was getting a bit crowded, primarily with links to organizational web sites and sub-sites. Each division of Samaritan's Purse is linked to in the info box at top, and the sub-sites (OCC, WMM, etc.) are easily located within the parent sites. I have also removed links to articles about Samaritan's Purse - both criticism and support. Journalistic sources (pro and con) can be cited within the "Criticisms" section in support of a relevant fact - I don't think we want to start piling up lists of pro and con articles in the external links section. I have left several links to differently branded SP web sites (Turn on the Tap) and web sites with related content. Please add any discussion of this clean-up here.SD CA 16:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Prescription for Hope
The contents of this section merged from PRESCRIPTION FOR HOPE do not cite their sources and are general advertorial / informal. I have attempted a clean-up of the language in this section, but a lot more work could/should be done. -- SD CA 20:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition
"Samaritan's Purse is a non-denominational evangelical Christian organization engaged in crisis relief and community development while showing people God's love."- Do I have to be old Europe style to find this POV?--Nemissimo (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a fairly accurate summary of their mission statement. How would you reword it? --Motley Fool (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one thing it should be clear that it's only their opinion, or mission statement, that says the stuff about showing people God's love. Being engaged in crisis relief is something that is reasonably objective. Being engaged in showing God's love requires for one that there is a God, and so it seems pretty NPOV to assert this as fact in the intro. That's even ignoring the fact that it's controversial even among those who believe in a God that acting as Samaritan's Purse does is expressive of showing love... Being Bold, I'm removing it. You're welcome to try and rewrite it, but be careful of giving undue weight. 62.31.42.170 (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Mission Statement
Under the mission statement section, the line "Its accounts seem to contradict this claim" seems out of place. It seems that line belongs in the criticism section. Also, that line seems POV. From the site referenced, there is a fairly favorable review of SP's financials: http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/ShowCharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1001349&SubsidiaryNumber=0

Thoughts?Trismesjistus (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

- seeing no discussion, I'm removing the lineTrismesjistus (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the text should have been moved, rather than deleted. Also, your capitilisation of god, in that particuar instance, is incorrect. Obscurasky (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section
"The accounts for Samaritan's Purse UK for 2006 show a turnover in excess of £22 million.[16] Of this total, only £1.3 million was disbursed on relief and aid projects with the balance spent on promotion and operations associated with the project Operation Christmas Child."

The above text seems problematic.

The referenced material is a PDF of the Trustees' report which is primary source and not allowed on wikipedia per WP:PRIMARY. Primary sources are not allowed of wiki because original research is not allowed per WP:OR. "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." The reason this is a problem is that the interpretation of the balance sheet is wrong. The "church and community support" is part of direct aid. E.g. running charitable hospital in Haiti which was there before the earthquake, is there now and will continue to be there after all the aid orgs leave, would fall under this. Another example is all the boxes of Christmas presents are direct aid but a POV interpretation of balance sheet considers this as "promotion and operation".

The text needs to be repaired by replacing the primary source with secondary or tertiary sources or the text and primary citation need to be removed.

I will wait for discussion before making any edits to text.

AndrewHKLee (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Samaritan's Purse responded to accusations of being anti-Islamic by highlighting their long history of non-denominational co-operation and charity work in Baghdad without attempting to preach or proselytize." This sentence sounds slightly biased, although not overly. I'm not confident enough in my writing abilities to edit the page myself. [Edit: I wasn't logged in when I first typed this.] Trainguyrom (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference checks
Checking the text and the corresponding references I can already see that this section has some NPOV problems. I think we need a check on the references and see if it matches with the text. If anyone else would like to join me in this, please feel welcome in joining me. The text can't state anything beyond what the cited reference actually states. I would like to check and discuss references before making any proposals for edits to text.AndrewHKLee (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

More problematic text
"critics have questioned the altruism of Operation Christmas Child, noting that Evangelical Christian literature has been distributed with the shoe boxes"

There are 4 references for this text: 2 articles from BBC and Guardian which are both good references. The problem is that neither support the text. Both articles report on controversy of evangelical literature and religious nature of the organization and both articles state that the accusation is denied. The lats 2 references are links to Samaritan's Purse's literature and website. Both would be considered primary source and citing them to draw conclusions in the text would be considered original work. The text needs to be corrected to accurately reflect the BBC and Guardian articles and the 2 references to primary sources should be removed.AndrewHKLee (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes made
Given lack of dissent or discussion I have gone on to make the proposed changes. Large revisions were made. MOST of the revisions consists of removing primary sources and original research in text of the article. I don't know who made these edits in the first place but we are not allowed to upload PDF of original documents and draw conclusions about them in wikipedia articles per WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR.AndrewHKLee (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the section to it's previous title, as the 'controversy' is in no way limited to the UK, and I've included a couple of US links to try and make this section of the article slightly less UK centric. I've moved the sentence about Franklin Graham's comments on Islam up slightly, as it fragments the sentences relating to Opperation Christmas Child and added a paragraph on alleged abuse of public funds.


