Talk:Young Life

Young Life International?
Hi, I was just wondering why this article almost explicitly talks about Young Life in the U.S.A. Young life is active in many countries around the world (over 60). In fact, recently Young Life changed their "YL" logo to not resemble just a Y and L because the language differences in locations. --Serknap (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 1.

I totally agree with you, there needs to be an addition for the International Chapter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojmills (talk • contribs) 20:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

brainwashing kids?
i'm mostly a wikipedia reader rather than editor so i don't want to make any changes to the page but the section title seems to be a sort of vandalism. brainwashing kids can't possibly be the appropriate term, i personally go to young life and don't see myself or anyone else as being "brainwashed" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.202.45 (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what they want you to think! They're brainwashing you into a zombie, but they're doing it so secretively that you can't tell. Isn't it obvious that nont of this is vandalism? That's my two scents 05:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Young Life is NOT brainwashing kids. I work at Young Life and guarantee that all we are trying to do is share God's love with these kids. I would love for you to visit a Young Life camp and see for yourself. Please message me, I would love to talk to you! User:RayburnGirls9 13:51, 2 July, 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 18:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Telling people that lgbt folks are sinners or wrong is absolutely brainwashing Kizemet (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section
This criticism section is a particularly glaring violation of NPOV. In order for our readers to understand "sin talk" and "non-negotiables" we must provide context regarding the guiding principles or other foundational or operating guidelines of Young Life. Additionally we need to inform readers regarding the bias of Tony Jones. This section is POV and not balanced. This is obviously necessary to improve the article and is in accordance with out policies WP:STRUCTURE and WP:CRITICISM and lastly an accusation of "whitewashing" could be construed as a personal attack. Please WP:AGF. – Lionel(talk) 08:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The article is already overstuffed with primary-sources and borderline promotional routine trivia, so labeling a section "Guiding principles" and then asking for it to be expanded is also asking for trouble. This section title was also non-neutral and confusing, since the connection between "Guiding principles" and what was discussed by that section was subjective at best. I don't particularly like CSECTIONs either, but as a neutral encyclopedia, we cannot use vague 'shop-talk' like "guiding principles" when discussing staff being fired or quitting in protest. This phrase is fine for a church's own website, but it's not formal, neutral language. To me, this is subtly whitewashing the article by presenting the controversy in an even more confusing format than it already was.
 * I do think this should be explained better, and probably also expanded, but I do not believe that the combination of changing the section title and adding the 'expand' template were appropriate ways to do that. The title change shifted this away from the specific point being discussed by those sources to something else, which is not original research, but does seem like it's inviting original research.
 * I'm talking specifically about your edit of the article in the past-tense. I have no knowledge or interest in you, personally. Grayfell (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request
I currently work for Young Life, and I wanted to ask for a correction to remove the nickname for the president Newt Crenshaw. I am unaware of this as his nickname and don't believe it's attributed to anything. Furthermore, I think it's done in fun but could be viewed as derogatory. Thank you! 63.230.64.72 (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC) GKnipp


 * ✅ Spintendo  22:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Camp Staff Breakdown Edit
The section camp staff breakdown appears to be somewhat leaning towards the advertising side of positive language. Would it be unreasonable to either shift the language to be that of either strict neutrality on the matter or paraphrase a new citation? In particular the closing sentence "This allows the student and leader to bond, and they can carry that bond back to their hometown." Is phrased a manner that appears somewhat one sided. WallRunner (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

odd phrasing
In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Life#Statement_of_Non-negotiables There is the text: "This has never been YoungLife's style". Doesn't strike me as encyclopedic, and seems to make an assertion of fact (for whatever style means in this context).Before deleting it outright (since it seems like the kind of thing that a drive-by commenter would have been inserted), figured I should air it out in Talk. Ronabop (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)