Jump to content

Talk:Cru (Christian organization)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Current Discussion Topics

Use the space below to start or join a current discussion. If you want to start a new dialogue, be sure to check out the archives to see what has previously been discussed. Thanks for participating and helping to make wikipedia an excellent online resource. --Sixtrojans 16:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources?

Is it possible for someone to flag this article for not properly sourcing statistics? It's ridiculous to say that "more than 3.5 million people become Christians." as a result of a bumper sticker campaign without any form of proof... other than faith. All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Thank you for attempting to help make Wikipedia entries better. Please remember to sign your posts on the talk page. Before making extensive changes to a stable article, you should first open a discussion on the talk page. All of the statistics in the timeline is sourced to Campus Crusade's press kit, which is frequently used by journalists as a source in articles. To date, there are no known articles published by the press disputing the accuracy of any of these statistics. If you do a little more research on the "I Found It!" campaign, you'd know it was more than just a bumper sticker campaign. It was a nationwide, grassroots program in the 1970s involving churches and lay volunteers across the country interacting with their neighbors. With that background information, I think you ought to give the reported statistics another chance, rather than greeting them with cynicism and a decidedly not neutral point of view. --Sixtrojans 23:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
While I appreciate your contributions as well, the statistics presented on this page are not cited properly, and as such, should not be included in a (supposedly) academically-oriented article. This would allow those who read the article to base their opinions on the credibility of the source, rather than on the figures themselves. Published or not, most of the figures (conversions especially) are generally unverifiable. If nothing else, take a break.. let someone else edit this page once or twice without reverting it immediately and throwing around accusations of cynicism and the like... the next thing you know, someone will shout "Witch" and we'll all be coverd in the stench of burning human flesh... --ONETWOTHREEFOURFIVE
The proper way to handle disputes is to talk them out on the discussion page with other editors and try to come to a consensus. As far as your comments about cynicism go, how else would you describe your comment "all hail the spaghetti monster"? I think my remark was fair. --Sixtrojans 02:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this user - if you're going to say that 5 billion people have seen the film (that's 5 out of 6 people in the whole world), you need to back it up. If you cannot cite a source for your statistics, then I'm afraid that they don't belong here. Lankiveil 00:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC).
The statistics do not say 5 billion people have seen the film. The statistics say the viewership (times viewed, including repeat views) is over 5 billion. The number has been published by the New York Times, which is certainly a credible source. (The New York Times, July 22, 2003 Page 1AR, "1979 Bible Film is the Most-Watched Movie of All Time" by Franklin Foer; Also, see: http://jesusfilm.org/progress/statistics.html which now has viewership at over 6 billion.) --Sixtrojans 02:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
(removed this section after looking more closely at the article. Does seem to be cited adequately, although a source I can actually look at would be preferable).
Also, I'm concerned that the "3.5 million conversions" statistic is not verifiable. Does this mean that 3.5 million converted just because of the sticker, or was it a factor, or what? It seems a very vague assertion to me. Lankiveil 03:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC).
Verifiability in Wikipedia refers to the ability to quote reliable, expert sources outside of the encyclopedia. It does not refer to an editor's ability to conduct a scientific experiment to prove a statement. In fact, that would be original research and is explicitly against Wikipedia policy. The burden of proving something happened or not lies with the subject matter experts quoted in these articles, not with the editors of the Wikipedia encyclopedia.
The Wikipedia article for the TV series Lost says, "Lost garnered an average of 15.5 million viewers per episode on ABC." Can anyone verify that number to the same standard you seem to be demanding here? Is there a hairy little man running from house-to-house every Wednesday night, counting how many people are actually watching Lost? The editors of the Lost article don't have to personally verify that number. The only burden they have is to find a published source outside of Wikipedia that would be an expert on the matter. That is precisely what has happened here.
The source for the "I Found It" statistic is Campus Crusade's press kit for reporters. Is the press kit correct? I have no idea. Hundreds of articles have been written about the organization by hundreds of journalists, including highly respected news outlets like CNN and the New York Times. If the number was falsified, shouldn't some snoopy reporter have exposed the truth by now?
Rather than deleting a sourced statement from a stable article simply because you don't like it, why don't you do some homework and find a reliable source that refutes the number first? --Sixtrojans 04:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The Lost article is probably referring to the Nielsen Ratings, an accepted and open way of calculating an approximate viewership figure by a third party. Your statistic is seemingly pulled from nowhere by the group in question, with no indication of where it came from and how it was calculated. I'd say that for this sort of figure, the Campus Crusade press kit is not a trustworthy source. Lankiveil 21:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC).
That's why the New York Times was referenced and the 5 billion viewership was used rather than the 6 billion figure from the JESUS Film Web site. As far as Nielsen Ratings go, my point was that there are many claims to "viewership" where the actual viewers are not counted one-by-one. Nielsen isn't exactly a neutral third party--they represent the advertising community. A great apples-to-apples comparison would be the Box Office numbers released by Hollywood studios each week. The $ amounts are spit out from the studio that owns the distribution rights to a film. It's worth mentioning that the JESUS Film has been shown on national television in dozens of countries around the world (plus distributed by video, including mass direct mail) which I'm sure constitute a solid base for that number. By the way, I just did a quick Google search and PBS has published a short article claiming 6 billion viewership. --Sixtrojans 22:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to the bumper sticker comment. As far as I'm concerned, the term "viewership" figure is vague, but I don't disagree with the assertion as you've put it (I'd like to see something that isn't copied verbatim from a press release, but we can't have everything). Lankiveil 23:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC).
Please, show us the "press kit for reporters", or do not cite the statistics. A proper citation would require the actual title, name of the author, editor, publisher, date of publication, etc... Why don't you do some homework on how to properly cite materials at the "MLA Formatting and Style Guide" before passing off numbers that more closely resemble hyperbole than factual statistics. Failing this, please cite a couple of articles by the "highly respected news outlets like CNN and the New York Times" which report these same figures. By the way, CBN is not like CNN just because there's only a difference of one letter separating the two.--User:Onetowthreefourfive
The link to the press room is in several places in the article. In case you are unable to find it, look here: http://www.demossnewspond.com/ccci/. You can set up a Google News Alert to get a daily digest e-mailed to you with links to every reference in the press to a keyword. Try setting one up for "Campus Crusade for Christ" and you'll probably see a couple of stories each day from around the world. I'm sure CBN has probably covered Campus Crusade sometime in the organization's 50+ year history, but I personally wouldn't use CBN as a source, especially when there are more legitimate media outlets providing coverage. Check out CNN's Anderson Cooper or Good Morning America which have both done interesting spots on Campus Crusade in the past year. (You can also find links to those in the main Campus Crusade article towards the bottom). --Sixtrojans 21:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

