Talk:Battle Cry Campaign

message: Does anyone have information on the intentions of this group in relation to theocracy?
From this point of view, one could say Battle Cry Campaign seeks a form of electoralism to influence secular politics in its recruitment drive. It is basically a question of getting enough voters to sway elections.
--220.239.179.128 (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron Luce (founder of Teen Mania Ministries) said on Fox News, in a discussion with Sunsara Taylor (a representative of the organization World Can't Wait) mediated by Bill O'Reilly  that BattleCry was not a political group and had no interest in a theocratic government. (Sethc87 (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The very same day Luce made that claim on Fox News, he spoke at a political conference run by Vision America. Later that same year, Luce spoke at the political conference run by Family Research Council's lobbying arm. An obvious reason for his appearance at both of these events was to call for political action. Then there's last Friday's event in Times Square, that included sending a list of "questions" to Presidential candidates that, in effect, serve as calls for action by political leaders; this is obviously a political act, this time, with full involvement of the organization, with Teen Mania's name fully attached to the mailing. Two years ago, Luce apparently tried to leave the impression that his organization's involvement in politics is zero, and that is demonstrably not true; one of the many things he and his organization are doing involve activity in the political arena, cultivating relationships with politicians, along with, in at least one case, encouraging his audience to become involved in political matters. Much of this is detailed in the article with numerous citations. The focus here, particularly for the purposes of this article, should be on the facts of what the organization is doing and saying, rather than trying to characterize Luce and his organization with preconceived, poorly-defined notions such as "theocracy" which holds different meanings across subsets of people and communities. Mike Doughney (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining position on Theocracy 

message: Noted that Battle Cry has a legislative agenda..  If any information on bills introduced or specific lobbying activity is available, it should be added to the article. --John Nagle 03:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lobbying 

message: Reverted to version before  edits.  A bit too much point of view there. Note that WorldChanger is a new account and has only edited articles associated with Battle Cry and its parent organization.  
Until now, the article seemed to have converged on a reasonably neutral position between the pro- and anti-Battle Cry positions, as expressed on the talk page.  We should try to stay close to that.  Thanks.  --John Nagle 07:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of  edits may have seemed non-NPOV to you, but what speaks much louder is your total disregard for that User's edits, and your and blanket reversion of everything "he" had to say, justifying that by saying - well it "is a new account".   Please review the Wikipedia's guidelines on not biting the newcomers.  On the other hand, the User may not be as new as you think: WorldChanger may well be a sockpuppet of another user, but there is nothing inherently wrong with that.  Many users use sockpuppets to compartmentalize their edits.  That is completely acceptable, and certainly encouraged by the Wikipedia to help protect the privacy of the User.  Anyway it seems you may have become a little too close to "owning" the article, refusing to allow other "new" editors a chance to contribute their thoughts and views.  You probably should go back and review the NPOV guidelines yourself, and tone down your own approach, and reconsider some of your own edits, which still have the tone of a "hostile" reporter going after "exposing" a secret paramilitary cult in order to sell a story, rather than simply stating what the Organization is all about.  There is nothing wrong with stating the Battle Cry's views, directly and unfiltered through your dark glasses of suspicion, even if those tenents offend your personal sensibilities.  Sometimes when older editors have been "around" for a while, we get a little cranky about "these young whippersnappers" coming in and ruining everything.  When you have to resort to blanket reversions, without really trying hard to pick out some "good" from the "bad", then you have crossed the line.  Thanks. --T-dot 09:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, a total reversion may have been overdoing it.  But the article doesn't reflect the "anti-Battle Cry position".  For that, see acquiretheevidence.com (with which I have no connection), which is much more critical than anything currently in the article. Since I did overdo it, I've put back some of WorldChanger's changes.   --John Nagle 16:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded and cited things so it hopefully doesn't sound so one-sided to you this time. In the future, try to avoid blanket revisions, even if the person in question is new. Thanks. --WorldChanger 00:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  Made a few changes starting from there, mainly because Battle Cry's activities seem focused on growing Battle Cry, not general evangelism.  It's more about "Come to Battle Cry", than "Come to Jesus", or so their literature indicates.  By the way, where did that "double the size of every group every year" line come from?  I haven't seen that one.  --John Nagle 02:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, John, I think you're misinterpreting the systemic role of what "BattleCry" and Ron Luce have been doing for a long time. The promotional materials are written based on certain assumptions about church growth and the role of parachurch ministries like this one that are taken as givens in the evangelical community. This is about, at its root, growing and perpetuating churches, which is symbiotic with a political agenda, and then, since churches look for means to continue, support methods, events, etc., church leaders support and pipe participants into  Teen Mania/"BattleCry" and back out. I would actually put it back to the way WorldChanger had it, but dejargonify the evangelism terminology. The "double the size of every youth group every year" - I recall three more words, "for five years" - is in "BattleCry" promotional and other materials, including recent books, and it's certainly a big part of the events, but I don't have a cite at hand right this second.  Mike Doughney 04:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point.  For Wikipedia's purposes, it seems appropriate to describe verifiable statements and actions in plain language whenever possible.  I tend to do that to Wikipedia articles, independent of topic.  (Usually, it's the business articles that need major point of view work.) Really, though, probably all that can be usefully said about Battle Cry has been said for now, until they do something more.  They're a very new organization.  I'd encourage  to work on some other articles outside this area for a while, to get some sense of the flavor of Wikipedia articles. --John Nagle 04:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think perhaps the best course of action here is to let those Users who have direct familiarity, and a positive insider-perspective with the positions and statements of Battle Cry organization, to freely and clearly represent and state those positions, and to do so unmolested by outsiders and critics.  There should be "proof" links back to the Battle Cry and Teen Mania Ministries web sites, directly quoting excerpts from the PR information, exactly as stated and posted by Battle Cry.  It should be presented as Official Battle Cry Positions - not the POV of the User posting it.  If there are additional materials in pamphlets, then those should be quoted as such with published source information, like any published book would be quoted.  Presumably others can get such materials from Battle Cry on request, or from participants in the meetings, or at the rallies from Press Kits, for verification.  These "official positions" (which cannot be disputed as POV because they are direct quotes) can then be "balanced" by a separate "Criticisms" section, posted by those critics and outsiders who wish to point out any discrepancies or disputes or concerns with the official Battle Cry positions.  I think it is outrageous and patently unfair for the "anti-Battle Cry" users to come in and manipulate and regulate both sides of the "argument", and make false claims and spread gossip, rumors, and  speculation about what they feel Battle Cry stands for, when Battle Cry clearly and publically states what it stands for.  It would be as if a staunch Christian were to come in and regulate and twist and make claims in the main article on what Buddhists believe, when there are plenty knowledgeable Buddhists experts who are much better able to present that information correctly.  The Christians can then come in and state what THEY think about what Buddhists believe, in a separate "Criticisms of..." section, if they wish.  Other non-christian religious wiki-articles have the religious jargon posted directly and freely, I do not see why Battle Cry and Christian Ministries in general cannot have the same courtesy.  --T-dot 16:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is supposed to represent a neutral point of view, difficult though that is. The "presenting both sides separately" approach tends to break down when many people can edit the article.  It's not a religious issue; Peak Oil is currently suffering from this problem. Also, here we're writing about a real-world organization, not a philosophical concept, so a who/what/when/where/why style works. It can be tough to write in specialized fields without jargon, but it's worth the trouble.  I just got through editing Tooling University, which, in its original form, never mentioned what they actually taught:  metalworking with machine tools.  --John Nagle 16:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree with T-dot. And being that I'm on staff with Teen Mania, I happen to know what our organization is about and what our goals are extremely well... and ought to be able to state what they are without being so harshly scrutinized by people who aren't a part of the organization. Certainly things need to be presented from an unbiased perspective, and I understand that, but when it comes down to the goals and intents of the Battle Cry campaign, I think I know very well what they are. Thanks. --WorldChanger 04:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WorldChanger edits 

message: should the name be changed to BattleCry? this seems to be the proper spelling as of recent.
--Jammin.all.night 21:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be left as is for now. Most news reports on the campaign are using two words; even the battlecry.com website uses two words in many if not most places and certainly in page titles - a Google search confirms this. I've edited the "battlecry" (one word) redirect to point to the disambiguation page to hopefully limit any confusion. Mike Doughney 13:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The web site itself seems to use "BattleCry.com" and "Battle Cry Campaign".   When they simply write "BattleCry", they're usually talking about their web site. --John Nagle 18:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Name Change 