 * In the BBC article, S.P. do not deny handing out evangelical publications along with Christmas present boxes; they are quoted as saying "a booklet of Bible stories was sometimes sent out separately to the shoeboxes where it was deemed appropriate" Obscurasky (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone bombarded this section with POV and bad citations. Hopefully we can agree that the section is much improved.


 * All the controversy surrounding SP's evangelical roots and activities is from the UK since evangelicalism is not really an issue in the US and SP's evangelical links are very public with Graham coming on CNN and other US media regularly plugging his organization. The NYT article you added is about the "grey" area that exists in giving federal dollars to "faith" based organizations under the Bush administration's then new policy of allowing faith based orgs to receive federal funding.  It wasn't really much of a "controversy" back then and certainly not now since such "faith based organizations" have become regular recipients of federal aid even with the current Haiti earthquake crisis.


 * Also the BBC article and Guardian articles clearly state that the Christmas present boxes are culled for any evangelical literature. "Samaritan's Purse responded, saying this was only done where it was deemed appropriate." was revised per WP:AWW.


 * Trying to paint or spin SP in a bad light and trying to make an issue out of its evangelicalism is POV. All we have to do fairly present what's already in proper references and let readers make their judgments about SP's evangelicalism.AndrewHKLee (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is incorrect to state, or even imply, that controversy or criticism of SP only exists in the UK. The controversy surrounding Graham's comments on Islam, for example, was widely reported in the US press. Alleged misuse of federal funds by SP was also the basis of a least 3 articles in the NY Times.


 * Two sections dealing with criticism is a possibility; one for the UK, and one for the US, but as there is a degree of overlap, I think this would prove confusing to the reader. A comprehensive (and properly referenced) criticism/controversy section is a legitimate inclusion and provides balance to the article. I fail to see how your removal of properly referenced criticism from this article can help readers make balanced judgements about SP.Obscurasky (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history you'll see that the bulk of my edits have been have been tracking down bad reference from the criticism section, e.g. [[[]]]. This is as POV as POV gets. I have only tried to increase accuracy of the citations and the supported text of the statements. If you fail to see why we're not allowed to upload PDF scans of SP documents and draw personal conclusions about them in the text, or quote sentences from Graham's book, etc., please refer to WP:OR.

Can you also point out which of the citations I've removed you feel are proper references? The only debatable citations that come to my mind is the NYT article which is a criticism about SP's use of federal funds back when Bush's then new policy of giving federal money to faith based organizations was improper and the NYT article about evangelical denouncing Graham's comment. Let me explain further why these shouldn't be in the criticisms section.

1.Faith based orgs and federal funds - by now faith based orgs receiving federal money is standard practice although I don't know how the issue of using federal money by religious orgs have been resolved. But to cite a NYT article from almost 10 years ago as "criticism" without going into context of federal funding of faith based orgs is misleading and also level of detail inappropriate for this article. As I pointed out SP regularly receives federal dollars even under Obama admin and if you want to delve into this issue you may want to pursue branching off another article on the issue per WP:DETAIL instead of trying to expand the subject here.

2. Issue of Graham's comments in US - The issue of Graham's anti-Muslim comments have been controversial in the US but none of the the criticism for Graham's comments were directed at SP or SP activities. The NYT article you cited doesn't mention one sentence about any criticism toward SP and only mention SP to describe Graham's job title. The article in fact is about other evangelicals denouncing Graham's comments. It's pretty obvious that it was in the UK that this was a source of criticism for SP's activities which is reflected clearly in the text and citations. This media fallout and public criticism of SP never occurred in the US and changing the title of this sub-section or muddling this distinction is WP:AWW.

I would also like to appeal to good faith and fairness. It's pretty obvious from the way this section was written up in the first place that the notable criticism toward SP's evangelicalism, handing out Christian literature has been in the UK. The PDF of documents and the primary sources have been from the SP UK organization and all the articles and media reports on this are from the UK. That's not a good or bad thing, for or against SP, etc.. It's just a fact as reported in proper references. We just have to fairly and accurately reflect what the references state instead of synthesizing our own ideas and feelings about SP and trying to find references to support any particular POV. If we start mining articles and try to inject the section with anything that could be in any way be construed as "criticism" and try to make SP seem more controversial, this is going to go downhill fast. That's the entire point of WP:NPOV The same would apply for anyone trying to put a positive spin on SP or Graham in the article.AndrewHKLee (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point about federal funding; the distribution of publicly funded aid, via faith based organisations, is not significant - it's how SP passed on that aid which is important here. Holding prayer meetings before distributing publicly funded aid is controversial. It was reported by the NYT as such, and its inclusion in the criticism section is valid. Here's another reference here which may be more acceptable to you;


 * Regarding Graham's anti-Islamic statement, the NYT article I cited is sufficient to demonstrate that criticism of Graham was not limited to the UK. I accept your point that the article did not make a direct link between him and SP, but he is SP's president and, as such, I considered his views to be relevant in an article about SP. In any case, any there are other citations which could be used to demonstrate that criticism of SP, arising from his comments, is not limited to the UK;, for example, is a Canadian organisation which has heavily criticised SP and OCC.


 * Other Canadian references, which report criticism of OCC include; and


 * And this USA Today article refers to critics of SP


 * I would also like to appeal to good faith and fairness. Your 'speedy deletion' threat of an unrelated article I have created, and your comment 'It might be a good idea to try to refrain from edit warring or engaging in original research edits in other articles until you work this out....' smacks of intimidation. I've made the working assumption that your comments are in good faith, but your behaviour is unacceptable nonetheless.


 * I believe I have made a good case above, for reverting the criticism section to its previous name, and for including mention of the El Salvador aid controversy. I'll be editing the section in the next day or two and I ask that you abstain from edit warring and discuss any issues first - the goal being to reach a form of words we can both agree upon. Obscurasky (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not make unilateral edits per WK:cons.

And before we continue our discussion, do you understasnd why you cannot use http://pursestrings.ca, upload PDF copies of SP documents, or quote Graham's autobiography???

All editors are obligated to follow standard edit rules and procedures. Any edits here or in your other articles that violate wikipedia rules are candidates for deletion, removal, etc.. That's not a threat but just how editing works on wikipedia. Please stop ignoring this.

To discuss the new references you have suggested, they are good references and they can be included in the article to support proper text but they do not justify reverting the article. If you would like to propose new text with these references, please propose your suggestions for discussion.

Lastly, criticism sections are supposed to be temporary solutions while references are worked into the general body of the article. '''I suggest we start to combine the contents of the criticism section into the body of the article per WP:CRITS ''' Just address old points:

How SP and other faith based orgs used federal aid was an issue 10 years ago when Bush first supported that idea. Since then faith based orgs getting aid and disbursing it along with their own private assets within their own activities like prayer meetings, etc., is standard practice. That's why I emphasized context. It is misleading and factually inaccurate to portray an outdated and since resolved political issue from 10 years ago as being a "criticism" in 2010. If you look over the number of articles reporting on criticism of SP and dates of the articles it's rather obvious that 2 articles(1 being an opinion piece) from Canada reporting some parents voicing concern about SP's evangelicalism is spill over from the backlash against the UK chapter of SP. Also the fact that you're bringing up http://pursestrings.ca which would be WK:OR only proves that you don't understand wikipedia citation policies. PLEASE for sake of productive editing, read over these links. That's not a threat. It's just a matter of fact. These policies and rules for citations, primary source, etc., exist for a reason. And yes it is absolutely appropriate behavior for me to point this is out to you civilly.AndrewHKLee (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You appear to have not fully understood the rationale behind the criticism section in the SP article. It is not an evaluation of the subject matter, of the type discussed in WP:CRITS; it is exists as a record of criticisms which have been directed towards SP over the years. To avoid future confusion, and as a concession toward your preferred title for the section, I suggest simply 'Controversy' as a replacement name for the 'Criticism of the organization' section.


 * It makes no difference whether criticism of SP in Canada is 'spill over from the backlash against the UK chapter of SP' - if it extends to Canada, or Ireland, New Zealand or the USA, it is not confined to the UK.


 * I do understand why http://pursestrings.ca cannot be used as a citation source, and yes of course, it is absolutely appropriate behaviour for you to point this is out to me civilly and I hope we can both also agree that contributors who use or propose edits for reasons of coercion or intimidation are not acting civilly, even where those edits may be legitimate.


 * Please provide evidence that 'faith based orgs getting aid and disbursing it ........... within their own activities like prayer meetings' is standard practice. Obscurasky (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There are wikipedia guidelines for "controversy"/"criticism" sections. That's not something you can decide on your own. And yes I know that you don't understand why pursestings.ca is not appropriate for citing in wikipedia articles. That's why you need to read the links on proper citations. If you're ignorant of basic wikipedia citations rules you're not going to know why that website is not appropriate.

