Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 15:47, 29 April 2008 (Signing comment by 71.43.25.5 - "→"National Institute on Drug Abuse Report": "). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Christianity Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Expansion and Formatting of Teen Challenge Article

• Somebody commented in the edit history a while ago that the page read like a press release. Actually, it read more like a scientific survey, which would be fine in a section devoted to studies conducted on Teen Challenge, but not as the body of the main article. I addressed this problem by formatting the research data into a section entitled 'Studies of Teen Challenge Effectiveness'. However, this section alone is not sufficient for a full encyclopedia article, and I would like to propose that the article be expanded with the following sections after the introduction (which is fine the way it currently is):

• History
• Methods
• Studies of Teen Challenge Effectiveness
• External Links
• Notes

It is almost inevitable that editors will introduce criticism and controversy in the article, in which case the standard proceedure will be to add a Controversy section for these items, probably before or after the Studies of Teen Challenge Effectiveness section.

Whoever would like to help by collecting data for the suggested sections, please feel free to create the sections and add your work. The existing section on studies could also use a little stylistic polishing, if anybody would like to brush it up. Projection70 13:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation Please?

Nothing in this article is cit ed. This entryreads as a very biased arguement for why a treatment approach is effective. Teen challenge is definately a program that has a lot of controversy surrounding it, and this needs to be addressed. It rejects many of the mainstream treatment approaches embraced by other facilities and programs like AA. The 1 to 15% "cure rate" has no cite and I suspect that it was fabricated until that statistic is cited by a reliable source. Actually nothing in this article is properly cited, and as you are relying on academic documentation you need to have those documents named in this entry. CelticLabyrinth 07:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we do need to find some citations for this material. I'll try to do so as I have time. However, in regards to the controversy surrounding the program; I checked out the links at the bottom of the article to sites critical of Teen Challenge. One is a blog, and the other is a site that does not show any of its sources, and makes some rather outlandish claims. Just because something is printed on the Internet doesn't make it true, and both of these sites seem like poor sources of information, especially for an encyclopedia article.DC 17:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

The article reads like a press release because it is a press release. The "information" on the studies was originally added as a 1,240 word text dump from here and here.

Nonsense. Total nonsense.

.s

X ile 07:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC) - Talk

Feel free to slap a copyvio tag on it then. Shot info 23:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

VERY BIASED & IMPOSSIBLE TO ADD ANY MORE INFO TO THE ARTICLE

Obviously, somebody wants to keep this Teen Challenge article VERY one-sided because I have tried countless times to include this information but they keep un-doing the changes I make! Despite that fact, I am going to put information that is relevant to the article here so others can see that I am only trying to show the proof that this information needs to be included in the article.

First of all- Teen Challenge is a Mission of the Assemblies of God http://usmissions.ag.org/

As quoted from the website- "Assemblies of God U.S. Missions exists to equip, empower and encourage the Assemblies of God to evangelize America." http://usmissions.ag.org/top/aboutus.cfm

The Assemblies of God U.S. Missions is comprised of six departments, which includes TEEN CHALLENGE!

http://usmissions.ag.org/top/faqs.cfm

ALSO: 'Excerpts' of the particular studies that are posted regarding the Effectiveness of Teen Challenge appear only on the Teen Challenge websites. They do not include any actual links to the actual reports that prove those reports really exist from the National Institute on Drug Abuse Report or the University of Tennessee Report.

ALSO: Regarding the treatment effectiveness- Nationally known drug treatment program, Teen Challenge, has encouraged this notion by claiming success rates ranging from seventy to eighty-six percent. But these figures dramatically distort the truth, as they represent the successful treatment rate of only those participants who do not drop out of the program before completion, which includes less than one-fifth (18%) of the total number of students who actually participated. - Statement of Samantha Smoot, Executive Director, Texas Freedom Network Education Fund, Austin, Texas http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy/humres/107cong/6-14-01/6-14smoo.htm

Two websites that are trying to prove that the Teen Challenge program needs to be investigated include:

