Talk:Fellowship of Christian Athletes/Archive 1

Statement of Faith, Sexual Purity Statement and 2016 Numbers
The Statement of Faith was updated because an article cited references to the Sexual Purity Statement, not the Statement of Faith. This comment was moved to the “Criticism” section. The update inaccurately said students must adhere to the Sexual Purity Statement, which is incorrect. The reference from Lawrence University was removed because it’s not “official,” nor is it up to date on the current sexual purity statement of FCA.

Other minor updates include the ministry description to say “FCA’s mission is to present to coaches and athletes,” an update on the history regarding the size of FCA staff, update to campus ministry with 2016 numbers and update to the international section with 2016 numbers. Danielleisb (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Straight-News Links and Editorial Updates
I've updated this page to accurately detail events, link to straight-news formats and improve readability. Criticism was not removed. Specific updates include: 1. Rewrote the opening few paragraphs as they were overly editorial. 2. Removed reference to Patheos article as it is editorial. The Roanoke Times article details the events sufficiently and in straight-news format. 3. Edited the last paragraph to match the statement given by FCA. 4. Moved criticism section underneath leadership to improve overall readability. It’s difficult for a reader to understand the context of the criticism if they don't know what the organization does first. Danielleisb (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the "Patheos" article added by Bo Gardiner should be removed because it might be considered editorial/POV. But the Roanoke Star articles that I originally added on September 22, 2015, should remain because they are news stories that include the details about the watermelon ministry. Therefore, I added back these news articles that you did not mention that you removed:


 * (1) http://theroanokestar.com/2014/08/10/going-all-in-with-the-watermelon-ministry/


 * (2) http://theroanokestar.com/2009/08/13/a-block-a-tackle-and-a-prayer-fca-watermelon-ministry/


 * I'm glad that you also added the Roanoke Times article, which is also a good hard news source.


 * http://www.roanoke.com/news/education/roanoke-roanoke-county-schools-end-christian-ministry-to-football-players/article_66f772ec-7ecf-578c-ab1f-93e4a8fa9685.html


 * I think both the Roanoke Times and the Roanoke Star cites and content should remain because the Star articles include more details than the Times article. The Star articles are actually the primary sources for much the Times article's content about how the watermelon ministry operated.


 * I also wouldn't necessarily characterize the details about the watermelon ministry as "Criticism." In the September 22 Wikipedia version, the content appeared higher in the Wikipedia article because it was an objective statement about the activities carried out by the FCA. It was completely neutral at the time. Bo Gardiner moved it to a Criticism section on October 2 when he added the Patheos article. I think the watermelon ministry should be elevated higher in the article because it is necessary to understand what activities were occurring before the subsequent criticism of it can be understood in context.&ndash Srj4000 (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Page Cleanup w New Statistics and Data
I've updated this page for the ministry to reflect the following updates. Below explains the changes & why: 1. Updated latest statistics under the History section 2. Renamed Statement of Faith and Ministry Leader Application to Statement of Faith and moved Ministry Leadership Application content to “Leadership” section. Changes by Taquim were placed in wrong section and only highlighted a portion of the application process. Expanded content to include more detail about entire application process. 3. Updated statistical data and links in 4 C’s of Ministry and Sport Specific section. 4. Leadership section to include more detail about application process. 5. Removed Criticism section. Per the previous discussion, the Equality Matters blog is a poor source as mentioned by user Lionel and the WP RS guidelines for using sources with no editorial oversight or reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielleisb (talk • contribs) 16:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

POV tag
This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
WOW! A year after all this discussion, and this page STILL have no criticism section? All you have to do is read their applications (for membership, for coaching, etc.) to see that they are anti-gay. All this bickering about which web sites state the facts (and whether they are too Liberal to be believed) is nonsense. It's clear that the enforcers of homophobia in "God's" name are hard at work, keeping the TRUTH about this organization from being revealed. And you're all complicit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.226.142 (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion regarding the criticism section. There was a detailed section included. User Fcaonlineministry deleted some of the details while retaining the section. User Lionelt completely removed the criticism section saying, "need a reliable 3rd party source for this." I will be replacing the criticism section as it was before Ffcaonlineministry pared it down, and am willing to listen to individuals' reasons for inclusion/exclusion. Vincent Moon (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a better source than Equaliy Matters? They are not an established source with a reputation for fact checking. If that isn't enough, they are biased. It would be like adding criticism to the Equality Matters page sourced to, say, the Family Research Council. – Lionel (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, dude; losing battle... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.41.205 (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest paring it down to solely the first sentence; the rest is really unnecessary. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not especially web savvy. Is there a way to present these links in a permanent manner? Whenever the next web design comes, I assume these links will become obsolete. Vincent Moon (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a little issue with the last line. "The concept of homosexuality as a changeable condition or disease in need of cure has been largely dismissed by mental health professionals such as the American Psychological Association." In my opinion, this is outside the scope of the article. Yes, the anti-gay issue is a criticism, but I don't think this article which is supposed to be about the FCA should veer into whether or not homosexuality is a changeable condition. I'm not all that experienced with wikipedia, so if I'm wrong I apologize.--147.134.52.82 (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That line has gone. I also removed the (poorly sourced, poorly worded but basically accurate) sentence about "stuff on their website that might be considered anti-gay" since that would be OR, not us reporting criticism. Rich Farmbrough, 00:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC).


