Talk:TeenPact

[Untitled]
Comment from Teen Pact: "Teen Pact" is actually just one word, according to their website.
 * Cool Hand Luke 17:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments in reference to the article that was deleted, now at TeenPact/PROD version
See my explanation of the merge below. Cool Hand Luke 17:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement or Encyclopedia entry?
I'm all for TeenPact, but several phrases in this article are quite glowing, and appeal primarily to fundamentalist Christian ways of thinking. It reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic entry. I strongly suggest expansion, as well as the inclusion of dissenting voices and opinions. DChapii 20:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed
While it may not necessarily be bad the way it is so far, it needs a bit of the other side, any issues that have been raised by it, or some of the dissent going on amongst its alumni membership (which I guarantee, there is a bit of... --Kaji (not registered on Wiki, so using my main handle)

Edit it
It's not surprising that this article appeals to the "fundamentalist Christian ways of thinking." That's Teenpact's basis. As an alumni, I think that Teenpact has done a bad job of teaching government and public policy, overall. They tell you how things are and ought to be without letting dissenting opinions be expressed in the classes. Leaders taking the devil's advocate and then 5 minutes later shredding the opposite of what they truly believe isn't, well, believable. Perhaps the line "fundamentalist Christian organization" should be put in the article somewhere. All in all this article mirrors exactly what Teenpact teaches - their side, and a whole lot of nothing else. I think that this article should be edited to express the dissenting opinions of those that aren't quite on par with Teenpact radical base. Don't get me wrong, I do believe in most all of what Teenpact believes, but they should teach you how to think, not what to think. -AJK

removed extraneous/advertising/non-NPOV material
I removed much of the extraneous material. Previously the article read like a advertisment. If it is going to be included in wikipedia (and that's not for me to decide) then it needs to be an encyclopaedic article (not one promoting one point of view). MidgleyDJ 02:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

renewed effort to balance the viewpoints
Almost every aspect of this article lacks neutrality and there will be a concerted effort to include more detailed and public criticisms of the organization in the coming weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.175.17.21 (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Article has been updated with clearer ideological information, a section on "Criticism" that has emerged in recent years, and "Notable Alumni." These sections were added as an honest effort to address the neutrality question. I welcome further clarification on any of these points, though I would discourage blanket reversal of the information provided. --TP anonymous (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand your desire to contribute regarding a matter that seems to be one of particular importance to you. However, please review the community standards regarding the use of self-published sources and advocacy. Also, based on your name and the source you have cited multiple times, please understand that many editors will be highly skeptical of your NPOV regarding this article. Please reference: WP:SPS, WP:SOAP, and WP:SPA. @ytea say howdy! 05:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Noted. It's either NPOV or it's not, no? Edit away if it doesn't meet community standards. You'll notice I haven't reversed a single one. But thanks for weighing in. TP anonymous (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have left the items in the article because editors are directed to assume good faith of their fellow editors and allow for proper verifiable citation of claims. WP:AGF However, if you are in no possession of such sources, as you seem to candidly admit, the unfounded claims will have to be removed. @ytea say howdy! 17:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not admit to having no sources, candidly or not. I would argue that the only relevant sources are blog articles, since that is where the criticism is happening (there no print sources for them). If these are not to be accepted, then the section should be removed. You have declared the sources weak, and I have attempted to yield to your greater wisdom and to play by your rules. I welcome proper editing, as I have stated several times on this talk page. Thanks again for weighing in! TP anonymous (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * To reiterate from above, you seem to have no "such" sources (sources which align with the community policy of verifiability). There is an important difference to note between the policies of relevancy and verifiability. While sources discussing the assertions in question would certainly be relevant, they are not verifiable per community policy. Because Wikipedia exists not as a mere repository of information but as a digital encyclopedia, the community has established relatively high standards for the articles that can be included and what can be used within said articles. The sources are not weak, and the rules are not mine; the sources are not verifiable under the policies established by consensus of the editors. @ytea say howdy! 22:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I once again thank you for your illuminating and condescending pedantry. I will endeavor to work harder to meet these high and arbitrarily applied standards. TP anonymous (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

History merge
From Mar 2005 to Feb 2008, an article existed under this title, TeenPact. It was deleted. Since Sep 2005, this article also existed, but it was under Teen Pact until March 28, 2008, when it was cut-and-paste moved into the vacant hole TeenPact.

Because the two versions existed simultaneously, I cannot sensibly merge them under the same title. Therefore, I've moved the old, PROD-ed history to TeenPact/PROD version. I've merged the present version to TeenPact so that both versions have continuous histories.

The comments above (except for the first line) refer to the PROD version. This version might be again deleted in the future, but for now it's posted just in case users can glean anything useful from it. Cool Hand Luke 17:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggest External Link to Tim Echols Interview
Suggest External Link to interview with Tim Echols at http://www.america-betrayed-1787.com/teenpact.html. Is permission required to post?Tmarkets (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If it is your own site, then you should generally not add links yourself. I noticed that your username is the same as the contact info on the site. Self-published sources are discouraged on Wikipedia. Bhimaji (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove dress code material?
After Wikipedia editor @ytea removed citations to online content due to the site's blog-citation policies, there seems little point in keeping the dress code section, since its only purpose was to provide context for some of the most common criticism the ministry receives. I therefore propose that the section be removed and I will be happy to delete it in a week if no one else has any opinion on the matter. TP anonymous (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Issue resolved by @ytea, 29 October 2014 (TP anonymous (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC))