Talk:Youth With A Mission/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Political involvements

Political involvements

Aside from the support for the 1982 coup by Efraín Ríos Montt in Guatemala, YWAM has also been described as having "sought to gain influence within the Republican party."[96][97] On October 14, 2005, Youth With A Mission donated $10 million dollars to train youth for Rod Parsley's Restoration Ohio project which worked on behalf of socially conservative Republicans and included goals to register 400,000 voters and to evangelize one million Ohioans.[126][127]

YWAM giving 10 million I would like documented. There is no headquarters for YWAM and they simply do not have that kind of money. It is completely decentralized. This sounds like the fabrication that happened surrounding David Cunningham's movie Path to 9/11. There was no millions raised or given towards that movie. I don't think there is proof of one dime coming from Youth With A Mission towards the movie. Thanks for checking on this --Rbrewster (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ron, The 10 million dollars to Rod Parsley's Restoration Ohio project on behalf of YWAM was announced at the fundraising event as documented by Church and State and TheocracyWatch, run by Cornell University. The 10 million dollars is a small sum in comparison to other projects. It should be clear that if YWAM is brought to the table to help fund the regime of a third world country, then this amount of change is peanuts. If you need further evidence of the deep pockets your own organization, especially as related to projects in Hawaii, I'll be happy to provide more sources. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

further discussion not confined to politics

Claude, I would like the sources please. I know I am biased in some areas towards YWAM, but I also know more than you and most of the contributors about the Organization. If this page is going to be accurate and not a biased page (theocracywatch.org)then it needs both sides. Because of the dynamics of an organization that is multi national, cultural and denominational coupled with the broad structure and decentralization of YWAM, it allows for generalizations to be made. I think the there have been several logical fallacies committed in regards to YWAM on this page. Argument Ad Hominem, Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (it should be believed until proven false), Argumentum ad Veercundiam (accept this because some authority said it), as well as Straw Man. There has been some accurate criticisms as well. Some of us are not proud of some of the early teachings in some locations. If allowed I would like to give the other side of the story on some of the posts that come.

I can give a couple of quick examples. The AKHA Tribe snippet shares such a small amount of information and is put there to make the organization look like they abuse kids. That is horrible and such a misrepresentation. Why not do some research and find out the true story of the AKHA? I can assure it is nothing like that snippet says. But YWAM is put in a place to defend itself when the one making the claim should have the burden of proof. That to me is a fallacy mistake. This should not be allowed on a Wikiepedia site.

The 10 million dollars pledged, did the money actually get donated that would be more accurate to share? It is only put in there to make people distrust YWAM with money and paint it to be a political organization. I assume you are talking about 990 Forms when you say YWAM has deep pockets? What a 990 can not show which I would be glad to help people understand is that a vast majority is designated and we can not use it or we violate their wishes. Each location is also a 501(c)(3) with its own Corporate Board. There is no saving accounts with millions, there is no big accounts that YWAM has for politics and movies. I ask any one to show that. It does not exist. It is all myth. Out of 16,000 staff, in a 170 nations, with hundreds of thousands of people coming through each year, there are such a low number of complaints yet it is made to look so big? Some are valid and that is fine, but perspective would be fair.

The Cunningham film is one of the worst violations of committing several fallacies. This is special pleading fallacy. Only the information that backs up that view is put in. Nothing about ABC stating that this film was completely funded by them. To my knowledge and the facts that I have seen, YWAM did not give any money to ABC or anyone for this movie, but it is easy to assume because David is the kid of Loren and he is a Christian that YWAM must have given. That is Hasty Generalization to assume that there is a link.

The final example is I think it is distasteful and unfair to put the shootings of four young people in which two of them lost their lives under the criticism page. I don't think this would happen with the Universities that have had recent shootings. The young man was sick, the parents asked YWAM for forgiveness, YWAM did not cause in any way (FACT)his illness, but it is made to look like they are at fault some how. I just don't see how this relates to a Wikipedia page.

Thanks for you time. I am an open minded person and realize the mistakes and shortcomings we have had. Again, there are real critiques of YWAM out there, but some of the ones that are on this page commit in my view too many fallacies to post on a reputable site that millions of people read. --Rbrewster (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your devotion to the topic. I admit I am slightly confused at your differences with appeals to authority, since this is one of the criticisms that Bussell and Andrews put forth in their early books, that leaders expected their authority to be unchallenged, and hurt could be inflicted because "God told us to do it." Let's assume for a moment that I have taken a little extra effort to try to evaluate these sources and not simply included them because they sounded bad. Would it surprise you if I had taken the initiative to contact a source or two myself? You admit that you have bias, you contend that TheocracyWatch has bias--what if we all have bias? Then we'd have to think for ourselves and commit to discover what is true.

When all is said and done, I am limited in my ability to absolutely verify all claims, and concede that I must properly attribute to their source those which I cannot. I would love to hop a ship to Thailand and see that all is good and well. McDaniels photographs, however, provide a contrast of Eden House from the color of the native culture elsewhere depicted to girls on Big Wheels in a fenced in compound. It would seem that this is supportive and demonstrative of fact, as an errable assertion of truth relying on others to demonstrate what is while attributing those sources in case they are not, or in case other weight reveals itself. That's what the Project is based on. Consensus changes based on better arguments and more sources.

A "burden of proof" concept is a legal concept and has merit. If YWAM announces publicly that it will give $10 million dollars to a certain cause, then I assume that a good Christian organization with interest in its reputation will not renege. What you seem to be asking for is a notorized photograph of a signed check. It doesn't work that way here. Your argument actually lends creedence to support for greater financial accountability in religion, which is what the recent Congressional hearing about religious leaders seemed to indicate was necessary. The David Cunningham film entry does not make mention of a sum, or allege that money changed hands. Loren Cunningham did respond to these questions--and other sources pointed to other possible donors of the missing money to the project. Money was unaccounted for and Loren Cunningham answered questions about his organizations possible involvement. I wasn't there but I'm reasonably confident he made the denial.

The reason that primary sources have a different treatment in articles is that it is commonly recognized that one can be too close to a situation to evaluate fact. When you claim the fact that Matthew J. Murray was in no way harmed by discipleship in and disaffiliation from your organization, I find myself coming back to that fallacy you mentioned. Appeal to authority, as a self-described person who knows more than I do about YWAM, is insufficient. You make no claim to reliably evaluate psychiatric disorders. Were Paul R. Martin making the same claim, I would believe it without question. Perhaps I am in error. There is no original research in the article to suggest that a conclusion to the affirmative of how you read it is asserted. The idea certainly is supportable, but perhaps tomorrow Dave Andrews will approach a journalist and correct us about the guy who was taken away to an asylum. I hope so. I think the disaffiliate community would breathe a sigh of relief with you. Dave Andrews is a man of the cloth and I have never seen any evidence which would lead me to doubt his word. But all the words by him written in the article are attributed to him, in case they are somehow false or misleading.

Good attribution is what protects this article from believing a thing just because someone said so. Anyone can easily click a link to most all cited here and decide what they think of the source themselves. Still interested in what you think are ad hominem fallacies present. One thing I really can't stand is an ad hominem fallacy. I also can't stand plausible deniability. I also have a low regard for systems of accountability that allow leaders to distance themselves from problems in their organization. You have done a brave thing and offered that there are more valid criticisms of your organization than are presented here. I would very much appreciate that kind of accounting. When I came here, I don't recall any criticisms at all.

You said that you contacted some sources. Did they answer you? Were they YWAM sources?

The reason I use Argument ad Baculum (appeal to force) or Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive)is that some of the people who have a problem with YWAM are not trying to state facts but they are trying to show that YWAM leaders are bad people. They basically are saying "Believe me because these are such bad people" and that is not a logical nor a fair argument. The Moral Government issue is a fair one because it did happen in some locations and there is evidence. It was rejected and the Mission made changes. However, some of the arguments that are put forth come across as being angry at a doctrinal stance, theological view or they were asked to leave. Another fair one which is unfortunate is that some people have had bad experiences and even hurtful ones. That is truly sad and for that most of us in YWAM are ashamed and very sorry. Having said that, all organizations, churches, businesses, have people get hurt by leaders and they feel wronged.

Let me give you an example of someone who uses Argumentum ad Hominem. McDaniels has been vocal about his dislike of the missionaries and does what he can to stop them. It is funny you mention Eden House because I am living in Chiang Rai, Thailand for a year. I know where Eden House is and I personally know the director. This is a man that sold his business and moved over with his wife and kids to help start a home for the girls at risk. He raises money to clothe them, feed them, house them, help them go to college and provide a safe environment. McDaniels uses special pleading fallacy as well as argument from ignorance fallacy. He basically says prove it is not true. He is the one that needs to provide proof because he is claiming something very horrible. I can have the director email or get on here and clear the record. This can be the problem with some peoples claims, no one has the time to check the source to make sure there is not a hidden agenda. The only people that get a salary at Eden House are the Thai staff. No one is getting rich, if anything it has taken a financial toll. What McDaniels does not say is that no one else is taking the girls in. Where do they go when they are in danger of being sold for prostitution or physical violence. He says that Eden House is illegally in the country. That is false. Eden House is a legitimate organization with Project L.I.F.E. http://www.projlife.com/chiangrai.html McDaniels in his source also indirectly says that Vern is taking girls for personal inappropriate reasons. It is implied just read it again. Also, 90% of all houses have big fences here in Chiang Rai. It has to do with Buddhism. The girls are not prisoners, it keeps snakes, dogs and other unwanted creatures out. I am sure the bikes were donated by some church or group for the girls.

How do you request something to be taken off? I would really like to request that this AKKA article be taken off until there can be more proof of what McDaniels is saying.

Regarding the YWAM shootings. I did not mean to use the Appeal to authority, as me being an expert on psychological matters, only that there is no evidence or investigations, so for people to make claims of brainwashing are unsubstantiated. I may have made a mistake by thinking I know more about YWAM than you. So let me ask you if you have more. I have been with them for almost 20 years traveled to 40 nations or so and visited many of the locations. I know several of the leaders personally. If I am mistaken on my statement that I know YWAM better I am sorry and will own up on that one.

I am all for more accountability for finances. We have an accounting firm balance our books and do a once a year review. When the Corporate Board wants we can have audits. We should all be accountable with the money that comes through our organizations.

The problem I have with the 10 million article is that it does not say who pledged the money. Just YWAM, who is that? Was it a staff person with lots of enthusiasm, but no authority to make such a claim? Was it a leader or a donor of YWAM? So, that is why it would be nice to know what YWAM location and who gave the 10 million, and if it ever happened. I think if someone researched YWAM in their accounting they would find that no large donations for movies or politics have ever been made. How do I know this? I know most of the leaders and how the ministries run and they just don't have that kind of cash flow. Remember each YWAM location is a 501 (c)3 with a Corporate Board. Each board is unique and each 501 C 3 is separate. There are no huge corporate funds available to give to to these kind of things.

One thing among many that I am proud of with YWAM is that with an organization this size, with the hundreds of thousands of people going through in some capacity each year that we have a small percentage dissatisfaction. I wish we were perfect, but that is obvious we are not. Every day children are fed and clothed all around the world by a YWAM person. Every day around the world people are getting medical care by YWAM people. Every day around the world there are YWAM volunteers trying to make the world a better place by reaching out to people. We have many critics about how we do this or what we should do, but I don't think we can be criticized for not trying to make a difference.

I would be happy to write something positive about Youth With A Mission with you Claude. What do you have in mind? There is a lot to choose from. Thanks for taking your time to think this through with me. After all my writing I think the YWAM page reflects YWAM well and fair, but I would like you to reconsider the 10 million article and the Akka (Eden House) article. --Rbrewster (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The sources you've requested shall be forthcoming. I'm sorry to add them. I'd rather have more stories about things like the Athens Three, things people have respect for. Perhaps you will write that with me. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I too have met some Project Life people while working with a different NGO in Thailand. My first hand observation is that Project Life and Eden House are a respected part of the Thai community and NGO infrastructure in the country.

I appreciate that the speculative natured Akha section has been removed.Ywamer (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the Akha article and considering the other one. I also appreciate the effort to show criticisms of YWAM in a factual way. I just stared being part of Wikipedia and it has been a good first experience. Thanks Claude for your input and fair consideration and feedback. --Rbrewster (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Misleading article structure

The criticism and controversy section is simply too big. There are plenty of sections therein which Delhiwalla has included there which are neither. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the Forging ahead, Third Millennium, The Path to 9/1, and Colorado Shootings section should be placed under History. Is everyone else in agreement? Ywamer (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. --Rbrewster (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed this today. Sorry for the misplacement. I relocated "Forging Ahead", "Third Millennium", the "Colorado Shootings" and the "Response to Shootings" sections to under History.

I did not move "Path to 9/11" section as this section is: 1) very much controversial in nature, 2) heretofore unproven by cited sources, and 3) not relevant to YWAM's history. To highlight an individuals' filmmaking pursuits as being representative of an organization's history is neither helpful to those browsing WP for information nor accurate in it's structural placement. It is, then, still residing under the Criticism and Controversy section pending further edits that will hopefully add some substantiation to the claims of YWAM involvement. Delhiwallah (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Which facts are in dispute? Still thrown off by Green's comments? Blumenthal points out sourced factors that indicate to him an ideological influence. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Which facts are in dispute? Still thrown off by Green's comments? Blumenthal points out sourced factors that indicate to him an ideological influence. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disputing any facts. Nor am I bothered by Green or Blumenthal. But I do think that if there is enough content to discuss regarding the film "The Path to 9/11" then it should be at the Path to 9/11 article, and not sitting inside the YWAM article when it has little relevance to this organization.

Is David Cunningham a member of YWAM? No. Was 'The Path to 9/11' produced or distributed by YWAM? No. Were there any YWAM staff or volunteers involved in the production or cast as actors? Not that we know of. Then let's not hijack the content of a Wiki article while focusing on the personal life of a son of the founder of an organization. Delhiwallah (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed disputed content. As suggested, the content was moved to The Path to 9/11 Wiki article page. Delhiwallah (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Add a hyper link

Could someone add a link for the article that mentions Youth With A Mission of Montana? There is a link for the St. Croix YWAM location but not one for the Montana location. The link is www.ywammontana.org This is under the outreach section. Keep it consistent.Thanks --Rbrewster (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed pending contextual placement/discussion

The following was removed by myself when cleaning up the Youth With A Mission#Foundational Values section. Neither sentence fit under Foundational Values or, in my reading, other sections. If anybody cares to implement these two ideas let's discuss and/or work them in elsewhere.

"Sara Diamond, citing an interview with Gary North, states that YWAM "sees its role as an on-the-ground combat force against liberation theology." Lynn Green, speaking on behalf of YWAM, disagreed that post-modernism is detrimental to youth, because of its oppositions to scientific materialism."

Cheers, Delhiwallah (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Aghast that you'd delete reliably sourced and relevant information about the philosophy and aims of YWAM simply because you have a problem matching it semantically with the subject heading, I'm restoring this. Perhaps you should suggest alternate titles for the subject in an effort to seek consensus rather than continuing down this path. ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed tagged unsourced and poorly written criticism subheading

Here's what was up:

Other religions

YWAM occasionally works in places where common religion is already established. In 2005, YWAM members took a trip to Sadr City, Iraq. YWAM has been known to work in high risk nations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a criticism that should be directed at the common Evangelical belief that seeking to convert those of other religions is valid, rather than particularly at YWAM.

Analysis

If you want to reflect a criticism of YWAM's efforts at proselytizing those in other religions 1) find a source that criticizes YWAM specifically (not evangelists in general) and make sure it is a reliable source. 2) paraphrase it in a specific way that demonstrates (sources) criticize YWAM for proselytizing to (target group) for reasons x and/or y and/or z 3) cite it. You can look at the Athens three (well publicized) but prepare to also address how they were exhonorated. You can look to the Turkish extradition of YWAM missionaries as illegal proselytes (if you have the microfiche and can read Turkish). You can cite scholarly publications such as the New Mandala as to the targetting of Buddhists. But please, please, please don't arbitrarily toss uncited, unattributed, pseudocriticisms in the criticism section. It's not good writing.

Yeah, YWAM works in Iraq and Afghanistan. They work in 169 other countries, too. They ain't picky. Show me a reliable source that points out the longstanding trend of YWAM working in lock-step with military actions and factions, and I'll show you a criticism. (Or should I show you?) I mean, what the critics of YWAM really seem to be saying, if I read them rightly, is that YWAM takes advantage of military, political, and economic force to subjugate the world, sector by sector, to a spirituality of utter submission. Taken in sum, they seem to ask the YWAMer if they themselves are the territorial spirit they pray against. That's my synthesis, and you'd never see me add it to the article unless someone really heavy said it. While that far overspeaks the limited concerns of most critics, the individual criticisms from Busell through Sara Diamond to the Akha Foundation and nearly everything in the middle point in this direction, and it's overtly what Sara Diamond was getting at on a larger scale, with YWAM being just one piece in the puzzle.

