Talk:Greater Grace World Outreach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Archive
Archives

/Archive
/Notability
Note: archives may be refactored.



Contents

[edit] Notability

Consensus was the organization was notable, the discussion was archived here Talk:Greater Grace World Outreach/Notability

[edit] Talk Page Cleanup

I just achieved, refactored and otherwise cleaned up this talk page, in hopes to bring about a positive change and consensus. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!!! 71.65.13.229 (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

First, the following thoughts belong to the following editors which have been involved in creating, editing, and otherwise working in a WP:BRD frameset:

A refactored, consolidated list of "talk" points from the Archive are as follows:

  1. Should the objective of the article be to present a "balance" (pro/con) approach, or rather facts written from a WP:NPOV, regardless of how unbalanced it may end up?
  2. Is the legal case a significant part of GGWO history?
  3. Should the legal case be presented in the introduction?
  4. Is the missionary work (we should specify domestic or international) notable, significant and documented?

In any event, information should be cited with verifiable and reliable source. Considering the current situation, I would recommend that all editors involved, hold back the temptation to delete, remove or revert content - but rather simply add reliable, non-original research. From there, some other unbiased editors can step in and weed through the mess. Right now, there is way to much bias involved on the part of most editors listed above.

How to proceed: By faith, my hope is that everybody would like to create a good article. Part of that will be working through this process in an appropriate and organized manner. I suggest that each interested editor create a "sub section" to this, using three equal signs === Your name ===. And place your input on the three points above, then at the end please feel free to write a brief comment. Don't respond to other editors, just to the Consensus points addressed above. No, I'm not the WikiGod, but an edit which has helped similar disputes come together. :) Also, a final reminder to put NEW information at the BOTTOM, and always sign your posts with ~~~~. Thanks! Tiggerjay (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tiggerjay

This is an example, as I don't have much input on this:

  1. I am for a WP:NPOV and let's see where the article lands, and then format the article in an appropriate way based on the facts;
  2. This, I believe will be determined primarily on the verifiable, reliable sources provided.
  3. The legal case should be in the introduction only if it ends up constituting the bulk of the rest of the article, based on reliable sources.
  4. I have no idea on this...

Thank you all for allowing me to suggest this process and I hope for it's success. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Tryster

First thanks for your hard work!

  1. GGWO should article like any other article should not be viewed simply as a promotion of a particular group. While I would love to promote something I don't believe that is noteworthy because it is such.
  2. GGWO's undeniable claim to fame is the controversies it has been involved in. I do not know of any other notable reason for a listing on wikipedia. And as such I think it should be mentioned in the introduction.
  3. In regards to different parts of the article including the intro and box there are so many self promoting statements and statements that are just flat out mistakes. For instance in the info box it lists its polity as congregational. I have a copy of the cooperate bylaws and it is far from a congregational church in polity.
  4. I am listing below in another section how the organization is notable in terms of its legal, media and like coverage.
  5. I am really concerned that even those who want it to be balanced are willing to sacrifice both style, normal respect for resources and like. I tend to use actual dates, the sources and the mentions as is typical done for writing. While I respect that we are talking about a church, ministry and quasi denomnation and as such there is some lead way on how this can be done and the sources. To suggest that the church is more notable because of mission work, or that is more notable for something else against the backdrop of so many significant articles, legal sources, media articles, transcipts from eye witnesses, etc is worrisome

71.65.13.229 (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC).

I am trying to write this as balanced and neutral as possible in consideration of the criticism without the catch, weasel words etc. Please note I reduced the tone of the about the controversies and in the sections that follow I would use references for each.

[edit] Spinkava

Tiggerjay, you are right. We have all gotten too emotionally involved in this. To answer the questions:

  1. I would like WP:NPOV based on reliable sources. However, I do believe that media sources should be limited as they were skewed towards the anti-GGWO crowd. The pro-GGWO crowd was too afraid that the media would take their words out of context and so did not offer any interviews. With this caveat, I believe that WP:NPOV will lead to a balanced article.
  2. The legal case is a significant & notable part of GGWO's history.
  3. The legal case should be part of the introduction, but not the focus of the introduction.
  4. Concerning ministry, GGWO is notable for Telephone Time, Grace Hour, La Gracia & missions to Hungary & Azerbaijan. All of this is documented in third party sources.

Significant ministries include Maryland Bible College & Seminary (MBC&S) & Greater Grace Christian Academy (GGCA), which I believe are notable enough for their own pages.

Other ministries include Stevens School of the Bible, Noah's Ark Bible Club, Chritian Athletics Program & Verticalink, International. There are few third party sources regarding this. You may choose whether to mention this or not.

Can you please extend the block another week. I would like to gather more sources but I am in the middle of finals & next week is my graduation. Spinkava (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Bickering

The bickering has been moved to the archive. :) If you keep up this kind of rhetoric when the block is lifted, you will both likely find yourselves blocked due to WP:3R. Forget about the details for a moment, and let's try to get to an overall common ground. Spinkava, please answer the above questions. And then, moving forward, we can look into the article, but there is no need for a debate, let the sourced information stand for itself, there is no need to interpret, or perform any other form of original research.

When the block is lifted I suggest you simply add information and let other, unbiased editors go through your reliable sources and meld the article together -- your focus should be adding as much unbiased, cited content as possible - and forget about the other person. If you feel they are off base, then simply add more sourced content to reinforce your belief. Again, the content will stand for itself without your need to interpret. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the extension of the block, I have no control over this as I am not an admin, however I can request this of an admin for everyone. During this extended block, everyone, please gather your information with proper sources, and then when the page is unblocked, please ADD only, (no removal, copyedits or rewrites)... then after both of you have had a chance to contribute, then myself and another editor will go through and make the cleanup needed, well have another editor or two review it -- and then we'll make sure that everyone is rather satisfied with the way it turns out.Tiggerjay (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tryster

  1. I agree for the most part but we don't need another three weeks from when this started to edit this.
  2. I think articles on many of these people, places and controversies is merited. However I think that the articles and these other matters should be mentioned in some manner and that it should be honestly balanced with the resources not original research.
  3. I believe it is important that once this article is written and there is some consensus that it is protected so neither extreme side will vandelize it.

Peace

Tryster (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this page needs to be protected. However, according to the protection policy, I think that best we can hope for is semi-protection. Spinkava (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree.Tryster (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There will be no rationale for any sort of page protection until after vandalism has occurred - protection is for ongoing action, not to be preemptive. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Tiggerjay this article has been deleted, vandalized, and so debated to suggest that it will not happen is like saying the sun will not come up. If we don't think that is the case lets simply remove the block now. Why is it blocked if we think that it will not happen? Let editors start cleaning it up now. When the date of the current block was pushed back I felt like the Pro GGWO folks get their way without any consideration of those who want a balanced and to a larger degree neutral point of view. 71.65.13.229 (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Tryster, the problem with your approach is that you are starting with the viewpoint that there is a war at hand --- which causes you to react more agreesively then you normally would, causing the situation to escellate -- please review WP:AGF. Go ahead, stop reading and pop on over to the link first. For you to think that the block being push back was a "win" by any ideological position would be a gross mis-understanding, and simply illustrates how too passionate and biased you are. All the more reason to keep the block in place until the parties cool down. To protect this article going forward would be fundamentally against the nature and purpose of wikipedia. Most of the articles I am interested with are vandalised several times each week - my own userpage it being hit about twice a day now -- however since it is simply a few here and there, there is no justification for protection. If you cannot believe in the good faith edits of other editors, then you may need to take a WP:wikibreak - don't worry, the article will be here for you to edit at any time in the future. Tiggerjay (talk)

[edit] new stubs

I am creating new stubs for some of these places, controversies and indivduals who are notable.

I created one for Carl H. Stevens Jr. I am building a redir for his name as simply Carl Stevens, I will create one for a few others today.

Tryster (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Added stub for Maryland Bible College & Seminary

Tryster (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Dovydenas vs. The Bible Speaks was created. The redirs will be hard to formulate. I am trying to get together the references with the proper case number. There are so many its hard to find the first case number.

Tryster (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homework

Editors, here is a bit of homework for you now that the article is blocked for an additional week - please take a moment -- okay, several moments -- to understand WP:MOS... Adding insult to injury is the general inability to edit in accordance to the Manual of Style. :)

Thanks, Tiggerjay (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This Article Is A Mess

What has happened to this article. It's worse then the last time I saw it! Everything seems to be all jumbled up, and you cannot tell where one section ends and the other one begins in some parts of the article.Ltwin (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed, it is quite a disaster, however it is currently protected from editing, and hopefully with a "quiet" talk page for a while, the two editors have calmed down a bit so when the protection comes off next week, progress will be made. :) Tiggerjay (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't more strongly dissagree. This article has been so subjected to attack I can hardly see the reason one should subscribe to it being not attacked between the two different extreme sides. Because of edit wars I have removed myself from any major edits of this article even when the protection comes off. The other major editor has insisted on using sectarian sources that I can only see as been a bias that is extreme.

Early on when I worked on this article I sought consensus and what I have found is the desire for encouragement of an edit war. I am not sure the merit of this page if it is so biased, and so loaded with extreme views in any given direction. If I was to enter into simply editing the page when it comes off protection it would amount to an edit war. I believe that the better outcome would be to let an editor who has no bias to edit the article. There has already been talk beyond here of the desire to mass edit when the page is unprotected. Again that seems a bit pathetic to enter into. I simply will do edits where I know I can do so with verifiable ref. Like this edit that names this organization "congregational" when the organization, its foes, its bylaws, its public statements, its current leaders, its former leaders, its current governance all say its is far from it. That would be like 20 refrences to change one word in one block on wikipedia. That is madness. Tryster (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] links in ref section

{{editprotected}} Could an admin please change the links in the refs section to either a cite web template or at least named links and not plain URL's?--Rockfang (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the current format is working, but simply not formatted well; along with the high probability that when the protection is lifted there will be substantial changes, I would recommend that it simply is left alone for the moment. But then again, I'm not an admin and defer to their wisdom, this is only my 2 cents. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I take your point Tiggerjay, but Wikipedia formatting should generally be followed wherever possible. Plus it gives the reader a chance to identify with the source they might be verifying. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit.--Rockfang (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Here is a source I would like to contribute: http://www.bosnewslife.com/cis/turkmenistan/3595-turkmenistan-security-forces-raid-bible-class

There is a pdf file from Chritianity Today that I would like to upload. How do I do this? Spinkava (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are some more: http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=281 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=244 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=911 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=135 (More can be found at http://www.forum18.org) Spinkava (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Spinkava, I'm not sure that they would pass WP:RS. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I just now recieved news that the founder, Carl Stevens, has past away. Hopefully, more sources will get released soon. How is it coming with re-writing this article?68.55.179.241 (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I added e a Recent death tag to the Carl H. Stevens Jr. article.Tryster (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a source to verify this news? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see a notice on the GGWO home page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you google Carl Stevens, there are now several obituaries describing Carl Stevens' life.Spinkava (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)