 * By the "stuff on their website", I assume (based on your edit) that you mean the job-application statement? That's actually sourcable to the EqualityMatters ref of the previous sentence. There, they are quoting the FCA website/job-app form (with backlink to WP:V it) and using it as part of their basis for their criticism. So it's not "WP editor observes FCA" or other WP:SYNTH, but really it is "us reporting criticism", with specific detail about the critic we're citing's reasoning (per their statements). DMacks (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Equality Matters blog is a poor source and must be used judiciously if at all.– Lionel (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Lionelt, I certainly agree that the section was veering into original research, and I think that was my fault for incorrectly attributing the information. Could you explain why you do consider Equality Matters a poor source? If you click this link: http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201103220004 you will see that it is not the blog, but rather an investigation being cited, and the investigation provides evidence (via the FCA website_ that FCA claims to have "freed" and "delivered" individuals from homosexuality. So as DMacks said, it is "us reporting criticism."
 * From WP:RS: "Articles should be based on ...sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "Questionable sources are those ... with no editorial oversight." EM only has 1 employee, thus it has no oversight, and in the 10 mos. that it was viable it never established a reputation. – Lionel (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

On Nov. 19, 2018, I made changes to the page under Criticism: Original statement: The FCA sexual purity statement has been criticized because it includes statements against homosexuality, which must be signed by children in the Leadership program as well as by adult leaders. New: The FCA sexual purity statement has been criticized because it includes statements against homosexuality, which must be signed by FCA representatives of the ministry including staff, trustees and adult volunteer ministry leaders. Student leaders sign a Student Leader Application when serving in leadership roles within the organization, but this application does not require signing the sexual purity statement. Explanation: Changes to the original sentence because it is inaccurate. An FCA field staff posted an unauthorized form asking for students to sign the FCA purity statement; however, based on FCA's policy, student leaders are not required to sign a purity statement. Danielleisb (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Rewrite
The previous article had a "Stub-class". This proposed rewrite dramatically improves the quality of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Danielleisb. The proposed rewrite is a much more in-depth writeup of this article. I'd like to replace the current article for the following reasons: the current article does not accurately articulate the organization nor its activities. The previous article is not cited and does not mention or provide sources for what the organization values and its principles. The previous article neglects to mention celebrities and other notable figures endorsing it. As someone who appreciates the work of this ministry and feels it should be accurately represented, I propose this new draft. I'd love to have the Wikipedia Community reply with any comments before I go and publish the entire article. Danielleisb (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The historical information looks good. The extensive copy'n'pasting of their mission/faith statements is against WP:MISSION both for appearing promotional and being excessive quoting of nonfree content. A sentence or two your own words summary would suffice. Lots of the content about the technical inner workings (leadership structure and policies) also seems excessive...it's too much detail about what is either obvious and/or standard for any similar organization. Seems like you are attempting to cram in every detail you can find, mostly based on the organization's own website rather than writing about it based on independent sources. DMacks (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you DMacks for your helpful input and suggestions. I made changes to the proposed re-write based on your comments and offered generalized summaries about the ministry and statements of faith. I also removed much of the organizational leadership details for sake of not appearing excessive with the details. Appreciate your feedback, welcome any other suggestions. Proceeded with publishing proposed rewrite to page tonight. Danielleisb Danielleisb (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131212003540/http://entertainment.accessatlanta.com/cartersville_ga/events/show/304097685-fca-banquet-guest-speaker-john-smoltz to http://entertainment.accessatlanta.com/cartersville_ga/events/show/304097685-fca-banquet-guest-speaker-john-smoltz

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213022659/http://www.hisandhersrace.org/what-is-one-way-2-play to http://www.hisandhersrace.org/what-is-one-way-2-play

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"Homophobic"
Seems like there's a growing edit war on whether to add "homophobic" in the header of the article. I don't really want to get involved in this right now, but please come to a consensus in the comments rather than overwriting each other. I would say, though, probably best not to head the article with that label unless it is the main reason for the organization's existence and notability. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)