Talk:Cru (Christian organization)/Archive 2

Current Open Discussions
The discussions below should be for current subjects only. Please archive closed subjects. --Sixtrojans 01:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I archived the closed discussions (and had a little trouble, but everything should be where it is supposed to be now--sorry about that). --Sixtrojans 22:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment on athletes link
The external link in the second paragraph after the word 'athletes' directs to www.aia.org. It's an architect association site, The American Institue of Architects. Figured one of you would like to correct it. Thelma Bowlen 06:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

External Sources in Dispute
The following sources have been suggested for inclusion in the main article but are in dispute for various reasons.

Reasons for Dispute
Neutral point of view; satire does not pass reliability test.

Discussion
As of today there were definitely some non-NPOV statements in the criticism section, namely: In the interests of NPOV I am removing these and adding the information about the background of Which Circle. MikeRM 20:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 'the website "Which Circle" gives a secular, external stereotypical view of CCC).' (Actually, both the writer and the artist are ex-CCC and one is ex-staff.)
 * 'Compared to local church-based college outreaches, Crusade's experience and resources help avoid many pitfalls of college ministry. CCC continues to raise up thousands of quality Christian leaders in the workforce and on the missions field all over the world.'

Links to random news articles are not appropriate for Wikipedia, read the guidelines. Links should include related online communities, journals, academic themes, etc. Yarman

I read the guidelines. CNN is by far a more credible source for commenting on Campus Crusade than either of the two links that I removed. --Sixtrojans 03:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

These 2 links should also stop being deleted:

WithChrist.org Ministries - A historical and theological analysis by anonymous authors

[http://www.whichcircle.com/ Which Circle? - An online comic strip, also printed in the Christian satire magazine The Door]

They both have good pageranks and "add to the user's perspective of the article" as explained in Wikipedia guidlines. So stop deleting them SixTrojans... Yarman 15 April 2006

I just did some research on the "good pagerank" of the W/C Web site. Pagerank is a complex Google algorithm that looks at the linking structure of the Web; the more sites that link to a domain, the higher the pagerank; linking sites with higher page ranks themselves carry more weight in the equation. Doing a reverse link search on W/C reveals only a handful of Web pages linking to the comic strip. Most of those pages are blogs owned by the authors. The most weighty link is this entry in Wikipedia! So the argument that the site has a good pagerank doesn't really hold up... the ranking is coming from this site. --Sixtrojans 03:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Allright...what does that change? Most backlinks are internal anyways from related groups...but a corporate Campus Crusade employee should know that after all those hours at HQ. Stop being immature and deleting things in the TALK section! Yarman 04:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If the links don't matter for page rank, why are you afraid to remove them? Seems like that would be a simple test that would prove your point if nothing happened. --Sixtrojans 04:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with Sixtrojans' point about WithChrist's PageRank (in fact I made the same point earlier), the fact that Which Circle? has been published in The Wittenburg Door gives it legitimacy beyond search engine rankings. Perhaps we could solve this in another manner by creating a Wikipedia page for Which Circle?. Surely there's no legitimate objection to just plopping an internal link into CCC's See Also section. Also, Sixtrojans, when you misbehave and edit other users' comments in the talk section, you just make it harder for people to trust you! --Seventysevens 04:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Seventysevens, if you were to go back through the last couple hundred edits on this article & talk page, you would notice that the names and contents of those links have changed repeatedly... and Yarman has selectively removed comments as well. As far as a separate entry for W/C on wikipedia, that seems like a better fit for the wikipedia guidleines on "partisan websites." I'm really puzzled why satire, much less soapbox/anti-religious satire, is getting this much consideration in an encyclopedia entry. --Sixtrojans 05:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sixtrojans, you really don't understand anything about pagerank obviously. Taking out a link from Wikipedia TALK would not at all change a website's pagerank...I can't believe that is your reasoning. When you drive to Orlando each day, do you plan on harassing people or showing them the love of Christ? You are not the ordained controller of this article. Just because something is "satire" doesn't make it non-encyclopedic. Take Mark Twain for example. I have never deleted someone else's comments, please don't lie about me. I konw you feel you are on a holy mission for Campus Crusade, but just remember how Jesus approached criticism and it might help out the public perception of your organization a lot. Good suggestion Seventysevens, though I think a simple external link would do the trick if Sixtrojans can refrain from constantly deleting it... Yarman 07:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Friend, let's be wary of the personal attacks. I've never claimed to be on a holy mission. I've actually pointed out that there's much better criticism of Campus Crusade from reputable sources than the links you've been posting here. I have just as much right to contribute to this entry as you or anyone else do. Now if you don't remember selectively including only the negative comments on the talk page a few weeks ago, that's fine. It's in the history on the archived page. I was not intending to send you a zinger--I'm sorry if it felt that way--I was merely remarking to seventysevens that if what I had done was misbehavior then its mutual on both sides. But we're really getting off track here. The point of this discussion is whether or not w/c can be construed a RELIABLE source for citation in an encyclopedia entry. By definition, satire is not a RELIABLE source; the purpose of satire is to use humorous exaggerations as a SOAPBOX for a particular POINT OF VIEW. Do you really think w/c is a credible source? Is it a NEUTRAL POV? No, it's not... --Sixtrojans 15:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

POLL: 3 Votes YES to Include "Which Circle" Link in Main Article
Yes, it has a good pagerank, has been published in different legitimate sources, and is highly related to the article. Yarman 20:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It is relevant satire, and is a well-known, published strip. --Seventysevens 19:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I am a Campus Crusade staff member, and although I dislike the satire in W/C, I feel it deserves a place as a critic.-- Tony--Serving4theking 06:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

POLL: 3 Votes NO to Exclude "Which Circle" Link in Main Article
No. --Sixtrojans 19:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No. It does not belong. Markww 19:44, 12, June 2006

No. I was curious and checked it out - the site might be worth its own entry but doesn't work as a suppliment to another entry. The "Campus Crusade" entry in Wikipedia should be foused on organizational information. Forsunflower 19:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio?
The timeline seems to be copied from the CCfC Press Kit. Although the source of this text includes a clear implicit license to republish, I'm not sure it can be reproduced as it is in the article and still conform to the GFDL. Anyone know better? -Joshuapaquin 05:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

By virtue of being in the press kit, it is being made available for public use. --Sixtrojans 17:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I realize that, but text in Wikipedia articles is licensed under the GFDL. My concern is that while we may have the right to reproduce the material, we may not have the right to alter its copyright status.  Note also that the source of the text is not cited in the article, which doesn't quite seem approprtiate for a verbatim copy. -Joshuapaquin 17:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The "newsroom" is referenced as the first external link. When organizations put information like this into a press kit and make it available to the public, they do so with the expectation that it will not always be reproduced verbatim. The whole idea of a press kit is to provide answers to commonly asked questions from the media so some poor communications director doesn't have to answer the same boring questions a hundred times. The media can quickly get basic facts and reuse them as needed. --Sixtrojans 00:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)