About 3.5 million "I Found It" decisions and 5 billion Jesus Film viewers . . .

Just one big thing about the "I've Found it" campaign . . I don't know if you've seen the video footage of this campaign, but 3.5 million is actually a fairly conservative claim. Certainly it would be a big number were the campaign confined to one country, but it wasn't. One of the countries in which "I've Found It!" was pushed hard was South Korea, and they held a number of meetings at which the attendence IN A SINGLE NIGHT was over a million (at the time, they were listed as the biggest public meetings anywhere, any time, but I believe they've since been surpassed by various events, I believe in Korea . . :) )

As for the number of people viewing the Jesus film, I agree it's a big number. That said, having been involved with CCCI and having seen it from the inside, I'd be inclined to trust it. Their statisticians are quite scrupulous (it's kinder than saying "Anal Retentive!" :)).Johno 09:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's sake, the key issues are what has been published by credible sources (whether we agree with what was published or not). It's best to stick with the conservative numbers in the current article that the organization has claims in its press kit AND that have been run by respectable media outlets (New York Times, CNN, ABC, etc.). Wikipedia editors need to stay away from conducting independent research. --Sixtrojans 15:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No disagreement here. I'm just pointing out that the published figure is also a reasonable one.Johno 13:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why I reverted edits of User:Tregoweth

