Talk:Generation of Youth for Christ

message: :This really doesn't seem directly relevant to the article. I am moving it here, perhaps it can have its own article if secondary sources can be found? WikiManOne (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Adventist Youth Conference section 

message: I do not want to get in an edit war, however some of the content additions are not allowable on wikipedia. First, the use of external links, particularly in the lead, is unallowable per WP:EL, I will be removing it. Also, your wording violates WP:NPOV and information in articles should generally not use primary sources as citations when secondary sources exist that contradict the primary ones. Overall, the recent edits include multiple problems which I will now revert. Please do not add this content again without first discussing it on the talk page. WikiManOne 22:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-added the link to historic Adventism as a piked link for conservative in the lead that was removed by User:6791hope. GYC is generally considered conservative and the historic Adventism article seems to be the appropriate article to link to per WP:LINK, if you have any comments lets talk about it. Also, the addition of mainstream without a citation appears to be WP:WEASEL. WikiManOne 23:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Relevant statement from the main Seventh-day Adventist article: "The conservative end of the theological spectrum is represented by historic Adventists, who are characterized by their opposition to theological trends within the denomination, beginning in the 1950s." If you disagree with conservative being linked to historic then perhaps you should seek consensus for the change there. WikiManOne 23:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Conservative Adventism is mainstream as been evidenced by the most recent General Conference session.  Historic Adventism, on the other hand, is entirely different and does lie on the far right spectrum. You are purposefully misrepresenting GYC by linking conservative to historic. Mainstream in no way fits the description of  WP:WEASEL. 6791hope (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

text:  GYC is widely known to be a grassroots movement founded by college students. Citing Ervin Taylor's article that he later admits is not based on factual information but rather his own commentary based on heresay is not WP:NPOV. 6791hope (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources are needed for that, WP:SECONDARY sources are needed. If you truly believe that historic is not an accurate characterization of conservative, then I suggest you take that up on the main Adventist article talk page and reach consensus on that. For now, in multiple places on wikipedia, conservative is linked with historic and there doesn't seem to be much reason not to follow that precedence on the GYC article. Also, this is more a question, I am assuming you do not have any connection to GYC? Your edit seemed very promotional in nature. Widely known is great, but it needs sources. I have a secondary source for it being supported by the Michigan Conference, do you have a secondary source for it being funded by college students? WikiManOne 00:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no connection to GYC other than periodic attendance.  Where is your source for "GYC is generally considered conservative" or "an expression of conservative Adventist theology"? Generally considered is great, but it needs sources.  6791hope (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

text: *Like I said, I give up improving this article to give it a WP:NPOV for now. You can fight it out with Bonnie since both of you seem interested in pulling the article to represent your POV without sources. As for citations for the ones you ask, Adventist Today and Spectrum Magazine are great sources for independent coverage of Adventist related matters and I believe they have both stated it. WikiManOne 01:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

text: You guys do what you will with the article, fight it out. WikiManOne 01:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the third-party template for sourcing. I'm also bewildered by the content of sections which list speakers - it has the potential to be never-ending but the significance of the detail, from the point of view of someone who is neither particularly religious nor US-based, escapes me. Are the lists of speakers really necessary? Could they not be turned into a paragraph, which is more readable/less daunting to the curious outsider. Sections of this article are starting to resemble a directory. Sitush (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unilateral Edits 

message: Until all of you can learn to work together and stop edit warring, this page will be protected. Please discuss concerns you have about content here on the talk page, come to consensus, and then we can see about unprotection. This uncooperativeness is not acceptable. Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to seek consensus to roll this article back to the version  it was before the edit war began necessitating the protection, from there we can work to improve expand it if necessary. I note that the version specified included two links to articles on the organization from secondary sources that were removed in the subsequent edit war. WikiManOne 23:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been reset to the version before the first revert by one of the two new accounts. It has also been tagged as not meeting any notability requirements and needing third-party sources not related to the Adventist movement. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Oh. Awesome. Arigatougozaimasu, Nihonjoe sama. WikiManOne 23:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move. I tagged 3rd party but wasn't sure about notability. I think that the notability issue takes precedence so, please, can anyone justify the existence of this article? If it can be justified then we move on to the third party issue. My gut feeling & a small amount of research suggests that it fails on the initial grounds but I am not an expert in these matters. What I do not want to see is someone using the "there are other similar articles" defence for notability. Just because there are others does not make this one notable, nor indeed the others. I must admit that this point is one I have tried and failed to carry in the case of obscure (to me) railway stations but I will nonetheless keep trying to justify the illogical nature of that particular defence. Sitush (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I do not speak for notability of this entity, I simply edited it because the previous version was obviously promotional in nature and included secondary references (which btw were from Independent adventist outlets). However, even if those outlets "verify" the content on this page, I do not think that Adventist outlets, whether independent or church-run can establish "notability" on wikipedia. I note that a google news search brings up no results so this may well be something to bring up for deletion. WikiManOne 00:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

text: *I searched on Google Scholar  which brought up one hit, apparently this organization also publishes books, one of which was quoted by a blog that for some reason qualifies for inclusion in scholar. Still, nothing to really establish notability imo. You would think conferences of that size would get at least passing mention in local news. WikiManOne 00:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

text: There has been a fair amount of warring recently. Give it a week or two in order to see if others who were involved reply here. Logically, one would expect that they would in order to justify their recent efforts. My gut feeling is that they will not but let's see what happens. Should, say, a fortnight elapse with no cogent grounds for asserting notability then it should be taken to AfD. I don't think the less consensual deletion policies can apply given that the issue has clearly been contentious.Sitush (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

text: * Delete - (nominator) My vote is to have the article deleted for the reasons previously stated regarding the lack of notability.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonnie1290 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Bonnie, if you want to nominate this article for deletion, you have to do that at WP:AfD. It seems like this might be the way to go.. WikiManOne 00:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the way to go given the circumstances. But I feel that everyone should have a little longer before it goes to AfD. This article attracted a fair amount of attention and I think a little courtesy regarding pre-AfD nomination is due. I would presume that those who were heavily involved in recent issues had it marked on their watchlist and they are entitled to conduct a discussion. I find it odd that so far they have gone 100% silent, but there are many "real life" reasons why this might be the case. Let's just sit on it for a week or so in order not to burden AfD with even more hassles than are already there. You never know, there may be a way back from the current position. Sitush (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: I noticed that some new IP's recently edited this article. Their edit involved the removal of some very good material that I think should be included. I went ahead and reverted those edits since I think we should discuss here before we remove anything that could have value. I can go ahead and add the sources that are needed to strengthen the section. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Both IP edits (mine and the other IP) were quite good edits. There is no reason for a list of conferences to be posted, neither is there reason for PR fluff. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not PR fluff. It provides quality information. The listing of the conferences is relevant information as well. I have seen this done on other types of articles like this.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:OTHERSTUFF. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, and this information does not qualify. It's is relevant and has sources. Additionally I can provide more sources.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is PR fluff and hence fails the NPOV policy. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not PR fluff. It is relevant information just like any other article has.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't include long quotes. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotes aren't that long. If you want them removed you should get some kind of consensus for that. Right now you have none, yet you arbitrarily engage in removal.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It accounted for over a third of the article. That is too much. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the article is still under development. It's like taking food for a baby. We need to keep what we have in this article till we have it at a decent length. Until then removing whole section will reduce it back to a bare bones stub. Where you or another of your IP twins can nominate it for deletion.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Lithistman, would you start a deletion discussion? I can't since I am an IP. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not. I have yet to investigate fully the notability of this topic. And I certainly do not respond favorably to requests made from an editor who is engaged in blatant edit warring against  what is the current consensus. I may put it up for deletion at a later time, but not at the present. I've asked you at your talkpage, and I'll ask you more plainly here: please disengage from this article. LHM 02:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 50.72.159.224 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Bello, and I might add Bello was an alternate account of our very own WikiManOne, whose disruption is also evident at this article. – Lionel (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have communicated directly with the administrator who blocked the IP, and he has informed me that the IP's having been blocked in no way affects the current AFD. LHM 08:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent IP Edits 

message: I would like to nominate this article for deletion as it does not fulfill any of the notability guidelines. This is further detailed by past editors under the section entitled "Protected." Thank you. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree this is a sort of stub that needs worked on. Not deleted.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD 

message: Hrafn wrote:
Undid revision 438045235 by DonaldRichardSands (talk)Grossly WP:UNDUE weight to mere mention in a directory listing) (undo) 
I have reverted to the previous edit:
FAQS.ORG lists GYC in comparison to other organizations. They give information about income by means of graphs. 
As I have said before. We need a third party to settle the issues you raise. You have expressed your hostility toward editors who work on Adventist articles. Nothing can be further accomplished by unmoderated discussions between us, in my opinion. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: DonaldRichardSands: there are hundreds of such sites on the internet, listing potted summaries on hundreds of thousands (millions?) of organisations (companies, charities and the like). They are perfectly acceptable for filling in details (e.g. in a ), but should not be given a section to themselves. As to "hostility", your own hands are not exactly clean -- as this comment demonstrates. If you want to call for a WP:3O or a WP:RFC on the issue of how much space this source warrants, then you're welcome to (as is any editor) -- just don't expect me to give credence to your protestations of victimhood. 14:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

text: And such material is certainly not a substitute for independent WP:SECONDARY coverage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

text: On closer examination, I'm not even sure that this is a WP:RS: "Faqs.org does not guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of any information on this site.  Use at your own risk."I've posted it on WP:RSN. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAQS.ORG 

message: I have been asked by a few editors to attempt a rescue of this article from deletion. This is not an easy task. Hrafn is probably one of the most persistent, yet knowledgeable, editors I have met so far. Mind you I am very new to Wikipedia. I have also noticed that Hrafn accepted the Spectrum article after he read its strong denunciation of GYC. This shows a bias, but I can live with that. Hrafn, I would alert you to these comments, but you have told me not to do that because you are watching articles of interest to you. (You see, I do pay attention to your advice. lol ) 
Now back to the article. Its still highly inadquate; a mess, frankly. If Hrafn stays with us, the article will be amazing, if it survives. :)
Any editors reading this, if you are at all inclined, please help. It does not matter to me if you are for or against this article. I have learned a lot from Hrafn and he has not yet said one good thing, except to praise that negative article by Spectrum. A copy of this post is placed on other related WP pages DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I voted Delete for this article and I feel sorry doing that, because I feel like someone will be upset. However the beautiful thing of wikipedia is that, should the article get deleted, an admin can userfy it for you and you can rework on its latest version adding independent sources, which are currently missing. Once that is done, you can again repost the article on the main page. Hope that helps, and also that you will understand the reasoning behind my vote.Divide et Impera (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of Work to do 

message: This is ludicrous. We now have blatant tag-teaming (see the edit summaries, as well as the above "warning" from one of the involved parties), simply because I still have notability concerns, and have stated my plans to propose a merge. I will still be proposing the merge, but I'm not going to engage here further until I do. It's too stressful at this point, to deal with the behavior that is currently happening. Best, LHM 00:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tag-teaming is what you call editing by those who you disagree with? I merely mentioned 3RR because I noticed you were at that level. Forgive me for trying to be nice. Yes you are free to propose your merge, just as was proposed a week ago with the result being 'no consensus'. Blessings in your editing. Hopefully our discussion will be productive.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm talking about the fact that you left an edit summary that basically admitted to it. ("Joining the edit war.") It's unfortunate that things are going down this way. It's not very productive to draw battle lines and refuse to retreat from them, but that is what is being done, and I just won't engage in it. LHM 01:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Noticed "edit war" was in parentheses meaning some might see it that way. You and Lionel were going back and forth long long before I made my one edit. If you really want to complain go after him not me. I reverted you once. He did so more. I tried to keep it on Talk. Yes it is unfortunately that we have editors reverting multiple times and attacking then saying their going to "not engage" only to return and throw a few more grenades.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: @L: are you aware that accusations of tag teaming without evidence is a serious charge and a violation of WP:NPA? Fountain is perfectly within his right to warn you of edit warring. (1) Because you are and (2) a warning is required before we report you to WP:3RRN. Fountain's comment about "joining the edit war" was a poor choice of words and I'm sure he regrets it. Now: are you going to (a) improve the article (b) post this merge you keep going on and on about or (c) continue to edit war over nothing?  – Lionel (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In reverse order: A tag expressing legitimate concerns is not "nothing"; I've not prepared the proposal as of yet; and,I'm not going to work on this article, because I think it should be merged. LHM 01:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