That article that mentions issue of disbusement of federal funds in faith based orgs is from the NYT article already cited in the text. Again, you need to learn wikipedia citation rules so you know how this applies to text.AndrewHKLee (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am unable to reply to this as I don't think you understood what I wrote. Could you read it again please. Obscurasky (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion would be far more productive if you were informed on wikipedia citation rules. Please refer to links I've given in course of this discussion for further clarification.  It's unreasonable for me continue to repeat why we are not allowed to use http://pursestrings.ca as a citation or why we can't upload PDF files of primary sources. Proper citations have already been added at your behest.  If you have more please provide them but we shouldn't be wasting time on obvious primary sources.AndrewHKLee (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why you of the continued opinion that I do not understand why http://pursestrings.ca as a citation..... unless you haven't re-read what I wrote previously; as I asked you to. And for the record, to the best of my recollection, the SP PDF file is nothing to do with me. Obscurasky (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * BC you cited that website to claim the that SP is controversial in Canada and you also quoted Graham's book in your last edit even after my many alerts about wiki citation rules.
 * If you now understand why we can't use primary sources please clarify what edits you are proposing.AndrewHKLee (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the delay. I've now reworded the old 'Criticisms of the organisation' section. I've gone to some lengths to ensure balance; I've kept the list of public criticisms to a minimum and, whilst I'm not convinced it's entirely necessary, I have also included a sentence in SP's defence, after each one. Obscurasky (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your changes are alright except for the 2001 NYT article which I objected to before. Use of federal money by faith based org was a controversial new policy when Bush came into office 10 years ago with accusations of blurring lines of church and state from liberals. That's history now. Since then, this has become common practice even under Obama administration. Even in Haiti, Bush and Clinton were on TV plugging for faith based orgs receiving federal aid without controversy.AndrewHKLee (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't agree to the changing of the title of the subsection. Your citations are a huge improvement and I almost feel bad about not being able to approve of them but the NYT article about Graham's antiIslamic comments doesn't mention any controversy about Samaritan's Purse or in regards to any SP activities. Using this as reference to justify SP controversies extending beyond UK is misleading.

It seems you're from the UK and you're responding to controversy of SP UK that occurred in your country. I have no problem with presenting that fact in the article but the fact of the matter is that such controversy about SP was never an issue in the US. In US, SP's evangelical nature is matter of fact, noncontroversial. Graham's antiIslam comments did create controvery however and it was in the media but the fallout didn't effect Samaritan's Purse as it did in the UK.AndrewHKLee (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I cannot agree to your changing of this subsection title. As I have previously pointed out, it is clear that there has been criticisism in several countries, and I have provided citations to this effect.


 * With specific reference to the NYT article; as I have also previously pointed out, it's not "faith based orgs receiving federal aid" which is/was contraversial, it's how SP passed on that aid which is significant. If your point is that such 'methods' are now common practice, then I do not believe this to be correct. Please provide some kind of evidence to support your claim. Obscurasky (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit
I wanted to touch base about the edit/update mentioned below about updating the bullet for Operation Christmas Child. Is there any additional information or sources I can supply that would be helpful? Thanks for letting me know!

AGeist1000 (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[AGeist1000|Alison Geist]

In the Ongoing programs section, in the Operation Christmas Child bullet, I would like to edit the last sentence to reflect the most recent number of countries and shoeboxes, and add a follow up sentence about the number of shoeboxes, as follows:

"These boxes are then distributed in more than 130 countries through national teams of volunteers who are connected locally to the children receiving the gifts. Since 1993, more than 100 million shoebox gifts have been distributed."

Thanks for your assistance with this update! I really appreciate it.

AGeist1000 (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Alison Geist
 * I have amended the article. I removed some material not present in either source, and added the number of boxes distributed. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Samaritan's Purse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090416172910/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/story/2002/11/25/xmas_charity021125.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2002/11/25/xmas_charity021125.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Samaritan's Purse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.samaritanspurse.org/about/pdf/AR2003.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Samaritan's Purse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110811021925/http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2009/10/07/990049/franklin-grahams-ceo-pay-draws.html to http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2009/10/07/990049/franklin-grahams-ceo-pay-draws.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.samaritanspurse.org/operation-christmas-child/about-the-greatest-journey/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130225172848/http://www.samaritanspurse.org:80/index.php/Who_We_Are/About_Us/ to http://www.samaritanspurse.org/index.php/Who_We_Are/About_Us

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.samaritanspurse.org/index.php/Who_We_Are/About_Us
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416172910/http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2002/11/25/xmas_charity021125.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2002/11/25/xmas_charity021125.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413133024/http://www.newsobserver.com/2009/10/11/135787/franklin-graham-gives-up-one-of.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/2009/10/11/135787/franklin-graham-gives-up-one-of.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)