For those just breaching the surface of the criticisms of YWAM, I've read literally hundreds upon hundreds of journalistic articles about YWAM through Google News plus dozens of critical Christian essays about YWAM, and what you don't hear is "Those YWAM missionaries really spoiled these kids" or "I'm really concerned that YWAM isn't doing enough to foster business and governmental connections" or "I felt my time with YWAM was a little too permissive" or "I am uncomfortable with YWAM's orthodox take on Christianity". Just to point out what I never read in thousands of articles. I'm confident that the cogent criticisms and the passing askance about YWAM all boil down to varying shades of authoritarianism, plutocracy, cronyism, and convenient misinterpretation of scripture to these ends. That being said, not every critic thinks as the Lyndon Larouche movement that YWAM is demonstrably the direct heir of the Hitler Youth movement. Moderate critics deserve representation in a moderate voice. There are sources, like the India news article that casually observed YWAM making homeless children sit for a show on the bare concrete, so moderate that you'd barely notice they exist. Such sources beg for unwieldy synthesis to even rate citation. If what you're really going for is a duly weighted article, then go for some sources with some weight. In article separated into criticism and promotional praise, it's important to weigh the mean and extremes. There is a form of consensus among critical POV's--but it is broadly spread across a spectrum.

I'm just as sure that the average YWAM'er POV is, "Wow, I'm just trying to have a fun and meaningful vacation, help people, and know God." Mostly because I've heard it enough from the startled reactions to the criticisms here. These readers and editors deserve better sourcing and better writing lest they leave this article dismissively thinking "they hate us because we've got Christ." Besides being vague, uncited, and poorly attributed, the statement above which I pulled from the article fails to expose a perspective which might suggest that there might be any moral problem having a 'fun and meaningful vacation', 'helping people', and 'knowing God'. Go read Criticism of Walmart. Each paragraph represents arguments that point out the moral problems with 'shopping at the cheapest place in town to save some money'. It's what seperates critical writing from trivia. In an article separated in sourcing from primary sources to critics, that's what you go for. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Youth Street

Has anyone heard of it, it is a youth program run by YWAM in Townsville, Newcastle and other palces in Australia. it involves staff as well as people on their dts helping the youth grow in god, often the youth are not christians and provides them with the alternative palce to hang out, rahter then going to parties where many things can go wrong. i am new to wikipedia but i think this should be added under youth ministries, what do you think?

YWAM does such a wide and vast variety of these kinds of activities that to single out what a few bases are doing in Australia would probably not be appropriate to the article. If one were to get down to the specifics of various YWAM ministries around the world, it would just be way too long, many would not be notable enough and it would be very likely impossible to cite reliable sources. Within YWAM there is a vast amount of jargon, lingo, and ministry names that isn't encyclopedic in nature and adding them would not further improve people's understanding of YWAM. Just stating that YWAm is invovled in all different kinds of ministry including Youth outreach programs/after school care is adequate and viable to source. Musing Sojourner (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Change in their partnership, a point on the criticism section, and looking for a source

It's my understanding that IMB has dropped out of the OneStory Partnership referenced herein. There won't be press as to why it happened and YWAM was not the reason it withdrew, but if anyone else is keeping tabs on this article keep an eye on the referenced site and make the edit when it updates that would be good. I believe it's reference number 81. The analysis of the criticism section is interesting. I think the reason that people respond so loudly to a given criticism is that they are in a part of YWAM for which that criticism may be entirely untrue and to whom that criticism makes no sense. The reality is that a criticism of one part or one campus or "base" of YWAM may be 100% valid, yet have absolutely no bearing on how another YWAM base operates and what it believes. This is the only problem I can see with many of the section's statements. Their criticisms are probably true, for the parts of YWAM that the source was exposed to and was critiquing. However, some parts of the sections just say something to this effect: "Such and Such Theological authority says Such and Such is wrong/heretical with/about YWAM." rather than specifying which YWAM campus the critic was criticizing. of course problematic in this is that many critics of the organization fail to see that YWAM in one part of the world may not be even remotely similiar to YWAM in another. This finally gets to the actual changes I've been mulling over for the article. Wikipedia should probably differentiate different YWAM campuses (i.e. specific criticism should state YWAM Denver, YWAM London etc.,) as much as the sources allow, in order to be as fair as possible to the entire YWAM community. I plan on going through and doing this where the sources allow it to be done at some point, without deleting any criticisms and without going beyond already referenced sources. YWAM bases often times have no legal connection to one another and many times it would be impossible to tell different campuses are part of the same organization without being explicity told it was a YWAM campus you were on. On another note most YWAM bases are entirely seperate legal entities from one another. In fact some bases have been "taken" from YWAM International by the local base leadership who did not want to go in the same direction as YWAM International. Any verifiable and useable sources discussing this would probably help to clarify the diversity, independence, and coalition like nature of YWAM. I do get the feeling that this article does not really convey the level of autonomy that exists for campuses, but without good sources I won't change anything in regards to that. Musing Sojourner (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

dave andrews

he claims he was excommunicated from ywam........ ywam does not excommunicate. can someone please clarify this for me. Saksjn (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

reference 115

this reference claims that ywam was founded in aukland by Bernie Oglivy in the 1970's. ywam was not founded in the 70's nor was it founded by oglivy. and it was not founded in aukland. this source has alot of faulty info and should be re-evaluated to see if its a RS or not. Saksjn (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Saksjn, thanks for your input.

I believe you are referring to the current link #114. It's best not to refer to citations by their number since the citation # will change as the article and it's various citations are edited.

Is this the citation you are concerned with?

MP linked to controversial 'cult'". The Wellington New Zealand Star-Times. August 11, 2002. Retrieved 2007-12-11.

If so, then this citation can likely be removed for the following reason: The link to the source is invalid and is actually a Rock Ross webpage. Linking in this manner is not condoned according to Wikipedia's citation guidelines, as all original sources must be credited individually and not the "synthesis" - a 'derivative' or 're-quoting' - of another authors work.

Wikipedia's Notability_in_Wikipedia page allows that "A correlate to this notability criterion, crucial to the identity of the site, is the prohibition on original research, including the synthesis of previously published material."

Since the citation name alluded to the idea that the citation is from the New Zealand Star-Times, and it is not found in the online archives of the New Zealand Star-Times or the The Sunday Star-Times, this citation and it's correlating supported ideas should either be removed or the citation's link substantiated and corrected.

Ywamer (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

name

just noticed this. i think the article should be moved to a new page under the name Youth With A Mission. any comments?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Saksjn (talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Link to The Family

In the revision as of 12:13, 21 October 2009 Ywamer edited a paragraph in the political involvements section that mentioned a connection between the YWAM and The Family/The Fellowship/The C Street Center. The edit removed mention of The Family from the article entirely. In the revision as of 14:00, 21 October 2009 I restored the two sentence paragraph because I felt that a connection to a notable (it has a wikipedia page) organization like the Family was important enough that the organization should be named. Revision as of 14:18, 21 October 2009 removed my change with the edit summary: (Undid revision 321192346 by 75.69.0.58 (talk) Stick with cited evidence and sources. Unhappy? Move it to the discussion page.) I feel that the given source, a Washington Post article did support the connection between YWAM and the Family and did support the fact that the property was the residence of legislators. I propose that the current version of the paragraph be edited from:

In 2009, YWAM was linked to property used for hosting Bible studies, prayer meetings, and as boarding facilities for members of the US Congress.

to at minimum:

In 2009, YWAM was linked to property used for hosting Bible studies, prayer meetings, and as boarding facilities for members of the US Congress. The property, a row house in Washington DC, has also been linked to the Fellowship

75.69.0.58 (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, 75.69.0.58. I appreciate your feedback.

Here is why I rewrote the article on political involvement and in doing so removed references to The Family-

1) The Washington Post article does NOT refer to The Family, but rather gives reference to "the Fellowship"

2) Furthermore, The Post does not equate this group known as "the Fellowship" to the group The Family

3) the Wikipedia article for the Fellowship or The Family has been flagged for correction since "The neutrality of this article is disputed"

4) the Wikipedia article's "factual accuracy is disputed"

and

5) the Wikipedia article for the Fellowship or The Family has been tagged as being unsubstantiated and coming from a single or very few potentially-unreliable sources.

Thus, in reviewing the YWAM article and rewriting a substantive portion of it, and in reviewing the linking Wiki articles and their sources, it seemed spurious, at best, to include mention of the aforementioned group "the Fellowship".

Having said that, though, I understand your opinion and acknowledge your concern to at least include mention of the group.

However, I think it best that, in light of the ambiguous information available on the Fellowship that we wait for either, a) a correction of the the Fellowship page and/or a resolution of the disputed content that is represented on the talk page, or b) a consensus of opinion with input from a few other community members on the significance and importance of linking to a disputed article such as that that exists for "the Fellowship".

Ywamer (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Improper move back in 2009

This article should never have been moved from the original "Youth With A Mission" name to the current landing spot. The name, in all published materials, seems to always capitalize "With" and "A", and the WP article should to the same. The editor who moved it cited WP:MOSCAPS, but that provides no support for the current capitalization. I don't have sufficient "powers" to move this over the redirect, so if someone who does could take care of it, that would be great. LHM 17:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Youth With A Mission Andaman and Nicobar Islands

YWAM Andaman History

Youth With A Mission (YWAM) came to the Andaman & Nicobar Islands many times even before the tsunami hit the islands with short term outreach teams.

On 9th February, 2005 YWAM Pioneered at Andaman and Nicobar Islands to serve the tsunami victims. A new place, new atmosphere and a devastated place were really a new experience for the pioneers.

Along with few short term outreach teams YWAM Andaman started supplying food, clothes and other livelihood support. Slowly YWAM established contacts and involved in outreach programs with the local churches and other organizations. Now YWAM is growing in the Islands in terms of staffs, projects and ongoing training once in every year.

Vision & Mission

The purpose of YWAM Andaman is to know God and to explore the love of God through various actions such as:

A. Help the poor, oppressed and neglected and develop them in their community.

B. Telling the untold along with the churches in the Islands through strategic methods of evangelism.

C. Network with local churches and organizations to bring unity and love and fulfill the great commission.

D. Develop children in their education and in moral aspects to give children and their families a new hope for a brighter future.

E. Touch the lives of the Island’s boys and girls, giving children and their families new hope for a brighter future

F. Work in and through the Islands to bring transformations in the lives of people for God.

G. Training, mobilizing and sending out workers to the nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.174.226.249 (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Other Evangelism Ministries (Section 4.2.1)

In the evangelism section there is a short reference to performing arts ministries, a section on Olympic outreaches, then a section titled "other evangelism ministries". Although all of the ministries listed are noble and worthwhile, the ones listed are just a few among hundreds of equally worthwhile ministries worldwide. I don't feel that it adds anything to mention this handful of examples. In the interests of cleaning up the article and focusing on the main points, does anyone object to removal of this section? Calicolorae (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

History Section:

A comment related to the above: There is an added sentence about a specific local ministry which, for the same reasons mentioned above, does not, in my opinion, belong in this overall general history section. Any objection to removal of the last line starting with "In 1978..." ?:

The University of the Nations online magazine has stated that Cunningham met scientist and professor Howard V. Malmstadt at a conference in 1974. They started giving educational seminars together, and Cunningham asked Malmstadt to help expand the training arm of the mission. In 1977 YWAM purchased the Pacific Empress Hotel in Kona, Hawaii, and began renovations to turn it into the campus for what was initially called the Pacific and Asia Christian University—the forerunner of University of the Nations.[11] In 1978, YWAM began Shining Lights, an outreach to prostitutes in Amsterdam.[12] Calicolorae (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Dangerous Work (Section 4.5)

Does anyone have an idea what the following sentence means? It looks like an important word got edited out. "Jules" doesn't mean anything to me...

"In May 2006, Jules was caught in anti-foreign riots overtook Kabul, Afghanistan in May 2006. Violence there left eight people dead and 107 injured." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calicolorae (talk • contribs) 05:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Since no one has responded to my comment after almost a year, I have removed the above sentence, as it makes no sense to me. Calicolorae (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)