Talk:Teen Mania Ministries

message: The 3,400 figure is from Teen Mania's 2004 tax return under 'program service accomplishments.' - Mike Doughney 19:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Global Expeditions

message: Most of this information reads like a pamphlet or brochure straight from an advertising firm. There are sections and links that do not belong on wikipedia as they only provide further attempts for promotion and do not appear to provide reliable information on notable subjects. For example, the "campus" section fails WP:NOTE guidelines. And the BattleCry Leadership Summits and BattleCry Stadium Events should be deleted as there is already a link to the main article dealing with BattleCry making them redundant. Btl 08:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just trimmed the "Primary ministries" section down quite a bit. The rest still needs some work. Maybe I trimmed too much, but I guess we'll have something relatively "fresh" to start from. Let's discuss additions and expansions if necessary (and get some sources). – gRegor (talk • contribs) 06:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertising + Promotional material in sections/links

message: Most of this just doesn't seem necessary to me. The marketing section could probably be worked into the article somehow though. I'm copying the contents below for discussion. – gRegor (talk • contribs) 05:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section 

message: In it's present form, does anyone dispute the neutrality of this article anymore? I believe it's safe to remove that notice now, just wanted to open the discussion. If there's no dissent within a week I think I will remove it (I'll check the guidelines to make sure that's acceptable, first). – gRegor (talk • contribs) 05:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm chafing at the use of the word "vision" in the second sentence and in the "primary ministries" section, it sounds jargonistic to me. I'm also not sure that the Arlington Group reference can justifiably be in the first paragraph, it would probably be more appropriate in the "criticism" section but as far as I know no critics have brought it up in published works (that's why I contrived a separate "see also" section for it when I added it). Mike Doughney 07:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I changed them to "mission" instead of "vision." – gRegor (talk • contribs) 06:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just completed some bold edits, to reword and help the neutrality and remove the appearance of simply advertisement / propaganda. However, on the other hand, their does appear to be a possible problem with the notibility of the criticism since the author appears to be a definite POV problem. See new section under talk about this, please provide your input. Tiggerjay 04:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: The Teen Mania Ministry is rather large and influential. Where some might argue for vigorous editing/rewriting, it should NOT be a candidate for Deletion. Hopquick 03:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Versus Delete 

message: Please provide your input on the POV issue regarding the current criticisms section of the main article. It appears the the reference/source definately has a POV/Bias issue in general. Do you consider this to be a problem and should this still remain in the article. (Just as a reminder, we are talking about this specific instance). Thanks Tiggerjay 05:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an extensive criticism section over at the Battle Cry Campaign article. Portions of that section could conceivably be used here, although most of those items were specific to aspects of the Battle Cry campaign itself. Mike Doughney (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

text: == Continuous Deletion of Controversy Section ==
Pro TM users have engaged in an edit war to continually remove the controversy section and several external links. This makes the article very one-sided and more like an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intern Alumni (talk • contribs) 20:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Deleted because blogs are not sources. Blogs from supposedly former interns, not a valid source.—Preceding unsigned comment added by F4C (talk • contribs) This account has only edited the article page and this talkpage.LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a recent RS. The controversial aspects of this ministry need to be included in this article. By some definitions the source may be a blog, but note that it was written by a member of the KLTV news team. It's unconscionable to allow this article to promote a ministry without including any mention of its downside. Yopienso (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This problem seems to have resurfaced. Frantic edits today by anons and SPAs. Undoing some recent changes.. Discuss here, please. --John Nagle (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: More info. There are new press reports on the subject.. MSNBC recently made a documentary about Teen Mania, aired it two days ago, and Teen Mania doesn't like what it shows. --John Nagle (talk) 06:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Hanegraaff's assertion is factually incorrect. Dr. Kathleen Taylor's book Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control was published by Oxford University Press in 2004 to positive reviews from academic psychologists, as sourced in the book's page, which would hardly be possible if its subject was "utterly discredited." It's also been formally cited in academic books as recently as 2008. Should the Hanegraaff quote be kept with a rebuttal along these lines? JeduthunRowe (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be appropriate. There is controversy; there isn't resolution. We'll just quote and cite what the disagreeing experts say. Please go ahead and add Taylor's assertion(s). Yopienso (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Taylor source was just removed as OR. Granted, I can see the case for that by WP's guidelines (Taylor doesn't mention Hanegraaff or Teen Mania), but without it we are left with Hanegraaff's quote asserting only one side of a controversial topic (see mind control). Would it be better to cut the quote from Hanegraaff altogether rather than giving it undue weight? JeduthunRowe (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I put back the Taylor source.  At least it's an academic source.  There are blogs discussing Hanegraff vs Taylor  but it's hard to find more reliable sources. Hanegraaff is replying to the MSNBC documentary, and the article should make that clearer. --John Nagle (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crtisism POV Issues 

message: @ Grayfell: The link to Solution mag just goes to a pic of Ron and Mrs. Luce. I don't have time to swap it out with this undated announcement. http://www.teenmania.com/teen-mania-pulling-up-roots/  The content shows it was written in 2014, but the lack of a date compromises the May date given in the article. YoPienso (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a terribly designed website, but it does load and allow for more page views, at least in my browser. There is a "page curl" when hovering over the bottom corners of the  images that allow for pages to be turned by dragging. It's really an obnoxious trend for several reasons, but moderately popular for smaller publications that want to preserve their print layout on the web. Grayfell (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, got it. Thanks for all your input; it's been a pleasure working with you. YoPienso (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing