Talk:Teen Mania Ministries

Global Expeditions

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

Bad article

This is a bad write-up for an article (I'm not referring to Teen Mania)-- just a hodge-podge of disconnected things put on the same page. Needs major overhaul. --Mdoc7 20:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. In the meantime I've moved the 'expand' template to the top to hopefully stimulate a few contributions. Mike Doughney 21:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This reads way to much like a fan site or vanity site to me. I have put a wikify tag on it. I am not close to the content and wonder if much of this information could be cut?

I am familiar with the ministry. I have been a missionary with them, attended Acquire the Fires and have considered internship (but I don't think I'll be going). In it's present state, the information provided is needed to describe the ministry. If anything, some items need to be expanded on (Extreme Camps especially...however I have no knowledge of this). Michaelt452 00:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Advertising + Promotional material in sections/links

Most of this information reads like a pamphlet or brochure straight from an advertising firm. There are sections and links that do not belong on wikipedia as they only provide further attempts for promotion and do not appear to provide reliable information on notable subjects. For example, the "campus" section fails WP:NOTE guidelines. And the BattleCry Leadership Summits and BattleCry Stadium Events should be deleted as there is already a link to the main article dealing with BattleCry making them redundant. Btl 08:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I just trimmed the "Primary ministries" section down quite a bit. The rest still needs some work. Maybe I trimmed too much, but I guess we'll have something relatively "fresh" to start from. Let's discuss additions and expansions if necessary (and get some sources). – gRegor (talk • contribs) 06:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed section

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

==Supporting Departments==
===Fleet/Transportation===
===K-Crew===
The Kitchen-Crew consists of interns and seasonal volunteers
 providing meal services for interns and missionaries 
(link: [http://www.xanga.com/groups/group.aspx?id=46798 K-crew...4-Ever Blogring])

===Grounds & Maintenance===
===Marketing===
In addition to its in-house marketing department, Teen Mania has chosen 
[[Austin, Texas|Austin]]-based marketing agency and measurement consultancy 
[http://www.tocquigny.com Tocquigny] as its agency of record. Teen Mania is
 also involved in the [http://www.etaf.com East Texas Advertising Federation].
 Their advertising has won them several [[ADDY Awards]]. Other agencies
 that have helped to market Teen Mania Ministries include:
 [http://www.cookministries.com/ Cook Communications],
 [http://www.artistrymarketing.com/ Artistry Marketing],
 [http://www.cypressinteractive.com Cypress Interactive],
 [http://www.integridesign.com IntegriDesign] and many more.

Neutrality

In it's present form, does anyone dispute the neutrality of this article anymore? I believe it's safe to remove that notice now, just wanted to open the discussion. If there's no dissent within a week I think I will remove it (I'll check the guidelines to make sure that's acceptable, first). – gRegor (talk • contribs) 05:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm chafing at the use of the word "vision" in the second sentence and in the "primary ministries" section, it sounds jargonistic to me. I'm also not sure that the Arlington Group reference can justifiably be in the first paragraph, it would probably be more appropriate in the "criticism" section but as far as I know no critics have brought it up in published works (that's why I contrived a separate "see also" section for it when I added it). Mike Doughney 07:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I changed them to "mission" instead of "vision." – gRegor (talk • contribs) 06:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I just completed some bold edits, to reword and help the neutrality and remove the appearance of simply advertisement / propaganda. However, on the other hand, their does appear to be a possible problem with the notibility of the criticism since the author appears to be a definite POV problem. See new section under talk about this, please provide your input. Tiggerjay 04:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit Versus Delete

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

Crtisism POV Issues

Please provide your input on the POV issue regarding the current criticisms section of the main article. It appears the the reference/source definately has a POV/Bias issue in general. Do you consider this to be a problem and should this still remain in the article. (Just as a reminder, we are talking about this specific instance). Thanks Tiggerjay 05:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section should either be expanded or scrubbed for any fringe group criticism. It currently reads as a malicious edit to add a POV bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishpaytas (talk • contribs) 12:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There's an extensive criticism section over at the Battle Cry Campaign article. Portions of that section could conceivably be used here, although most of those items were specific to aspects of the Battle Cry campaign itself. Mike Doughney (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