Teen Challenge Exposed http://www.teenchallengeexposed.com/

Investigating Teen Challenge http://teenchallengecult.blogspot.com/

These two websites need to addressed so as to show that there are "two-sides" to the Teen Challenge facilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustTellingThe Truth (talk • contribs)

No comment on the first few links, but Teen Challenge Exposed and Investing Teen Challenge do not appear to be what would be considered reliable sources. --Onorem♠Dil 14:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A PROBLEM OF BIAS - Issues Address and Being Addressed

Treatment Effectiveness

1. The U.S. Government determines what is success in a drug treatment program. Five years clean is the standard and Teen Challenge meets that standard at 70-86%. The studies done are cited in the article from a non Teen Challenge website.

2. The dropout rate is meaningless. Drop out rates are never taken into account when measuring the success of a drug treatment program. Secular programs also have high drop out rates which is really surprising considering they only last normally 30-90 days. Some are even shorter that 30 days. The drop out rate in Teen Challenge is closer to 50%, not the over 80% provided here.

3. The Texas Freedom Network is a biased organization that does not believe in the use of faith in treatment even when government money is not involved. Teen Challenge has gotten very little money from the Faith Based programs and grants.

4. The article states the relationship between Teen Challenge and the Assemblies of God. Teen Challenge is NOT controlled by the Assemblies, but the relationship is detailed in the article. The provided web links support this.

5. The two websites/blogs posted above are not supported by proof. One is a first hand story of a person who spent time in Teen Challenge. Their story has been largely refuted, but they are able to give their opinion, but it is nothing but opinion.

6. The 1-15% cure rate for secular programs is a government figure. It has been documented time after time. There should be a place to cite this one.

7. The "Patron Feint" article cited is also untrue. Teen Challenge does not rely on self reporting. All of the studies done on Teen Challenge were done groups outside Teen Challenge. Most of them started out attempting to discredit the organization, but fact don't lie and they were not able to do it. Also they bring up the drop out rate which has already been addressed in point 2.

I apologize for editing others comments on this page. I did not realize until now how to add my own section.Ahumanbean 14:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The drop out rate is at the core of the argument against the studies which comprise most of the article. The Ways and Means Committee statement quotes only 18% of participants complete the course. Do you have something to specifically discredit to support your assertion of "closer to 50%"? If not, this should be included.

The section entitled "National Institute on Drug Abuse Report" is a direct copy from and I will delete it if nobody can show reason why it is not a copyviolation.

Similarly, the section entitled "University of Tennessee Report", while changing a bullet point or two, is primarily a copyvio of teen challenge's publicity at , and also needs to justify it's existence here.

independent studies i could find via a brief google scholar search suggest that the program is effective, and worthy of a Misplaced Pages article because of its influence on US policy, if nothing else, but not in the form of a one sided advertisement.

While not a perfect source, there does appear to be a number of usable newspaper articles available also.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT

Inaccurate information is continuously being put in this article. Independent studies are independent studies. These were not paid for nor produced by Teen Challenge USA or any of the local centers. It is wrong to suggest scientific studies are advertisements. The drop out rate cited by the Ways and Means Committee was part of testimony given by the Texas Freedom Foundation. This foundation has not evidence to back up this drop out rate. The drop out rate has never been officially cited anywhere including the US Congress. The 50% figure comes from Teen Challenge Executive Directors all over the country who maintain their own records. However, there is no official tally. This means the tally cited by the Texas Freedom Foundation also has no supporting evidence.

Finally, the drop out rate is meaningless. The official government means of determining success is based on five years clean from THOSE WHO COMPLETE a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program. This measure is used by secular and religious organizations alike. No rehabilitation organization counts the success of those who drop out including the much shorter 7/30/60/90 day programs that have proven to be horribly unsuccessful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.247.228 (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify- the tag states that the section "reads like an advertisement". I don't think this can be denied- as stated above, it reads like an advertisement because it is a word-for-word copy of an advertisement on their own web page. Any report about research which specifically gives details only of one portion of the research is biased reporting of research, regardless of whether the study itself was independent.