message: Battle Cry is having rallies again this year.  The San Francisco event just finished. They tried a demonstration at City Hall again, but it was something of an anticlimax.  I happened to be driving by City Hall during this, and some guy was yelling "George Bush loves you".  Unclear what faction he represented.
Battle Cry is now reselling Tivo, with some censorware attached. "And if you purchase TiVo through Battlecry.com you’ll actually be supporting the work of Teen Mania! A portion of every sale will be returned to the ministry to further our work with teens. How’s that for a WIN-WIN?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nagle (talk • contribs) 04:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey John, you shoulda stopped by and said hi. There's not much I can add about the City Hall scene, but there was a Vice President of TIVO on stage at the stadium Saturday night, wedged in between members of a Phoenix church youth group that hassled Spencer's Gifts for carrying the so-called "Pornaments" Christmas novelties, and the producers of the upcoming movie "Bella," which is being touted as some kind of anti-abortion/evangelism tool. They spent an enormous amount of time complaining about relative trivialities: clay figures from China and the images on screens. There are now plenty more interesting details to add to this article, eventually. Mike Doughney 07:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgot to sign that above.  Sorry.  BattleCry has a whole line of merchandise now. . DVDs of all the rallies.  Chuck Colson videos.  . Ron Luce's books.  Clothing "Branded by God".  --John Nagle 18:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 update 

message: According to Wikipedia's quality guidelines, articles are supposed to be neutral. This article is blatantly anti-BattleCry. It has a large list of Criticisms and virtually no defense or support for the movement. This movement is about freeing the youth of this generation from the bonds of corporations such as MTV that say they own this generation. None of the teens are being controlled. They are having another point of view laid out in front of them and are invited to explore it. Also, Teen Mania makes sure it is a fun atmosphere.
:The above unsigned comment simply repeats the claims of the organization that created this campaign, and provides no justification for the assertion that the article is "anti-BattleCry." This claim seems to be based on the fact that a substantial section of criticism merely exists as part of the article. In fact, in contrast to this claim, everything up until the 'criticism section' is quite clear about the purposes of the campaign, its alleged benefits, and their defenses thereof, as published by Teen Mania's leaders themselves - including the specific claims made by this commenter, in fact - and balances that information against the substantial criticism and commentary published elsewhere. Articles should not be drastically edited (over 11k was removed at one time) based on specious claims made in a single anonymous unsigned comment, thus I have restored the criticism section of the article. Discuss. (Shall we discuss Tenet 5?) Mike Doughney 02:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative points of view

message: inserted On August 24, 2007, during secret filming by a CNN film crew as part of the three-part documentary God's Warriors, founder Ron Luce admitted that he was in fact an atheist, and that the Battle Cry Campaign was “a great way to make a whole heap of money out of the dumb and ignorant masses”.[2]  There's a reference to 6 hours of CNN video on "God's Warriors" (a survey of militant religion) but nothing more specific.  Press coverage of the CNN special doesn't mention anything about such a surprising claim.  I thus reverted this, twice, as vandalism. --John Nagle 19:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same peculiar insert was made multiple times to the Ron Luce and Teen Mania Ministries articles along with a "general discussion" kind of comment on the Ron Luce talk page. I note that this IP user has received a final warning. Mike Doughney 07:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism  reported as follows: ' and sockpuppets  and  repeated vandalism with the same nonsensical statement across Ron Luce, Teen Mania Ministries and Battle Cry Campaign. ' Mike Doughney 17:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim that Luce is an atheist? -  by {{user|79.75.246.185}} 

message: :Image:Battlecrylogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has been resolved with the addition of a fair use rationale to the image description page. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Battlecrylogo.gif

message: :Image:Optruth flyer back.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has been resolved with the addition of a fair use rationale to the image description page. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Optruth flyer back.jpg

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Battle Cry Campaign. 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/20071005025002/http://www.battlecry.com/files/NYAM/TheStateoftheAmericanTeen.pdf to http://battlecry.com/files/NYAM/TheStateoftheAmericanTeen.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081005165216/http://www.christianpost.com:80/article/20081002/thousands-of-california-christian-youth-empowered-to-defend-marriage_pageall.htm to http://christianpost.com/article/20081002/thousands-of-california-christian-youth-empowered-to-defend-marriage_pageall.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080705130024/http://www.battlecry.com/files/Wewillnotbesilent.pdf to http://battlecry.com/files/Wewillnotbesilent.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Battle Cry Campaign. 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/20070926225138/http://www.c-spanstore.org/shop/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=194449-1 to http://www.c-spanstore.org/shop/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=194449-1
*Added  tag to http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiykblRiqo7BFr4DbnmEHoRkOB-w
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060802233317/http://sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/resolutions06/r0180-06.pdf to http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/resolutions06/r0180-06.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070527215119/http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2007/04/06/05 to http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2007/04/06/05
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002000542/http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_1437&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen to http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_1437&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060922204845/http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_606&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen to http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_606&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen
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) 17:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified