Talk:Young Life/Archive 1

Archive 1

Adding more information

I'm adding quite a substantial amount of information about the various ministries of Young Life. I will also be adding logos of each ministry so that they may further be easily identifiable. My work will be added a little at a time so please I welcome any cleanup that you wish to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YLKJ (talk • contribs) 09:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Young Life is not in any way shape or form a cult. It is simply a Christian ministry devoted telling high school students the good news of Jesus Christ. Young Life is devoted to these students through hanging out with them, showing up in their lives and being dependable for them. Many of their parents have left them and Young Life provides leaders to walk beside the kids and be there to support them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.45.203.103 22:52, 23 April 2006‎ (talk)

If teaching the truth is narrow minded, that's like saying, "I am a man," and calling that narrow minded. If you are a man YOU ARE A MAN. To have discussion saying, "Well maybe I'm a woman..." so as not to be narrow minded, that's ridiculous. All Christians could be considered narrow minded because Christians believe that there is one way to the Father (God) and that is through Jesus Christ, his only son. That's the truth, so call Young Life narrow minded but understand that they have to be narrow minded if they are going to have a successful ministry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.23.60.92 (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

POV

User 143.109.59.20 has added a large amount of content that appears to be promotional. Given the obvious POV problems with promotional material, I will remove it soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricksewell (talk • contribs) 19:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Concurr. Ditch that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sennacherib (talk • contribs) 09:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I also found this article to be biased. I cited this line in the introduction as evidence. Young Life tries to make a subtle distinction from our high school ministry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.161.85 (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What is it biased towards? It seemed pretty straightforward and informational to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrispiss1186 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem with the line, "As these "experiences" tend to be expensive, most teenagers participating in Young Life come from middle-to-upper class families."

This seems biased as younglife has a large Urban ministry that has been omitted from the article. Also, the position of quotes around experiences seems sarcastic. King-of-no-pants 01:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I also find the implication that only middle to upper class teenagers are involved in young life since it leaves out the Urban ministry and also doesnt mention the fact that it costs Young Life more per kid at camp than the kids pay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.42.239.231 (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The language throughout the article is overly inclusive and rings disturbingly of promotional material. The use of the word "experiences" in such a way provides no factual information and makes Wikipedia seem too close to the organization. More specific wording such as "camping trips" might be better. At least, language with overly positive connotations should be used more sparingly in the article. Also, due to the prevalence of "mission statement" related information, it seems that there ought to be some evaluation of what the organization Italic textactuallyItalic text does, or some contrary views if they can be found.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.118.32.9 (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This group doesn't seem controversial to me but the article seems way promotional and not like an encyclopedia in many places. Check this out:

Rather than asking kids to come to a particular location, Young Life leaders go where kids are. - Says who? And what exactly is a "Young Life Leader"? That could seem creepy without a supported explanation.

They meet kids on their turf - Their "turf"?

build positive mentor-like relationships with them - Says who and what makes them positive?

and demonsrate Christ's love. - Says who, and exactly how does one do that?

There is much more in the article that reads like promotional material like that above. I am not familiar with this group so I am not sure where supporting evidence can be found. Mr Christopher 05:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I just read the article again, Young Life should copy this article as is an make a brochure from it :-) Serioulsy, it is well written but not very encyclopedia like. And I think one or two images will do. Mr Christopher 05:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The info is there, but I agree the page could use some "encyclopedia-izing" King-of-no-pants 04:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Closing POV

I think any POV issues that existed have been remedied. I'm going to remove the NPOV dispute unless someone has something else to add to it.

It still sounds promotional. If you remove the POV tag I will be forced to add it back. --Nnp 22:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not promotional, it's all factual. Young Life stands by their mission statement and runs their ministry by it. How is simple fact promotional? It's a FACT that Young Life and it's associated ministries (Young Lives, Capernaum, etc.) devote their time to telling high school kids and others about Jesus Christ. Just like grass is green, Young Life exists to spread the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ. --User Unknown

Who wrote the above? You started off alright and you have a point, but trailed off drastically from having a heard point. This material is not promotional. Unless you consider facts and figures promotional. In that case you should add a POV to every page on wikipedia. This article tries to cover as much information as possible about Young Life. POV doesn't stand. --YLKJ 06:53, 03 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel that while not explicitly biased, this page portrays Young Life from the perspective of Young Life members, as it seems many of this page's contributors are. In addition to what this page has now I feel that a section must be placed on this page to discuss the controversies of young life from a non biased point of view. Controversies such as Young Life's deceptive and coercive tactics should be discussed as well as allegations of brain washing. The criticisms of Jews for Judaism against Young Life be aired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastercheifismyfriend (talk • contribs) 02:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion dispute

No one added any discussion to why the speedy deletion is added. It will be removed. Please add to the discussion before choosing to mark this article as such. --YLKJ 06:56, 03 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed Information & POV

I have been looking through some of the history of this article andI totally agree with discussions below that this article was being written from a POV (Mostly positive, but at some stages negative). It was also at points repetative.

