This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As of October 2019, the web site http://restorationpath.org appears to be offline. Has the organization shut down for good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapidrater ( talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
This article seems to be written in a biased manner, the whole thing is mostly the controversy. I think there should be a bit more about the organization and stuff about it than there is now, because now the whole article is pretty much just controversy. I am against this group but Wikipedia has to be written in a non-biased way. Imjustheretomakebonusstage ( talk) 05:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The former leader: http://www.gracerivers.com/i-acknowledge/ . Here and thee in other articles is also something about the history. -- Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 18:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Love In Action → Restoration Path – This organization has changed its name. See: http://restorationpath.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/March-2012-Color.pdf. Wikipedian77 ( talk) 21:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
As it currently stands, this page's subject is almost exclusively the old controversy. As such, my suggestion is that the page should be titled after the controversy. I believe the current title is inaccurate because, in its current state there is little historical reference beyond that one controversy.
In fact, to be most accurate and compliant with the guidelines, I suggest the whole article flagged as single-pov since the info noted does not reflect both sides of the event. I have first-person relationships with members who were at LIA when the situation first began to play out. There were, most definitely, multiple pov (not just the one the article gives precedence). In its present form the article makes no reference to these different contemporaries (members of LIA at the time the scene played out).
There is plenty of history outside that event. The organization did not begin, end, or exist only from and for such.
As with most groups, there is a range of positive and negative, objective and subjective experiences. LIA is no exception to that. I have first-hand knowledge of LIA, its leaders and members as far back as 1985. If that adds any credence, my pov is that this document needs to be flagged until it evolves into a complete and full-perspective research article.
If I knew how to, I would flag the article as single-piv and potentially incorrectly titled (until such time the collective editors can complete their research). I respectively ask the editors consider doing so themselves until the article more fully confines itself to the fair pov guidelines. Tesseract501 ( talk) 04:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
This article was already tagged for over-reliance on references to primary sources. There are a lot of other problems, some of which I have tried to fix. I have added tags for undue weight (there is very little in the article about the organization about from criticisms and controversies), missing citations (there is a lot of uncited material), and a potential need for a complete rewrite. SunCrow ( talk) 09:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I finally founded this on the net: The reason why they dissolved is because of the movie Boy Erased.
Ministry Announcement | Restoration Path (archive.org) Ndplinhdam ( talk) 15:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As of October 2019, the web site http://restorationpath.org appears to be offline. Has the organization shut down for good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapidrater ( talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
This article seems to be written in a biased manner, the whole thing is mostly the controversy. I think there should be a bit more about the organization and stuff about it than there is now, because now the whole article is pretty much just controversy. I am against this group but Wikipedia has to be written in a non-biased way. Imjustheretomakebonusstage ( talk) 05:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The former leader: http://www.gracerivers.com/i-acknowledge/ . Here and thee in other articles is also something about the history. -- Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 18:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Love In Action → Restoration Path – This organization has changed its name. See: http://restorationpath.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/March-2012-Color.pdf. Wikipedian77 ( talk) 21:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
As it currently stands, this page's subject is almost exclusively the old controversy. As such, my suggestion is that the page should be titled after the controversy. I believe the current title is inaccurate because, in its current state there is little historical reference beyond that one controversy.
In fact, to be most accurate and compliant with the guidelines, I suggest the whole article flagged as single-pov since the info noted does not reflect both sides of the event. I have first-person relationships with members who were at LIA when the situation first began to play out. There were, most definitely, multiple pov (not just the one the article gives precedence). In its present form the article makes no reference to these different contemporaries (members of LIA at the time the scene played out).
There is plenty of history outside that event. The organization did not begin, end, or exist only from and for such.
As with most groups, there is a range of positive and negative, objective and subjective experiences. LIA is no exception to that. I have first-hand knowledge of LIA, its leaders and members as far back as 1985. If that adds any credence, my pov is that this document needs to be flagged until it evolves into a complete and full-perspective research article.
If I knew how to, I would flag the article as single-piv and potentially incorrectly titled (until such time the collective editors can complete their research). I respectively ask the editors consider doing so themselves until the article more fully confines itself to the fair pov guidelines. Tesseract501 ( talk) 04:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
This article was already tagged for over-reliance on references to primary sources. There are a lot of other problems, some of which I have tried to fix. I have added tags for undue weight (there is very little in the article about the organization about from criticisms and controversies), missing citations (there is a lot of uncited material), and a potential need for a complete rewrite. SunCrow ( talk) 09:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I finally founded this on the net: The reason why they dissolved is because of the movie Boy Erased.
Ministry Announcement | Restoration Path (archive.org) Ndplinhdam ( talk) 15:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)