text: When FVK said he was "joining the edit war", I think that is pretty solid evidence that he at least was both tag-teaming and edit-warring.  Given his history of edit-warring, it was both a poor choice of words and an unwise edit.  FVK - I know you mean well, but this is exactly the mindset you need to get away from.  There is no entitlement to edit war, and you get a lot less rope after several blocks for the same thing.  That being said, I agree with Lionel that fighting over a tag is not very useful.  LHM - if your real interest is in making a merge proposal, then I suggest focusing on that.--Kubigula (talk) 05:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your measured response. One major concern I have with removing the tag, is per Wikipedia:TAGGING#Removing_tags. From reading through what that essay has to say, it appears that it's not common practice to simply remove a tag when an editor has explained the placement  of that tag at the talk page. FVK was even asked by Jclemens to self-revert, and refused to do so. That said, I'm thinking through exactly what the best process for merging this article with a parent article would look like. I'll be proposing the merger for discussion at some point--hopefully soon. Best, LHM 05:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: ;Self-description
*I have already made this point, but will repeat it -- the use of Justin Kim's description of his own organisation for most of the history section is inappropriate. This is exacerbated by the usage of decidedly non-neutral language in the material based upon this source ("enthusiastically" etc).
;WP:DUE
*I cannot help noticing that a short, 199-word (positive) anecdote gets 175 words in the article (and top billing in the 'Reception' section), whilst a lengthy 952-word critique (admittedly not all of which is on-topic) merits only 62 words (and gets its quote-template pulled). Balanced? I think not.
;Editorialising
*POV editorial claims (with no direct support in the cited sources -- now removed) that "Attending Young People are Enthusiatic", "Many of the youth attending report a renewal of spiritual living.", "Some 'Liberals' Caution about the Affects on Innocent Youth", "Church Officials and GYC Leaders Cooperate Better Now", "GYC Unreported in Secular Media", "Even though the impact of the GYC on the Adventist church is growing, the non-Adventist media have largely left these events unreported."
I would suggest that this article's tone, weight-to-sources, and reason-for-existing appear to be largely partisan and promotional, making the lack of objective non-SDA (whether pro- or anti-GYC SDA) sources all the more critical. I am tagging the article for these neutrality concerns. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality concerns 

message: Concerns within the church
The GYC annual gatherings have generated controversy within the Adventist community. One of the authors for Spectrum, an independent Adventist magazine, wrote, "What I am saying is that emotional, anti-intellectual, conservative movements like GYC don’t accomplish much in the long run in spite of all the hoopla. They are ineffective in achieving their own long-term goals and can be spiritually harmful to the young innocents who blame themselves for delaying the Second Advent."[7] Ervin Taylor, writing for another independent Adventist magazine, Adventist Today, criticized the movement, challenging claims that GYC is a grass-roots organization and pointing to tax documents showing GYC is well funded. He also suggested that GYC has a conservative ideology.[8]
Buebchen85 (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y  S A Y L E S  19:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Generation of Youth for Christ. 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/20111005041552/http://www.hopevideo.com/media_with_gyc_2003.htm to http://www.hopevideo.com/media_with_gyc_2003.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005041609/http://www.hopevideo.com/media_with_gyc_2004.htm to http://www.hopevideo.com/media_with_gyc_2004.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.atoday.org/article.php?id=111
*Added  tag to http://news.3abn.org/?p=1266
*Added  tag to http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/200/200292184/200292184_200912_990.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018043321/http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=4054 to http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=4054
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: POSSIBLE TRADEMARK VIOLATION
Possible Trademark violation with "Youth For Christ"...name should be updated to "Generation.Youth.Christ" which is the org's current branding.  See www.gycweb.org 73.86.180.75 (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Wikipedia does not need to conform to "branding" RudolfRed (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2024