However I don't understand why so much unique information has been removed in early July this year. No contentious information such as the dates of founding in the US and Australia. Rather than build on and correct material it has been swept away and left with a simpler article with less information and les of a religious POV but a greater USofA only POV (But a US only POV never seems as contentious as a religious POV)

My appeal is please don't remove info. Add to it, rearrange it, correct it's accuracy or style (POV etc), shift it to a more appropriate location, and/or make it more encyclopedic, but please don't just remove it plain and simple. - Waza 23:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Page Updated

I made some big changes in the wording of this page in order to make it NPOV, and I did some restructuring of the paragraphs. I also included more factual information and took out statements that could be construed as POV. If the previous author of the page wants to discuss the changes I've made, by all means let me know what you think as this is the first time I've edited a Wikipedia entry. I grew tired of seeing this page with POV tags and wanted to see an encyclopedic type entry for this organization that parents or students could come view to find out what "Young Life" is. All tags will be removed unless explained on this talk page. Thanks! - Goodraisin 22:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed "Controversial", although I admit I am involved with "YL" at a local level, I searched the internet and could not find anything that would qualify it as "controversial" and looking at the users other edits, I do not think that this addition (of the word) was made in good faith. Marushke 00:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Added Category Links

I added Category links because some spammer suggested it, but I removed the advertisement tag because it wasn't explained on the talk page. Thanks to those involved with the upkeep of this page, as it seems there are a lot of people out there intent on spamming without explaining why on the talk page.

Also, please refrain from making additions to the page that are POV-sounding. I know everyone likes to use familiar YL phrases like "earning the right to be heard" and "meet kids where they are" because they are commonly used in the ministry, but someone writing this page in a biographical manner really wouldn't say it that way, right? Even when put in quotes. If you want to give a list of phrases like that which are commonly-used in the ministry and then explain them all in layman's terms, I'm all for it, but personally I don't think it's all that necessary. I love the updates though, keep them coming. --Goodraisin 20:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Background

Why does every paragraph here start with Young Life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.41.21 (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Are people seriously working this hard to make this article a advertisment?

Honestly I made so many edits fixing errors and making it less bias and it just gets reverted and I get a warning that I will be banned if I do it again. Ok I'm trying to fix the article so if you people want it to be bad then tell me and I will stop but if you want a article Wikipedia worthy then let me do what I am doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.41.21 (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad Introduction

This is the current introduction: Young Life is a Christian non-denominational, incarnational, ministry based in Colorado Springs, but more commonly the name refers to the outreach arm of the organization directed towards high school students. The reader is led to believe that Colorado Springs is the only location where Young Life exists. Personally I don't think Colorado Springs even needs to be mentioned until later on in the article. Also a short description of how the ministry operates might be helpful. I'm not so good at writing for wikipedia yet, so I'll leave it up to someone else to make these changes. Theneogon (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete the 5 C's

I'm trying to delete it because its and advertisement now stop reverting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.55.94 (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I agree it looks like an ad, but when you don't provide an edit summary, blanking content looks like vandalism. Now that you've provided your explanation, if someone reverts your change, invite them (nicely) to discuss it here. :) --Susan118 (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that it uses blunt, encyclopedic, non-advertorial wording that most accurately portrays what each of the C's represents, with no POV violations. Being informative is not the same as advertorial. I also see no weasel words, no peacock terms, or other POV violations. And please, give a better argument than, "Stop because I don't like this, therefore it is fact." Please provide specific examples. Thanks! That's my two scents 00:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petero9 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The five C's is not what would be in an encyclopedia and seems more like what would be in a advertisement brochure. Much of that could be summarized into a NPOV statement and until then it will be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.55.94 (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Then summarize it in an NPOV statement. An encyclopedia would certainly include both the mission statement and the Five C's as they describe the organization. The mission statement in the lead is incorrect, though, so we can definitely leave that out, and I will try to make the Five C's have less POV, but until someone actually presents a valid, specific reason to remove it I will include the section. That's my two scents 15:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petero9 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

...is written like an advert. Will not continue to revert edits, but have tagged the article. Tomayres (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Cult?

Is there any evidence that Young Life is somewhat like a cult? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.216.246 (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a ton of personal experience with young life, its not a cult. :) King-of-no-pants 01:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It depends on your definition of a cult. I have been a participant and paid staff for Young Life and there were no overt coercive tactics that I recall that are otherwise associated with cults such as food or sleep control. However there is a deliberate motive on the part of the organization to recruit new members who are otherwise emotionally vulnerable and to introduce them to a narrow set of ideas, where a confused young person can now find a group than can do the thinking for them and serve as a family by proxy for all the emotional needs that are missing for them. It is a fun social community that unfortunately is a trap because at its base is a bunch of people with narrow, unexamined ideas and an ideology that is internally inconsistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schiesserm (talk • contribs) 05:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If you consider Christianity a Cult then possibly, otherwise no. It is a Christian outreach ministry for high school kids. Also the claim that Young Life at its base is a bunch of People with narrow, unexamined ideas and an ideology that is internally inconsistent is highly inaccurate. I can understand how someone might see Young Life as internally inconsistent but that is only because Young Life intentionally keeps from making stances on specific ideological problems outside of core Christian doctrine in order to appeal to the most kids possible and to gain support from as many denominations as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.42.239.231 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I used to be a Young Life leader and it's definitely not a cult. There is no dissemination of information from a central source, and in fact, Young Life philosophies vary greatly from area to area because they tend to reflect the influence of different Christian denominations in each part of the country. There are a few phrases like "Winning the right to be heard" that are passed on by way of word of mouth, but you could easily find students or leaders involved with Young Life who have never heard these phrases. This is because there is no formalized training for Young Life leaders and I can say with certainty that most students and volunteer leaders couldn't even tell you who the current president of Young Life is. Could Young Life in a particular area be considered a cult? Possibly, but you could say the same thing about a church of any particular Christian denomination. At an organizational level, it's not even close. I may try to add more to this article when I have some time, as there is still a lot of factual/neutral information that could be added (i.e. the organizational structure for one).--Goodraisin 21:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

While not necessarily a cult young life does have a few cult characteristics and their deceitful, aggressive recruiting is scary to some. How about we add the controversy segment back to the article so this opinion is aired and not just a promotion of young life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastercheifismyfriend (talk • contribs) 20:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

MasterCheif, remember to sign your posts to the discussion page. Like I said at the top of this page, I'm all for adding a criticism section so long as it's cited properly. This isn't a place for gossip and hearsay. --Goodraisin 15:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a 53 year-old, Young Life Volunteer Leader, and have been involved with Young Life since 2003, along with my wife and teenage kids. Young Life is not a cult by any responsible definition. I challenge anyone to post evidence that the Young Life organization supports cult-like actions or activities. Otherwise, all of these posts are a POV and should be removed, even mine. OpenMind57 (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

POV

The following statement is a matter of oppinion:

"They meet kids on their turf, build positive mentor-like relationships with them, and demonsrate Christ's love."

This should be reworded to something similare to :"their mission statement[1] says..."

67.23.60.92 21:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

4 1/2 years later this is still POV, arguably even more so: "they earn the privilege of talking to kids about the truth about God and His love for them.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.101.66 (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed-- just edited an absolutely ridiculously biased sentence about God blessing Young Life-- hopefully I don't need to explain why that's offensive. - fernie b — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernie B (talk • contribs) 04:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

More Sources?

Would it be possible to get more sources for this article, currently every source is from the young life website, a little biased maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenio (talk • contribs) 20:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how else to get encyclopedic information for this article other than from the YL website. Honestly, there is nothing said in this article other than some facts about the ministry. If this article contained some opinionated statements that need to be confirmed, I would be completely on board with your reasoning SineBot. You could argue that the wording isn't NPOV, but I'm not sure you can argue that the information itself is wrong. Because of that, I am going to take down the tag... it's been up for a while and I don't think anybody really knows of any sources available to "fix the article" because no sources out there are going to contain the simple facts about the Young Life organization other than Young Life itself. --Goodraisin (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this old Time Magazine Article about Young Life from 1960. here is the link. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,869394-1,00.html You could use this as BOTH a source and a real example of controversy with Young Life. Darthdan1 (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting statements

Does anyone else see a problem with this statement:

Young Life, which began in 1941 (although in Britain, NYLC began in 1911), is a non-profit non-denominational organization founded by Jim Rayburn. Young Life's focus is on teenagers. Kids are encouraged to explore the purpose of life and the Christian faith through weekly gatherings called "clubs". During the summer, Young Life takes kids to one of their many camps, where they hear the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Good News.

How can it be non-denominational while still 'encouraging the exploration of the Christian faith'? - Greb 05:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Because non-denominational is a reference to denomonations of the christian faith. i.e. catholic, baptist, reformed... King-of-no-pants 01:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an example of the POV problem that the writers of this article have. They are certain that religious denomination will be understood to always mean Christian denomination. I have edited this section to make this clear. 151.203.217.130 13:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Christian Faith in itself is non-denominational. So exploring the Christian Faith is exploring what Christians believe (i.e. Jesus is both Son of God and God Himself) exploring the faith not how to practice it is what young life means. Christians are non-denominational, Catholics are a denomination of Christians, and Catholics believe the same thing, they just practice their faith differently compared to non-denominational Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.206.192 (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Why this article is a self-contradicting, NPOV, repetitive advertisement

From the introduction:

1) Self-contradicting: Compare "Rather than asking kids to come to a particular location, Young Life leaders go where kids are." with "More than 90,000 members spend a weekend during the school year or a week during the summer at one of Young Life's 24 camping properties." Young Life leaders go where kids are...then the kids go to camps where Young Life leaders are. Also, "Young Life has 23 camping properties" How many? 23 or 24? "More than 45 other countries" "total 50 countries." How many?

2) NPOV: "They...demonsrate Christ's love." This is not a Christian encyclopedia. If you think this is NPOV then imagine a similar article expressing a similar sentiment for a different faith.

3) Repetitive: "Young Life is active throughout all 50 states" "...and reaches coast to coast". "Young Life ...began in Texas in 1941" "...history spans more than 50 years." Young Life Australia repeats the same information about Rayburn.

4) Advertisement: The inclusion of the entire "Statement of Faith" and "mission" are pure advertisement. The entire mission and all of the goals of an organization would not be listed in an encylopedia. A separate logo for every subdivision of an organization would not be listed in an encyclopedia.

For an example of an NPOV article about a religious camp, see Camp Ramah. For an example of an NPOV article about a religious outreach program, see Islamic Society of North America. I hope you can see the difference between these articles and the article you have written. If you can then you will understand the edits I have made. If you cannot then you should not be at Wikipedia. Shame on you for misusing Wikipedia by placing your quest to seek publicity and recognition for an organization you like above the goal of developing an NPOV encyclopedia. The photo is great, though. If an outsider wants to understand Young Life, that image is the way to go. 151.203.217.130 12:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Note the difference between what was there before: "They...demonstrate Christ's love" and what is there now: "Young Life's goals are...to demonstrate Christ's love." This is the difference between a Christian POV (that Christ's love may be demonstrated on Earth by these actions) and NPOV (that this organization has a goal of demonstrating Christ's love on Earth by these actions). Whether that goal is achievable, who Jesus was or what Jesus means is left up to the reader. Understand now? I hope so. 151.203.217.130 13:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the little logos for the Young Life mission subdivisions link to images that were described in the Summary section as "Only to be used for reference and journalism purposes. Not to be modified. Must have prior approval/credentials for use deemed by YoungLife.org." and then described in the Licensing section as "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version." Is that the kind of morality they teach young Christians in this organization? To lie about copyright status in one section in order to put the right tag in and then to tell the truth about copyright status in another section? All of your images were placed in the category "Orphaned Unfree Images" and tagged for speedy deletion from Wikipedia. 151.203.217.130 12:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Grief! "Is that the kind of morality the teach young Christians in this organisation?" Why is it that people accuse you for being a Christian and think that since you are Christian you must do everything 100 percent pleasing to everyone?

Are you tring to create NPOV-articles or just trying to confuse/annoy people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.51.222.232 (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This article has so many porblems it just needs to be either deleted or completly re-writen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.41.21 (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with all you have said. I'm researching Young Life because my daughter got recruited to go and I've found questionable and disturbing information on the web about the group. I specifically take issue with the fact that it is a Christian group but when you open the website there is no mention of "Christ", "religion", or "ministry" on the entire front page. That is very telling. They are 'luring' people by appealing to what they want and need and only later do they ask you to drink the Kool-Aid. -MelanieS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.60.74 (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Bias--Recent

I tried to remove some of the bias under the Young Life Camps section.

Eejasplund (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

I added some information on the limited controversy surrounding the organization and some tactics they use. I felt it was necessary to at least mention something negative surrounding the group as it seems to be a fine topic of discussion whenever Young Life comes up. Also added a link to a thread about some of the cult-like status it has been accused of.

--Whosgotbugeyes 18:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The criticism portion is a good idea, but it really needs to be cleaned up. It reads more like your personal POV rather than statement of fact. You also need to cite your sources... otherwise anybody who dislikes Young Life could put up their personal opinion as a "criticism". Anyone could do the same thing to a section about "atheism criticism" by saying that they've heard that atheists beat dogs and spit on Christians, which is ludicrous and has no place on Wikipedia. So until it is rewritten and cited (with authoritative sources... not some dude's blog), I'm going to put up a POV tag. Phrases like "gone astray" don't have an encyclopedic meaning, and the following sentence should be struck altogether: "There have been unconfirmed reports of sexual predators and other criminals being unknowingly let into the organization and left unsupervised until harmful damage has already been accomplished." If the reports are unconfirmed, then why are they being mentioned? Thanks. --Goodraisin 15:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The criticims section ought to be on here, even if it is kept general and avoids specific allegations, etc. Criticism is by its nature going to be subjective, reporting the existance of subjective opinions if not deserving of a POV tag. There are plenty of criticisms of how young life operates without mentioning sexual predators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.8.200.48 (talk) 04:39, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Look at the criticism section for any page on Wikipedia and you will find cited sources. Like I said before, if you want to write a criticism section then I am all for it. I would write it myself if I knew of any reputable articles out there to include, but (being forced to repeat myself again here) personal opinion and hearsay has no place on Wikipedia even if it is masked in a criticism section. --Goodraisin 17:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I updated the criticism and controversy section. This is needed. This page reads like an advertisement. I provided links backing up the controversies. This organization gets much criticism amongst the public sphere, yet this page doesn't address it. It must. The theology behind Young Life is controversial and is an integral part of the ministry. This should be knowledge that people can discuss. Please do not edit these comments merely to support an agenda. Also, the organization has been openly criticized by its treatment of homosexual youth. Someone should find a link and include that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.234.35 (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It is unclear why some users took it upon themselves to delete the criticism section, as it was mostly well documented. I am restoring the section and adding sources for the one bit that was not well sourced.Qassandra (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

I want to be upfront in saying that I currently work with Young Life - and wanted to ask for a correction on Denny Rydberg's salary. It's referenced from Forbes, but that's actually just the Top pay which according to footnotes "may not be that of listed top person," and in this case, is not. His salary infomation as reported to the IRS in 2010 is actually $370,333 as shown on page 8 of our Form 990 (which can be seen here: ). Please help me by editing that information! Thank you! Ebranscombe (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point that the sentence is a misinterpretation of the source. To fix this problem, I chose to remove that sentence entirely, since a self-published PDF also isn't a strong source. Information about living people needs to be handled carefully - see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The article is not well sourced in general, with mostly self-published sources instead of reliable sources, but that's a different problem. Dreamyshade (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Second request from a Young Life employee - could we please remove the "cult" in the first line that says "Young Life is a evangelical Christian cult..." Calling Young Life a cult violates one of the pillars that Wikipedia is based on "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view." Thank you for your help! Ebranscombe (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Editing

Hello all! I am a college student editing this page for an assignment of mine. Being a relatively new wikipedia user, I am still trying to get the hang of editing perfectly. So if I make an edit and something is wrong will you please contact me instead of just deleting what you think is wrong. Considering my Professor is going to look over the article if my edit is deleted, it would not be good for me. Thank you! --Sneakgeek2 —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sneakgeek2: Hello. Please discuss your concerns here. I doubt your professor would appreciate you using their assignment as an excuse for unvetted work being published in a collaborative project. That may not have been your intention, but that's kinda what it looks like you're trying to do. I'm willing to help, but you need to understand why your contributions were not an improvement to the article. While I appreciate your contributions, the burden is on you to make sure that your changes meet Wikipedia's guidelines.

Information must be supported by reliable sources (WP:RS), and content must clearly be encyclopedic. The info about the "Five Cs" needs context explaining why it's encyclopedically significant to the larger topic, because it really, really just looks like internal jargon and Young Life boosterism. The way to include this would be to find a WP:SECONDARY source which is independent of Young Life that explains what the Five Cs are, and why they matter.

The info on cultic characteristics is even more of a problem. The source you cited from CARM.ORG did not mention anything about Young Life. This suggests that you are using Wikipedia to publish original research (WP:OR), which is not allowed. Additionally, the CARN article doesn't appear to be a reliable source, anyway.

Much of the other information you added or restored lacked any sources at all. While that info may be factual, Wikipedia articles must be verifiable (WP:V), meaning there must be some outside way to assess the claims being made. Adding information you personally know to be true is, at best, a temporary step that can be helpful for non-controversial content. Since the article is already tagged as being too promotional and too reliant on primary sources, your additions aren't routine enough to go unchallenged. The addition of minor and WP:UNDUE details makes the article more flattering, but makes it less reliable. Does that make sense? Grayfell (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)