Campus Crusade for Christ is the largest Christian parachurch organization in the world and an extremely complex organization with over 40 unique ministries under its umbrella in just the U.S. alone. Removing links to the organization's ministry's makes it difficult for the reader to understand the scope of the organization. A lot of work has gone into presenting this article in a clear and coherent way. Before making unilateral decisions to make wholesale changes to this article, please use this page to discuss them. There are rooms for improvement, but let's not undermine the work that has already been done. --Sixtrojans 04:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:External links for the guidelines on adding external links. A more appropriate way to demonstrate the scope of the organization would be within the article itself; linking to numerous websites only demonstrates that the organization has numerous websites. Also, please be careful about using the description "vandalism," unless it refers to "any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia"; while you may disagree with my edits, they were made in good faith. —tregoweth (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the policy, thank you. However, you've missed the point... the external links that we whittled this down to (at one point there were hundreds) represent the major "business units" that fall under the Campus Crusade umbrella that may not be apparent otherwise to the reader. According to wikipedia policy, that makes them relevant to this article. To cut down on the clutter, we remove links to Web sites for individual university chapter Web sites (or there would be 100s just from the U.S.).--Sixtrojans 04:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the massive cluster of links is still too much. As Tregoweth says, the best way to demonstrate the size, scale, and complexity of the information is by talking about it in the article, not by throwing a whole bunch of links at the reader. Lankiveil 12:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Campus Ministry Does Not Equal CCC

I searched campus ministry and was redirected here. Please take that link out. Most large campuses have a couple of dozen campus ministries. This is not representative of them. 07:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Campus Crusade calls its college ministry "the Campus Ministry" which is why someone probably put the redirect on "Campus Ministry." Formerly, that article was a stub that at least explained what was going on. I think what we need to do is some kind of disambiguation on the "Campus Ministry" page where we offer readers the option of coming to this article or going to Category:College_religious_organizations. If no one else gets to it, I'll work on it later if I have time. Good catch. --Sixtrojans 14:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

CCC to Orthodoxy?

I was just wondering, where is the mention of many CCC members becoming Eastern Orthodox Christians as a result of CCC? Within their research of Early Christianity, many (after their studies) went from being Protestant Christians to Eastern Orthodox. So I was wondering, where is the mention of this? --KCMODevin 22:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can site a source for this information and it is relevant to the article, you could add it. Campus Crusade is such a large organziation though with a 50+ year history that it may not really be relevant today. Many former staff members have also become evangelical pastors, so you would need to be careful to present the information in a balanced way. --Sixtrojans 15:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


How Many Times Has the 4 Spiritual Laws Been Printed

An anonymous user recently changed the number of copies that the 4 Spiritual Laws has been printed from 2.5 billion to 1 billion. The anonymous user cited a number on 4laws.com, an old Web site that does not appear to be current. The 2.5 billion number was sourced to the organization's press kit which does appear to be kept current. Comparing the quality of the sources, I think the press kit is more reliable. --Sixtrojans (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Has the Jesus Film Been "Viewed" or "Screened"

An anonymous user recently changed the wording about the Jesus Film, changing "viewed 6 billion times" to "screened 6 billion times," citing a PBS article which uses the word "screened" rather than the Jesus Film Project's Web site which claims "6 billion viewings." I think the reporter on the PBS article didn't realize the words aren't interchangeable -- 6 billion screenings would translate into a viewership in the 10s of billions, I would think. I would use the more conservative "6 billion viewings" that the organziation reports. --Sixtrojans (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I noticed the criticism section has been entirely removed. I agree that all of the content in it at the time of removal was poor and inadmissable. The question remains, should there be a place for noting any important or widely circulated criticisms regarding CCC? As an example the wikipedia page on Mothers against Drunk Driving regards another large organization, and criticisms of the organisation are noted. I think the proportion of the MADD article devoted to criticism may be overly high and unbalance the article, however I am using it only to argue that there is precedent for having a section on criticism.203.109.234.110 08:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I agree - this is an organisation that rightly or wrongly has taken a lot of criticism, and simply pretending that it hasn't happened for the purposes of this page raises questions of whether NPOV is being adhered to. It's been gone for a long time though, and I'd not know where to start with re-adding it. Lankiveil 12:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
Google News comes up with 71 articles in the past month, and almost 1,000 in the past year, when searching on the phrase "Campus Crusade for Christ." I would think that if there were "important and widley circulated criticisms" regarding CCC, it should be fairly easy to find some relable sources to cite, and add to the article. But it seems like the most "convtroversial" things that turn up are Op-Ed pieces from college newspapers complaining that students involved with CCC won't stop talking about Jesus in public. --Puddleglum411 (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The criticism of Campus Crusade is somewhat related to political conservatism topics of homosexuality, gender roles, and anti-communism (this last issue is for this group in particular). Their involvement in politics has changed over the years and the leadership of Campus Crusade currently mostly focuses on evangelicalism to bring about cultural change in reflection to Christian conservative values; however, there is friction among leaders of how much to get involved in politics. Campus Crusade as well as other evangelical organizations have been a voting base for Republicans from around the late 60s to 2004 and maybe will be for some time. Other main criticism is the de-intellectualism on college campuses whereas intellectual pursuits are not the main center of college life. However, this later criticism has also been brought about by the increase growth in population and class size of many college campuses to the point where students are the less focus of instructors and students meet less with instructors. On a religious point, there is also criticism about Campus Crusade's emphasis that if an individual does not accept Jesus as God or a savior; then they are damned. However, critics of such a theology who are also Christians might say that Jesus is the one who saves, not the individual. There are many books on topics of evangelicalism. On another note, if i look at this article like many other articles on wikipedia, they are not very detail and provide much more of a brief summary, and that rather hurts my aspiration and probably other people's aspirations to further write on this site. I think for much detail topics one might have to read dissertations or detail books on single such topics. Sp0 (talk) 03:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to share your opinions with us. In order for your criticisms to be added to the article though, each one will need to be cited from a reputable source.--Sixtrojans (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
CCC systematically silences criticism. they have major media and government ties and control enough money to intimidate mainstream media. my parents have worked for CCC for 30 years and used to tell me how dozens of people warned them not to join CCC as it was a cult, and after getting old enough to think for myself, I'm not sure they were wrong. I attended CCC's school, (www.tkc.edu) briefly - they send students to seminars with grounds like the "Foundation for Economic Education" that suggest the total abolition of public, non-christian schooling, and things like privatizing air and water. how's that for "anti-communism"? what about the military ministry's stated mission to "create government-paid missionaries"?
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/press-releases/dec07report.html
there are plenty of things worth criticizing, but I'm sure much like attempts to edit the article on TKC, legitimate comments about questionable institutional ties will be deleted and replaced with propagandistic advertising for this organization.--70.232.48.74 (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia. Keep in mind though that the goal of this online encyclopedia is to treat each subject with neutrality, and that "original research" such as personal experiences isn't considered a valid source. If you can find credible third party sources to back your claims, feel free to suggest them as additions to the article.--Sixtrojans (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge from Student Life

Student Life was issued with a merge notice (merge or you will be deleted). I have reorganized the CCC around the world section and copied the info from Student Life in the relevant section. I don't know if this is the best way to organize this information but i can't think of anything else right now. I'm happy if someone can find a better way of presenting this stuff. 219.79.92.230 (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was a massive change for a very stable article. There should be some discussion here first before adding the entire contents of the Australian entry here. Some of my objections are that we cannot possibly have links to the activities of every local campus chapter. Campus Crusade for Christ is on thousands of universities and it would just become an overwhelming link farm. If you go through the history of this entry, you'll see that a few years ago we reached a consensus to just list the main locations around the world and the main ministries under Campus Crusade to keep it reasonable. --Sixtrojans (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of No Citations Template

This entry contains many citations in it, so I don't understand why a template was added to the page stating that there weren't any citations in the article. If you'd like to see more citations added, go ahead and look for more external, reliable sources. There are plenty. --Sixtrojans (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