== Continuous Deletion of Controversy Section ==

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

Deleted because blogs are not sources. Blogs from supposedly former interns, not a valid source.—Preceding unsigned comment added by F4C (talk • contribs) This account has only edited the article page and this talkpage.LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a recent RS. The controversial aspects of this ministry need to be included in this article. By some definitions the source may be a blog, but note that it was written by a member of the KLTV news team. It's unconscionable to allow this article to promote a ministry without including any mention of its downside. Yopienso (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This problem seems to have resurfaced. Frantic edits today by anons and SPAs. Undoing some recent changes.[1]. Discuss here, please. --John Nagle (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

More info. There are new press reports on the subject.[2]. MSNBC recently made a documentary about Teen Mania[3], aired it two days ago, and Teen Mania doesn't like what it shows. --John Nagle (talk) 06:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here== Edit request on 20 March 2012: Cult Accusations/Controversy ==

Under the section "Cult Accusations" I request that you add further clarification to the controversy by including the following sentence: "However, the cult accusations were challenged by prominent Christian apologist and cult expert Hank Hanegraaff, who questioned the validity of the Duncan's use of the 8 Criteria for Thought Reform, stating that "the arguments proffered against TMM could just as easily be used to establish historic Christianity as a thought reform cult. Equally significant is the fact that cult mind control as a sociological model has been utterly discredited."

And the sources for this statement are:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/bible-answer-man-hank-hanegraaff-defends-teen-mania-ministries-61230/

http://charismanews.com/opinion/32299-hank-hanegraaff-defends-teen-mania-against-cult-accusations

http://blog.equip.org/?p=287

Jars583 (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done, even though I distrust this ministry after my daughter went on a trip to Trinidad and Tobago with them. Also, note that those who dislike Christianity would indeed apply those arguments to all of Christianity. Yopienso (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hanegraaff's assertion is factually incorrect. Dr. Kathleen Taylor's book Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control was published by Oxford University Press in 2004 to positive reviews from academic psychologists, as sourced in the book's page, which would hardly be possible if its subject was "utterly discredited." It's also been formally cited in academic books as recently as 2008. Should the Hanegraaff quote be kept with a rebuttal along these lines? JeduthunRowe (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be appropriate. There is controversy; there isn't resolution. We'll just quote and cite what the disagreeing experts say. Please go ahead and add Taylor's assertion(s). Yopienso (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The Taylor source was just removed as OR. Granted, I can see the case for that by WP's guidelines (Taylor doesn't mention Hanegraaff or Teen Mania), but without it we are left with Hanegraaff's quote asserting only one side of a controversial topic (see mind control). Would it be better to cut the quote from Hanegraaff altogether rather than giving it undue weight? JeduthunRowe (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I put back the Taylor source. At least it's an academic source. There are blogs discussing Hanegraff vs Taylor [4] but it's hard to find more reliable sources. Hanegraaff is replying to the MSNBC documentary, and the article should make that clearer. --John Nagle (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ministry Today magazine

I've temporarily reverted the excision of a passage in the lede cited to Ministry Today magazine. The edit summary rejects the magazine as non-notable. It's published under the imprimatur of Charisma (magazine), which is notable, so I'm not sure it should be dismissed out of hand. YoPienso (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:ORGAWARDS explains why this doesn't belong. If this ranking is notable, it should be clearly explainable with WP:SECONDARY sources. Even if the company publishing the magazine is notable, the magazine itself has not been clearly established as notable, and the magazine's one-off ranking of this ministry doesn't belong in the lead or in the article at all without better sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it was a one-off ranking. What would you think of citing to The Christian Post? "Teen Mania Ministries, one of the largest Christian youth organizations in the United States . . ." It doesn't say the same thing, mentioning only its size, not impact. My thought is that the ministry should be identified as sizable and impactful. Something from the first paragraph of the World Magazine article would do. Or the list of endorsers and members of the President's Council later in the same article. YoPienso (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It was a one-off ranking which was done by the magazine in it's May 2014 issue, and that specific fact doesn't belong in the article, especially not the lead. Listing the ranking artificially inflates the importance of both the org, and the magazine doing the ranking. Maybe if the magazine had an article, or even better if the ranking itself was notable enough for an article, that would be different, as it would give readers a way to assess the statement's credibility for themselves.

Rankings like these should not be taken at face value. As an example, Joel Osteen's press packet included mention of being named one of Church Report Magazine's "50 Most Influential Christians". Maybe it still does, for all I know. This factoid was repeated by many sources that drew from the press info, and was in the Wikipedia article for a while, also. The list and the magazine itself turned out to be very likely fraudulent and at the very least, meaningless as an indicator of actual influence. Obviously Joel Osteen is very influential, but how we indicate that kind of thing in articles matters a great deal.

The best approach is to find reliable, independent sources first and choose a phrasing second. Searching for quotes that support a point you are trying to make doesn't seem like the most neutral way to go about this. Both of those other sources are presumably reliable, although the World one (already used multiple times) is much better. It's also on the whole pretty unflattering, so it would be quote mining to quote the positive parts in the lead. The CP one is short and light-weight, and may possibly be a modified press release. Selectively quoting from either just to make the organization seem more important in non-quantifiable ways is not going to work. Grayfell (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The lede should describe the organization and summarize the article. The lede contains negative info from World, so I'm hardly quote mining! Large numbers are included in the descriptions of TM's programs in the body. World, which has printed numerous reports on TM, calls it "one of the nation’s largest Christian youth ministries." YoPienso (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The description of the group's size is fine, although it's a bit vague; that's why I said "non-quantifiable". If you want to put that quote in the article, I have no problem with it. It's the term "impactful" that seems like a potential WP:PEACOCK word to me. Grayfell (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of my most recent edits? Wrt "peacock," either I don't understand the application of the principle, or it's unevenly applied. YoPienso (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That looks much better, thanks. It's still a bit too vague, but it's an improvement. Yeah, peacock is unevenly applied, but the underlying idea is still important. In cases where many, many sources could be found to support a subjective statement, like the Napoleon thing (if I'm reading that right), than from what I've observed it's considered a mere technicality. This isn't one of those cases for several reasons: As an active, current org, there's no long-view historical consensus to defer to, so sources need to be clear and clearly attributed. Since impact is not a measurable quantity like size, it's much trickier to frame this as an objective fact. Saying they are one of the largest is vague, but trying to describe how much impact they have had needs to be presented as the opinion of a reliable, independent authority. Grayfell (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing

@ Grayfell: The link to Solution mag just goes to a pic of Ron and Mrs. Luce. I don't have time to swap it out with this undated announcement. http://www.teenmania.com/teen-mania-pulling-up-roots/ The content shows it was written in 2014, but the lack of a date compromises the May date given in the article. YoPienso (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a terribly designed website, but it does load and allow for more page views, at least in my browser. There is a "page curl" when hovering over the bottom corners of the images that allow for pages to be turned by dragging. It's really an obnoxious trend for several reasons, but moderately popular for smaller publications that want to preserve their print layout on the web. Grayfell (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Thanks for all your input; it's been a pleasure working with you. YoPienso (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of mission and vision statements

@DragonflySixtyseven: Why did you remove the mission and vision statements? YoPienso (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Because mission and vision statements are not appropriate for Wikipedia articles. There are lots of articles that have them; if you find one, please remove it. DS (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you cite any policy or guideline for that? It seems to me entirely appropriate and the best way to see how an organization views itself. YoPienso (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:MISSION. DS (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for making me aware of that essay. It's not a policy or guideline, though. I think the mission statement in this article about a controversial and defunct organization was useful in apprising readers of how the leaders saw their organization and what they hoped it would achieve. YoPienso (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it's really, really not, unless you can provide external coverage. And please don't assume someone has left the discussion after only two days. DS (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll also say that it provides a bad example to other people who're writing articles and wonder "hm, should I include the mission statement". DS (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Tell you what: you can include selected excerpts. But not the whole damn thing. Okay? DS (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Since you've made dozens of edits over two days since participating in the discussion, I think it was fair to assume you'd left it.

"No, it's really, really not" is no argument whatsoever. No external coverage is necessary for a person's or group's own opinion/vision/mission.

Since there's no good reason not to include mission statements, there's no problem with providing a precedent, though, per your admission, there are already "lots of articles that have them."

I don't see how you're the sole arbiter here, telling me what I can include. Anyway, "the whole damn thing" is less than three lines long!

Let's be reasonable and logical--oh, and friendly and collegial--here. In the absence of policy or guideline to support your opinion, please give me logical reasons to accept your opinion. Frankly, at this point, all you've done is show you're waging a personal crusade against a common usage that annoys you. I can't even figure out why it does.

The essay you linked to--which is merely an opinion--says, "If a mission statement doesn't describe the organization, help readers understand how this organization is unique and doesn't support the notability of the subject, it probably should not be transcribed in full in the article." Teen Mania's brief statements do fulfill those criteria. Teen Mania was widely criticized for being militaristic; how better to show the reader its inherent militarism than to include the vision statement? The words "radical, passionate, resilient, informed revolutionaries" are key. I see no point in working it into the narrative when we can succinctly convey the idea by including the entire vision statement: "Build an engaged ensemble of young people that are: radical, passionate, resilient, informed revolutionaries that will take the Gospel to the nations and multiply by teaching others to do the same."

Now, a good compromise might be to restore that vision statement into the text where it was, but omit the mission statement since it's duplicated in the infobox as the organization's motto. YoPienso (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi YoPienso! I'd like to step in and offer some assistance regarding your concerns with the content in question on this article. Being completely uninvolved in what has been discussed so far, I think that I can offer a level-headed and logical explanation as to why we don't include content regarding a company's vision or mission statements in articles. When mission statements and company visions are added to articles, they typically steer the overall picture and purpose of the article away from what it's supposed to be: an informative page that provides neutral and verifiable information in order to educate the reader - and to an article that appears to be worded in a manner that speaks positively about the company (not neutral), and worded like an advertisement. In fact, it's something I point out in the essay I wrote here. This is why we don't include them. I hope my response helps you to understand. If you have any more questions, please do not hesitate to ask them :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, @Oshwah: I appreciate your comment giving reasons for removing the mission and vision statements. Nonetheless, I believe the article is better with them.

Each WP article is unique. In this case, the few lines devoted to the mission and vision statements don't steer the article away from a reliably sourced NPOV; it still gives an overall neutral point of view when they are included. Those statements took up very little article space. In contrast, the controversy and criticism section is much larger, as it should be, imo. I think that especially in an article that includes so much negative info, care should be taken to also represent the subject in its own terms. For example, at Intelligent design, where I have contributed for years now, we have been careful to not only debunk the pseudoscience, but to define "Intelligent Design" in its proponents' words at the outset.

Please note that the statements embody the forceful, militaristic thrust that was the cause of much of the controversy, and so are useful in characterizing the essence of Teen Mania Ministries.

We need not fear advertising for Teen Mania, since it's defunct.

My view is informed by the reasons I've stated in this section and also by the policy requiring us to "exercise particular caution when considering removing sourced content." The mission statement was in the lead when the article was first published. (I haven't taken the time to see when it was removed, or how many times it may have been removed and restored over the years.) It has been immediately after the lead since 2011, and the vision statement since 2014. I question why one person decides in 2017 that they are improper. YoPienso (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There's been no comment here in over 48 hrs., so I've gone ahead and inserted the vision statement after a sentence that tells of criticism about the alleged militaristic nature of Teen Mania's programs. I'm leaving the mission statement as the motto in the infobox. YoPienso (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)