Talk:Temple of Understanding

Initial Edits

Cleaned up NPOV issues in the article. It originally read like propaganda lifted directly from the organization's own promotional brochures.

The article requires significant expansion from a subject matter expert.

Estéban (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The mission section states that the TOU is both registered with the Internal Revenue Service - Department of Treasury (an agency of public administration and government created under U.S. law) under article 501(c)3 to have a "non-profit" status *and* an NGO. The NGO page states that NGO is " ...a term usually used by governments to refer to entities that have no government status." I would agree. If the NOU is registered with an agency of government under U.S. jurisdiction then the NOU falls under U.S. jurisdiction and cannot be an NGO. A representative of the organization should clarify this contradiction at the first opportunity.

Cuts and references

This article was begun in 2007. In 2010 October, a tag was added asking for references. In 2012 August, references were added, and the tag was changed to one asking for more references. (It should have been the tag asking for inline references; if you look edit-by-edit through that month, you'll see how that got mixed up.) All well and good, and typical for the development of a Wikipedia article from stub along the way to good.

In 2013 April, a large amount of material, both references and from the main body, was cut. There was no discussion here. There was no effort to find appropriate references or match the current references to the text. There was nothing contentious about the removed material. There were no citation-need tags along the way. After that, essentially nothing more was done to the article.

I've restored all of this. Hopefully we can match up the references and find appropriate ones, and remove material that really can't be verified.

—Toby Bartels (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I've gone through all of the references and external links already given in the article, making appropriate inline citations. Since there are still substantial unsourced portions that, arguably, have been challenged en masse, I've restored the tag asking for more references. But I hope that people will challenge specifically what they want to remove, and even do some looking for references, because much of this should not be hard to verify! None of it particularly contentious, POV, BLP, or anything like that, so it's safe to leave around until somebody wants to look for references.

This isn't really my field, and I'm not going to do more on this article myself. I found an article with a strange reference section, figured out why, and gave it one that is at least doing its job as far as it goes, restoring a lot of material along the way. I'll let others continue.

—Toby Bartels (talk) 06:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)