Talk:Aggressive Christianity Missionary Training Corps

Sources

I've just pasted this article from my workspace in the last few minutes. here are most of the sources that I'm starting with. Never heard of this group before, I just saw it as an article request on WP:X. I'd love to have other editors input, and I'd love to get ahold of other sources of info. Thanks! Nswinton\^talk 19:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The article currently claims that James was born in the early 19th (!!) century and was involved in 1860s events. This would make him >150 years old. Obviously, this is uncited and false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.193.248 (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2015 (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) 00:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fundamentalist organization?

Hi everyone,

I see that this article is part of Category:Christian fundamentalism. Are there any references that say it is a fundamentalist organization?

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the category.

I suggest that most articles that are part of Category:Christian fundamentalism should have "fundamentalist" or "fundamentalism" somewhere in the body of the article.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

POV check

The article seems to be entirely sourced to polemic, anti-cult sources. What source describes the organization as an "absolutist, military structured, intentional community"? The article really needs to be completely rewritten neutrally from independent mainstream sources. Yworo (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to me that this entire page is written by somebody inside its organization. I'd consider the impartiality of the author to be pretty suspect, based on the tone of the writer, the fact that brief mention of improper activities is followed by lengthy rebuttals and the lack of balance in the discussions of reported improper activities. Pgbbarker (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)pgbbarker

I have gone through and cut a lot of the "content." It appears that it was all added by one IP, who I have also provided with a COI notice. eldamorie (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry "The general rule is one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction." Speaking of IP's as mentioned by Elda , I am wondering if not just one , but most of the multiple IP addresses used in the "View history" as well as a possible user name are being used by one editor. Is there a way to trace this? I agree with PG who finds the entire current page to be written by somebody inside its organization. Benbullen (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Myself and apparently others have been trying to make this article not so negative. It is rather discouraging based on the fact that Benbullen has a totally negative point of view, which is obvious from the untrue terminology that they will not let me erase such as "isolated compound." Isolated? Where do they come up with that? Compound? Are you trying to demonize this group? And I do have to state that Benbullen's own comment over Gospel Outreach (Humbolt) was--(Fixed some citations , the most informative comments on this particular subject would come from anyone who actually belonged to this church, thanks..) So I have to admit that it is pretty obvious that Benbullen has great involvement with the lawsuit or close relation to Ms. Schmierer or they would not insist on posting totally negative information. I am posting this here so we can talk about what should be stated about the National Geographic so we do not have to go back and forth over the issue. If, indeed, this statement were to stay, it should be insisted upon that it would have BOTH sides to it...including...the group is not Mormon and definitely not polygamists, even though National Geographic aired them as that! Several investigations have been made because of these false claims and are always proven totally fictitious. And, it should also be stated that there was not one shred of "documentation" or "evidence" in this "documentary". ACMTC stated that they were not even contacted one time by National Geographic. Also, it should be mentioned that the ones appearing on the show were the same family who filed the lawsuit about 25 years ago. If you want the National Geographic section to stay, we're going to have to include these facts for it to be neutral. Thanks VJMiller (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

National Geographic is generally regarded as a reliable source. If you have some published information that rebuts what was contained in that broadcast, then please provide links to that information. Mere assertions by persons claiming to know things does not trump published statements from reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I edited that section a little bit, because the television program was being used to make a non-neutral point about this organization. And I acknowledge that a television show on the National Geographic Channel may not have the same reliability and gravitas as something published in the magazine. However, I do think that, if the episode exists, it is good to mention it in the article- the only reason I can think of to remove it is an attempt to whitewash the article, which would also be non-neutral. I don't understand the point of the person who said that the information about the episode was 'sourced to a blog...' are you claiming that this television program does not exist? Surely National Geographic Channel's blog is a reliable source on the existence of television programs that have appeared on the National Geographic channel. I'm not sure I agree with the wording of the heading, because it seems like a more neutral wording would be possible. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I edited the content of the NatGeo reference. I've watched the program and at no time did they say anything to suggest that this organization is polygamist. The program was split into coverage of two different organizations. One was polygamist. Again, if you actually watch the program, you'd know that at no time has anyone said that this is a polygamist organization, so using Wikipedia to defend against something that was not even said in the first place seemed irrelevant. It now makes a base reference to the fact that the organization was discussed on the program, and that's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.119.158 (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record I'll say that I made the above edit on the Nat Geo program. Did not know that I was not logged in when I made the changes. - pgbbarker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgbbarker (talk • contribs) 07:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Don Bluth?

When I tried typing "Don Bluth" into the Wikipedia search form (on a mobile device), one of the top three articles it suggested was this one. Is there actually a connection between the two, and if not, why is this happening? A bug in the MediaWiki software, perhaps? 174.30.204.227 (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aggressive Christianity Missionary Training Corps. 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/20131218054928/http://www.aggressivechristianity.net/articles/Ministry%20Facts.htm to http://www.aggressivechristianity.net/articles/Ministry%20Facts.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

'Converted' from what?

The article currently states, "The Greens converted to Christianity in 1971." What did they convert from? Islam? Judaism? Wicca? --Desertphile (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)