I'm not from the US, so please help me- where does it state "the official government means of determining success"? I'm more used to social researchers, field workers and clients deciding what is "success", so I see little relevance, or superiority of an "official" government means. Please let me know. To me, and other social researchers, the success of any program is setting out to do what it aimed to do- if the aim was to reduce one of the effects of drug addiction, this could be met in a variety of ways. For example, I see success in needle exchange programs, which reduce the effect (spread of HIV/AIDS) without necessarily preventing drug use for five years. Ditto programs that aim to provide immediate detoxification - they work with people who could never handle the religious browbeating of such a faith based program.

The drop out rate is especially meaningful, as it is so easy to "game the system" by forcing those unlikely to "succeed" to resign, or be expelled, before completion of the program. It is cited- including in the current article. My big fat guess is that the "Texas Freedom Network Education Fund" (is this the same as the "Texas freedom Foundation" you refer to?) looked at the stats, see only ~35% finish the course, and see 50% of this as 18%. (I notice that the report from the "Texas Freedom Network Education Fund" at raises issues which need to be addressed in a balanced article about Teen Challenge.)

As a side note: The second research report, in my humble opinion, lacks credibility- it says "(of 213 individuals)... A random sample of 50 alumni was selected for this research project with a 50% response" - this means their results were based on 25 responses, out of 213 people who finished, with a high probability of self selection bias (those in gaol, who move house a lot, who chose not to respond would not be represented)- not a sufficiently representative sample to on which to generalise results. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole issue of the Texas Freedom Network needs to be address. The above linked report addressed no aspect of success. Instead this group is against faith-based drug and alcohol recovery programs because they don't use the failed methodologies of secular programs. The article gives the example of Teen Challenge not having "trained" drug and alcohol counselors. If you consider training the be the failed educational efforts institutions are using the create counselors/counseling that is useless, then Teen Challenge does not have trained individuals. However, if you considered the experience, training and history of Teen Challenge counselor and the success they play a part in, then you cannot deny their "training." Governor Bush realized that Texas State standards were perpetuating a failed methodology of drug treatment. Why would Teen Challenge require its employees to take this methodologically incompetent training only to retrain them under a more successful methodology?ahumanbean (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not an advertisement just because it is information taken from a website. These are taken from official studies. Success is determined by being "clean." Needle exchange programs are a prime example of a band aid that has no real long lasting effect. It is questionable if needle exchange programs even help stop the spread of AIDS, which was the intent. Needle exchange programs were never meant to be considered as part of someone stopping the use of drugs.

The drop out rate is meaningless because it is NEVER considered as a factor in success of any rehabilitation program. It is possible to "game" the system, but there is no real way to stop that. I know a number of Teen Challenge directors and they do everything they can to lower the drop out rate. They do not try to make it higher to "game" they system.

As for the veracity of the two studies, you can argue all you want, but they were done by qualified indepedent researchers. There are actually more studies, but people are already flipping out about the two mentioned that I have not added the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.233.200 (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: This is not an advertisement just because it is information taken from a website. Let me reiterate. The biased reporting of the research is what makes this read like an advertisement, whether it is from "official studies" or not. Don't get me wrong here- I am not opposed to including the information, just because it's source is a Teen Challenge website. I am, however, opposed to biased and one sided reporting of the facts.

Re: The drop out rate is meaningless because it is NEVER considered as a factor in success of any rehabilitation program. Eliminating selection bias is a common, if not standard, practice of evaluation of a program. If it cannot be avoided, ethical reporting of research demands that it is noted as being present. If there is a high drop out rate, research ethics would demand that this is mentioned. Similarly, if only a tiny group of potential respondents is available, ethical (honest) reporting would note this, and would not claim that this small group is a representative sample.

I apologise if my comment about "gaming the system" appeared to be an accusation of TC directors. It was a comment about why researchers are expected to honestly highlight the faults in a piece of research when reporting results, to avoid dishonest fabrication of results.

Re: The whole issue of the Texas Freedom Network needs to be address I agree. It needs to be addressed in the article, not just on the talk page. The network/s have made significant comments, widely reported, about the organisation.

Re: 67.52.233.200 comments- You may find the references at Needle-exchange programme of interest if you believe that it is questionable if needle exchange programs help stop the spread of HIV/AIDS. I hasten to add- if your criteria for success is 5-10 years clean of all drugs, they are a miserable failure. But that is not, and never has been, their aim. The aim of the program is important. This is why I am fascinated by the notion that there is one "standard" US government measure of the success of a rehabilitation program. Here in Australia, for example, some use criminal recidivism, reduction of self harm, prolonging of life, quality of life etc. Again I ask- does anyone have a source for your assertion that the official measure is based on five years clean from those who complete a program?

Re: There are actually more studies, but people are already flipping out about the two mentioned that I have not added the information. If you have additional, verifiable, reliable studies, please, please supply them. Something more recent would certainly strengthen this article.

As it stands, it still reads like an advertisement, and needs to be improved. I will remove the plagiarism within a week with a more balanced report if it cannot be shown that this is a copy violation. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, it still does not read like an advertisement. Unbiased official studies are not advertisements. Copies of official studies are not plagiarisms. Removal of these studies is not acceptable.ahumanbean (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Unbiased "official" studies are not advertisements- true. Biased reporting of these reports is.

There is no definition of plagiarism which does not include word for word copies of studies.

Removal of the paragraphs is wikipedia policy. Leaving them in is not acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WotherspoonSmith (talk • contribs) 22:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no biased reporting of these studies. These are actual studies in the article.

The definition of plagiarism requires that one take credit for what is in the article. Proper citation is used, thus no plagiarism.

Misplaced Pages policy requires that you show justification for the removal of this content and you have not. It is not plagiarism or an advertisement. They are based upon verified independent studies by major universities.

There is actually a newer study, but under your definition it would not be acceptable. However, the age of the studies does not negate the results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.247.228 (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is taking credit for the text, by not saying that it is a direct quote. We are presenting the information as if it is our own. It is not- it is a word for word copy of someone else's work. Under any definition (including yours), this is plagiarism. Proper citation would be to put it into our own words, and cite our sources for the information. Where necessary, particularly relevant sections may be quoted directly, but in such cases it should be very clear to the reader that it is a direct quote of someone else's work that we are quoting, using inverted commas, for example.

Misplaced Pages is not taking credit for the text. Each study tells its source.

By "your definition", do you mean Misplaced Pages's verifiability and reliability standards? I, personally, would welcome reliable, verifiable studies.

I think I have been very clear in explaining that I believe that the reports relate to actual studies, but that only the parts of the studies that show Teen Challenge in a positive light have been reported here.

This is completely untrue. The study results are included showing outcomes.

I think it would it be easier to request a neutral third party to mediate if we cannot agree on these definitions and help resolve this issue. Do you agree, or would you like to keep trying to resolve?

before we do, perhaps I should clarify: I am not suggesting that the article should lose any reference to the studies in question. They are relevant parts of the Teen Challenge phenomenon, and the article would be incomplete without them. However, we need to:

1. put it into our own words

2. include counterpoints, and additional information, such as the impact that TC has had on US policy re faith based services

3. Write according to the Misplaced Pages tenets of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR,WP:verifiability and WP:reliability

Do you object to any of these points? Are you unsure about any of them? I'm happy to work through them slowly, with a consensus approach to rewriting the relevant parts of the article. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already suggested that a "Controversy" section be added, which has been suggested a few times. That would be the proper place to try and "refute" the studies. Of course, this would not be a section for opinion, but fact. I would love to flesh out this article more. While I don't see the need to rewrite the studies because they are cited, I am willing to do so to help come to a consensus.24.145.247.228 (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit other people's entries. Add your comments below others' comments. That way, we can see who wrote what, in what order. This has happened a lot on this page.

And please do not remove tags because you disagree with them. That is not the wikipedia way. Work on finding a consensus, rather than encourage an edit war.

There are two issues being mixed up here. One is the validity and style of the section- whether it "reads like an advertisement". This is a distinct issue from whether it is a copyviolation. We can argue whether it reads like an advertisement. It is undeniably a copyviolation, unless the author of the original site is also the author of the wikipedia article _{(or if they have copied it from us, which often happens, but not in this case)}. Otherwise, we're copying that person's work as if it is our own, which is unfair to them, and dishonest of us. This is not the same thing as "citing" another article. Do you now understand why these sections need a rewrite? As a temporary measure, I will edit to show how a quote should be made clear to the reader.

RE: Misplaced Pages is not taking credit for the text. Each study tells its source. Respectfully, no. True, each section does say where the info came from, but it still is not clear whose words we are reading. The reader would assume that we (wikipedians) have written the article from scratch, that the words are ours. Take a look at this section . We can clearly see where Josephus is being quoted, with an in-line citation showing the source of our information.

re:This ("only the parts of the studies that show Teen Challenge in a positive light have been reported here") is completely untrue. The study results are included showing outcomes. Some of the outcomes are listed, but not the shortcomings of the studies. I have not been able to find the published source of this research, but any reliable research will mention the limitations of the study. The article does not do this. That is what I was trying to say.We do not know what, if any, other findings were.

We agree that counterpoints need to be shown (and from a neutral point of view- no blogs!). Do you also agree that a section showing the influence on US social policy is also appropriate, again with both sides of the story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WotherspoonSmith (talk • contribs) 12:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We are simply going to have to agree to disagree on parts. The studies say exactly where they came from. It would seem that shortcomings of the studies belong in a "Controversy" section. As for the influence on US Social policy, this seems like a completely different article. Teen Challenge receives almost no government money. There are rare exceptions. However, I am intrigued by what you mean by this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahumanbean (talk • contribs) 20:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I read the Misplaced Pages copyright information and these studies are completely allowed as they are in the public domain. Therefore no change is needed. I have no problem with your changes as long as they don't attribute the studies to Teen Challenge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahumanbean (talk • contribs) 00:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Where does it say they are in the public domain? Unless it is explicitly released into public domain, it is copyrighted. The www.teenchallenge.com site the page links to clearly says it is copyrighted.

2. The opinions stated need to be attributed to someone (public domain or otherwise) if we use their words. The only source for them is TC. We do not have anything original quoting the university as saying, for example, what is "noteworthy" or "adequate". If we know the university used these words, we can quote them. We don't, so we shouldn't. The linked page clearly says it is "A Review of a Study by Dr. Aaron T. Bicknese", not the study itself.

3. I am not attributing the studies to TC. I am attributing the review to TC. The review clearly states that the results are from the university's study.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Where does it say they are copyrighted. Teenchallenge.com is not the official Teen Challenge USA website. Teenchallengeusa.com is the official site. Any copyright claim on Teenchallenge.com is meaningless and void.

2. There is no opinion. These are independent studies.

3. You are attributing the studies to TC. These are independent study results. It would be nice to get copies of the original studies, but I don't live anywhere near any of the places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahumanbean (talk • contribs) 03:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I finally figured out why your concern about copyright. These are not summaries of the studies that were written by Teen Challenge. These are actually summary results that came directly from the studies. They do not fall under the copyright of the websites because they are not created, owned or under the authority of the website owners.24.145.247.228 (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice of you to say that. However, the websites do have a copyright tag, and I cannot find anything to back up your belief that these are quotes directly from the studies. In fact, i can find a line which clearly states that it is a report on the study, not the study itself. So, if Teen Challenge writes it, copyrights it, no-one else claims it, we must treat it as Teen Challenge copyright. If it is entirely public domain, then it still reads like an advertisementWotherspoonSmith (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

When you read the actual studies they say exactly where they came from. No one else claims it because the claim of authorship is in the study. "University of Tennessee" is pretty clear. Teen Challenge cannot copyright what it does not own, nor can a independent study be considered an advertisement. Just because you disagree with the results of the study does not mean you can claim either violation.24.145.247.228 (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

::: RE:When you read the actual studies they say exactly where they came from. The results, yes. Not the words. The wording either comes from TC (who claim it as their own via their copyright notice) or from the University (which we have no evidence fo whatsoever, other than your repeated assertion.)