This article is currently very poorly referenced. It needs proper references to reliable sources, not to the organization itself, or to its press releases. The "6 billion" claim for the film particularly needs a real reference.I have also removed the enormous linkfarm (probably the biggest I have ever seen). The "media coverage" section should probably also go - it adds nothing to the article that I can see. DuncanHill (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

DuncanHill, thanks for stopping by and wanting to help make this article better. I've been contributing to this page for a few years and we've finally gotten to a point where the daily vandalism has stopped. If you read through the past discussions, you'll see that the viewership of the Jesus Film has been thoroughly debated and the 6 billion viewings has stood the test of scrutiny. It's been reported by both the New York Times, PBS and others, so it passes the reliable source test. You may not agree with the number, but I don't think you can dispute that it's been properly sourced.
From your comments, it sounds like maybe you did not look at the sources very closely. The New York Times, Forbes, PBS, Chronicle of Philanthropy and MinistryWatch are all credible third party sources. I agree with you that we could make better use of the "media coverage" section to add more citations to the article. (In other words, the media coverage section goes away but statements in the article can be cited from the media coverage).--Sixtrojans (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Please stop vandalizing the article by inserting massive amounts of spam and removing valid concerns about the lack of reliable sourcing and referencing. DuncanHill (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's see... you showed up a few days ago and deleted huge chunks of an article that has been pieced together by many editors over a period of years and you accuse me of vandalizing when I revert your mass edits??? Let's be reasonable here. I see from your profile page that you are an existentialist and have an axe to grind with creationism and intelligent design. That helps explain why you are treating this subject with such a negative point of view. --Sixtrojans (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I just see a profound lack of reliable sources and an excess of links to this organization's websites. I apologize for having the effrontery to edit "your" page without your permission, I must have missed the notice saying that you own it. I am not treating this subject with a negative point of view - simply saying that it should meet Wikipedia's standards. Further, I see nothing in the article to suggest that this organization promotes creationism or "intelligent design" so am puzzled by your comment.DuncanHill (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I never claimed this is my page -- in fact, I made it very clear that many editors have worked together over a period of years to compile this article through consensus. How about if you try to work collaboratively? Is that too hard? --Sixtrojans (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's reliable source guideline only demands that a source external to Wikipedia can be cited. The guideline says that citing a source does not make something a fact, but it satisfies the requirement for inclusion in wikipedia. If you think there are false statements in this article, why don't you take some time to find sources that you can cite to support your claim? So far, we just have your negative opinions to go on. That's what Wikipedia calls original research, which is not permissable.--Sixtrojans (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
My negative opinions? I have expressed no negative opinions about the organization, nor have I suggested that there are any false statements in the article. What I have legitimately done is to point out that 1) there are far too many hyperlinks to websites run by this organization or its subsidiaries, and 2) there are too few references to reliable sources to sustain the statements in the article. DuncanHill (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm familiar with both of those pages already, thank you. Can you explain specifically how this article violates either of those guidelines? Keep in mind, that neither of those are policy pages -- they are guidelines. When I look at other articles like The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Google, National Geographic Society, NFL or Apple, I see tons of links to press releases or publications controlled by the company/organization. Are you going to vandalize those articles with the same zeal that you used on this one? --Sixtrojans (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I really can't be bothered with this article as long as you insist on your ownership of it, and make attacks based on your obvious hostility to my commitment to scientific values. It's a very poorly referenced article, and will continue to be so long as you prevent other editors raising legitimate concerns about it. I am sure that a well-referenced article could be written about this organization, but not with you on watch. Off my watchlist. DuncanHill (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

General Cleanup

The page seems to me to be unnecessarily long, with redundant mentions of many Crusade projects and copious similar links to external pages in multiple sections. I'm making an attempt to reduce the size and bloat of some of these sections; input is welcome. 130.49.34.236 (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed all but one (official international website) of the external links - there was simply far too many of them. Thanks! Fin©™ 08:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

As this page has significant overlap with Athletes in Action and FamilyLife, both small articles about groups run by Campus Crusade for Christ, I'm proposing them for merger. 130.49.34.236 (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There's been no discussion on this for 7 months, so I think it is fair to remove the merger proposal tag. Sixtrojans (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No time to a more detailed or thoughtful note, and sorry for that. But this entry is very clearly more of a public relations backgrounder for the CCC than an objective article. It is clear and decently written, but originates from the CCC's point of view and does nothing to accommodate any others, such as the members of religious groups or non believers targeted for conversion by this evangelical organization, or advocates of a high wall between church and state on public campuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazierdp (talk • contribs) 03:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Knowing God Personally

I have changed the statement: 'Campus Crusade is also the publisher of The Four Spiritual Laws, also known as the "Knowing God Personally Booklet".' to 'Campus Crusade is also the publisher of The Four Spiritual Laws, and an anglicised version called "Knowing God Personally".' "Knowing God Personally" is a rewrite of "The Four Spiritual Laws" aimed at British culture, but following the same basic structure.DigbyJames (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

– The main use of Cru is now the ministry formerly known as Campus Crusade for Christ, one of the largest Christian evangelical organizations in the world. Compared to the other uses of Cru, this one seems to clearly be the Primary Topic, and it therefore makes the most sense for those pages to be listed on a separate disambiguation page. Sixtrojans (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Clean up:

The article has a serious issue with sourcing. Much of it is unsourced. The rest relies either on self-sourcing or poor quality sourcing. Very few sources cited are reliable.

I'm tempted to simply prune much of the article and then start anew from that. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

So I've done a major cleanup. Removed a lot of POV-y language, unsourced claims, bad sources. Added several sources. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources:

  • Turner, John G. (2008). Bill Bright and Campus Crusade for Christ : the renewal of evangelicalism in postwar America. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-3185-4.

Someone really needs to read this book, make notes and improve the article. This is a very high quality source, as it is published by a University Press.

Other sources:

This is a series of news articles by LA Times.

These sources were listed in older versions of this article. Haven't checked any of them but they could be useful:

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

International organization name:

I'm a bit confused. What is the name of the international organization? Is it also "Cru"? Or is that just the name of the American branch? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, is this article about the international organization or just the American branch? The article should clarify. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Numbers

Any statistic needs reliable, third party sources. Do not use self-sourcing. That should ideally only be used for simple non-controversial things.

We owe it to our readers to not simply repeat claims by organizations, but to ensure that there is proof to them. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Think of it this way. "We" don't actually write the articles. Third party sources write the articles. We merely edit what others have written and turn that into an article. Using self-sourcing and taking their claims at face value, we are in effect letting them "write" their own article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Harizotoh9, regarding single sourced claims. There are many articles that simply state that the person claims something it true. That has been sufficient qualification. Look at all the biographies on here. Ideally, we would find other sources, but there are many numbers that would not be tracked by any other organization. For example, take films in general. The owner of the film is going to be the one most interested in compiling and sharing how many times the movie was viewed. What if no one else collected it? How are you going to get some third-party reference? Or, as in other single-sourced claims, you simply qualify the source. Alrich44 (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Self-sourcing in Wikipedia actually refers to personal websites, forums, etc. by some random private person. An organization or company website would be a primary source. Primary sources on Wikipedia are acceptable, but secondary sources are preferred. And as far as viewership goes, to apply a strict standard to not quote the owners numbers, we would need to edit every single Wikipedia entry on Hollywood movies that quotes Box Office revenues, since all Box Office numbers are reported by the movie studios themselves. It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to do original research or insert their own opinions about whether one studio / film owner is more reliable than another. Cmndrcody (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Jesusfilm.org is not a WP:RS. We should not take their claims at face value. It does a disservice to our readers and it violates WP:NPOV. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with Jesusfilm.org as reliable source [WP:RS]] and I think if we want the article to represent multiple points of view on a subject that we need to fairly document the organization's POV. It does more of a disservice to readers if the only sources permitted are those that are negatively critical. Cmndrcody (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Cru and Four Spiritual Laws