If Teen Challenge has copyrighted it, we need TC's permission, and even then we'd be best using our own words.

If TC claims to own copyright, we need something certain to prove those words aren't theirs. (not the results- the words we use)

If University of Tennessee has written it (the words, not the original research), we need their permission to use their words, and even then we'd be best off using our own words. The results should be published somewhere, peer reviewed. No-one has yet seen this. We rely on a (copyrighted) review of the results. This is second best, but we may get away with it. It is certainly immoral to claim the words as our own, especially if we don't know who wrote them.

I have repeatedly stated that an independent study cannot be considered an advertisement, but a report on that study can. Do you agree?

I agree with the results, don't make assumptions otherwise. As a welfare oficer for the last 21 years, I have lots of contact and made the occasional referral to TC. It is brilliant when it works.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 06:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:RFCreli

All of these have already been answered. When someone does not agree with a study they will try to find a way to deny its veracity. These are not reports on the studies. Period.ahumanbean (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Public Policy Effects

I really think this is a great section. It does cross boundaries far beyond Teen Challenge, but it also applied to Teen Challenge. It may not need to be so much as expanded here as it should link to a bigger article based on the public policy effects of the faith based initiative. In fact, such an article already exists. It might be better to place this under a "Controversy" section that links to this larger article. I did clean up the article a bit to clarify John Castellani's former position. The current president of Teen Challenge USA is Michael Hodges . I also cleared up the "Completed Jew" language. The original language made the term seem as if it was a prejorative to all those who use it. However, Messianic Jews and Christians use it as a compliment even if it is not taken as one by Jewish groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahumanbean (talk • contribs) 01:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI I'm avoiding a division of everything into "for" or "against" (or "controversy"). Some things are just facts, just "interesting". The section should, i agree, be limited only to that which is directly related to TC. More general stuff, you are right, should go to that article.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Bicknese Report

Can someone please provide some more information about Bicknese's report ("Teen Challenge's Proven Answer to the Drug Problem")? I know there is a copy at http://www.acadc.org/page/page/2495014.htm but I'd like to know more about it. Where was it originally published? Was this article ever peer reviewed? Who is Dr. Bicknese and what are his qualifications? Why is it cited in this article as having been published by Northwestern University? --ElKevbo (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. Found what I was looking for here: http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies3.php. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Chattanooga report

This "report", previously labeled the "University of Tennessee report, is clearly a study commissioned by Teen Challenge of Chattanooga, Inc. ("We express our thanks and appreciation to Dr. Roger Thompson for conducting this independent survey for Teen Challenge of Chattanooga, Inc."). Not that being a commissioned study necessarily damages or detracts from its credibility but it's misleading to describe it as a "University of Tennessee report". Moreover, simply having been conducted by a faculty member at a university does not mean it was "done by" that university. With all of that in mind, I retitled the section.

I also greatly shortened the section as it was way too long, not at all informative, and full of copyright violations. The copyvios alone were reason enough to change the section but the undue weight and lack of clarity also greatly contributed. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(I also note with interest that, unless I'm reading it wrong, the entire "report" is based on a single survey of 25 persons. Not a very thorough study unless there was significant qualitative work. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

"National Institute on Drug Abuse Report"

I also removed this entire section. It was also full of copyvios and very misleading. I would be happy to expand on my thoughts if so desired. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

More specifically (since at least two editors seem to be restoring this copyrighted information without discussion or investigation): much of the material in this deleted section was copied verbatim from the cited source.

As an aside, it's not even a very good source and it appears to be a possible copyright violation itself. As far as I can tell, the original material is here. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We had used that citation at one stage, but it was changed to the other. Perhaps people wanted to be able to deny that it was a TC quote. Who knows. Thank you for taking an interest in this article. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

YO I HATED TEEN CHALLANGE! IM AT VERO BEACH ONE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.25.5 (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed Christianity articles
• Unknown-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• Start-Class Christianity articles