Hey Alrich44, I noticed you moved the horrible Four Spiritual Laws page into the organization page for Cru. I'm wondering why the Bible verses were changed to the King James Version and some of the text does not match the booklet. Actually I'm wondering why the booklet is being reprinted on Wikipedia at all. Seems like that would be a copyright violation? I know someone else decided to do that probably a long time ago. I was thinking maybe it would be better to kill the section on Cru's page and nominate the Four Spiritual Laws article for deletion? Not sure how to do that after a move has been set up. Cmndrcody (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cmndrcody, I moved your message to me from my Talk page, just to have the conversation here that way it doesn't need repeating. You asked about copyright, and the deleted the section without an answer, so I'll restore again. The same way someone else deleted the Four Spiritual Laws article while saying they were moving it, instead of working on improving it.
In answer to your two questions, I am checking with Cru about how particular they want to be about the copyright. First, checking to see if they will grant permission to Wikipedia. Second, to see how much I should rewrite it otherwise. I think that answers the rewording question. They said that they would get back to me in about a week...not that Wikipedia is on a timeline. Regarding KJV, there is less of a copyright issue with KJV. The last I heard, the US doesn't recognize it as copyrighted. Apparently, the UK may be presenting some claim to it. Either way, since only a few sentences are being quoted with sources noted, I don't believe it's any different than quoting any other book.
Hope this helps answer them. Thanks, Alrich44 (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
That's cool. But what I meant about the King James Version is that KJV is used more by fringe Christian groups today and Cru seems to be a little more culturally relevant and seems to use more modern english translations. If we put the KJV here it might mislead readers into stereotyping the organization. Cmndrcody (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cmndrcody, I've changed the Bible version to the ones they use with their permission. I don't agree with the "fringe" comment; that actually sounds prejudiced to me; it apparently ignores a lot of the people who have read it. For myself, I abhor cults and inbred thinking. Maybe a study in the different versions and their reading level would be beneficial. Not that I even completely agree with how the books of the Bible were selected. Alrich44 (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please summarize this. There is no need to simply copy and paste an entire evangelistic text into a page. It's very unencyclopedic. It's like it's trying to convince people of a particular viewpoint (against WP:NPOV.

There also needs to be external, reliable sources. What is Four Spiritual Laws? Why is it important to the organization? Why not devote a section to any of the other evangelistic tract? etc. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

As it stands, it adds nothing to the article itself. It does not help readers better understand the organization. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I kind of agree that we're giving too much weight to this one evangelistic piece in the context of the whole article as it is currently written. Cmndrcody (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Cru has granted permission to Wikipedia for the reprint of the Four Spiritual Laws. This does not alter in anyway its copyright protection. John Rogers, Cru COO, 100 Lake Hart Drive Dept 2100 Orlando , Fl 32832. Alrich44 (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Bill Bright founded Campus Crusade for Christ. This was his and is one of their core messages. Would you like me to get confirmation from them too on this? If any of you would like to include other examples, or expand the article so that it is more balanced, then please do so. Apart from the four sentences of what the Four Spiritual Laws are according to Cru and Bill Bright, these are the quotes that they use. In other words, this section is accurate and does not short-change their message. The purpose of the tract is to give a very brief explanation of the core message of the Bible. Out of the over 30,000 verses in the Bible, this quotes ten of them.

If you were able to sit down with Bill and ask him to summarize the message of the Bible for you, this is the summary that he would give you. So, I do not see how someone can accurately say that it is not a good example of their message. To understand their message is in a large part to understand them. Alrich44 (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

On one hand I agree with you, but the way you are going about this sounds like you are doing original research and reporting your findings here. That would make Wikipedia a primary source, which it is not supposed to be. What you are supposed to do is find and cite a published work for each fact stated in a Wikipedia entry. A Wikipedia editor should never be the primary source reporting on a fact. Cmndrcody (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
What have I created that did not already exist? Alrich44 (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cru (Christian organization). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cru (Christian organization). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cru_(Christian_organization)/Archive_3&oldid=1149323259"