Talk:Day of Prayer for the Peace of Jerusalem

message: The fact that this group, club or organization has only been producing this event or activity since 2004 suggests to me that it may not meet the notability requirement for Wikipedia.  If it had been consistently produced for 10 or 20 years it might be a different story altogether.
Since this group, club or organization claims an international following and participation, can we back this up with unbiased newspaper and other independent media coverage for the last two years?
Also, the language used to describe Israel as the "Promised Land" is presented here in very non-neutral terms, expressing agreement or advocacy for the agenda of the subject group, club or organization.  This can probably be cured with a simple re-write. OfficeGirl 17:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 100 million people not notable? President, prime ministers and 1000 "notable" leaders in the Christian community not good enough? :) Sources added. Also, the language used by promoters is "Promised Land" I'll add quotes to demonstrate. --Home Computer 17:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide Reliable Sources on the 100 million? Reports in independent news media, for example? Fan-1967 17:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On it. Chek out the Israel today link. Peace --Home Computer 17:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Home Computer, these concerns we have raised were not an attempt to disparage the group, club or organization made the subject of this article, but to render assistance in making the article better and more suitable for Wikipedia.  The additional references you have provided appear to be only press releases from the subject club, group or organization and other participants in the event made the subject of the article.  These are original sources and self-published sources.  Original Research is not what goes in a Wikipedia article.  SURELY an even of the magnitude you have described has been covered by USA Today or the New York Times or CNN or some such independent new source?OfficeGirl 18:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, American media sources just might not be the most reliable when it comes to global events. I'm sure if you look into Israel National News you'll find what you're looking for. Or do a google search for it yourself and let us know what you come up with. Peace. --Home Computer 18:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article Needs Better Material 

message: Home Computer, my google search for Israel National News returns that it is a Zionist-biased publication.  And Israel Today is a biased source as well-- Their site states: "israel today is a Jerusalem-based news agency providing a biblical and objective perspective on local news." It appears quite clear that these are organizations which are participating actively in the "Day of Prayer for the Peace of Jerusalem," and that makes them part of the SUBJECT and not independent reporters of events. 
::And in any case, an article which only reprints the group, club, or organization's own press release is not very helpful in producing an encyclopedic resource.  
::If you don't trust American media sources to even mention an event which you claim has significant magnitude, maybe that is a personal bias on your part.  Have you even looked for an independent newspaper source that is not a religious-based publication?  You might be surprised at what you'll find.  If the information you are promoting here is true, I'll bet there's independent media coverage SOMEWHERE.  Even a completely atheist news reporter will say "Hey, look at all those people praying over there.  That's what a big bunch of people did today..."  And have you tried searching for resources from the BBC or other European media sources?  They're not American...
::Really, even though this article has problems with the references and source material, I'd like to see it developed into a balanced encyclopedic article that all Wikipedians can be proud of.OfficeGirl 18:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I DON'T have any problem at all with Christian/Jewish events.  In fact, as a personal note, I participate in Christian-based events whenever possible.  But WHAT I AM SAYING is that I think there ARE probably legitimate secondary sources who have published SOME kind of report of this "Day of Prayer" event.  I live in Alabama.  The secular media has a lot of respect for the fact that a majority of the people here are Bible-based Protestants, and they report on large prayer gatherings and religious rallies routinely (even though they are American media).  I am sure there are other areas where the major newspapers of each city report on religious events.  Try Atlanta, or the "Religion" section of newspapers in Chicago or even Las Vegas. Home Computer, I just think you haven't even tried yet to find an independent secondary source for your article.  There's no proof that the secular news media "didn't care" to report on your event.  I'll bet they did, somewhere.  I want to encourage you!  Roll up your sleeves and do some research cogent to an encyclopedic article!  Don't just advertise an agenda that is important to you, show in a neutral manner how this article BELONGS in Wikipedia. OfficeGirl 19:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, since you have so much energy vested in this article FEEL FREE to take your own suggestions and actually improve the article. --Home Computer 20:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel National News, Israel Today, biased non-independent sources 

message: All of the references listed thus far are from groups which support or participate in the group, club or organization made the subject of this article.  Organizations which are participating actively in the "Day of Prayer for the Peace of Jerusalem" are part of the SUBJECT and not independent reporters of events. If the event really did happen in 169 countries as is claimed, and if such notables as are named were truly present, then there must certainly have been a mention somewhere in an independent news source.  Once someone finds this information it will certainly address some of the notability and POV concerns tagged on this article. Until these are located, please leave the tags on the article.OfficeGirl 20:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you feel this way but churches agreeing to pray on the same day is just not that big of a deal to mainstream media. Israeli newspapers are cited because there was a rally there. It's been cited. --Home Computer 21:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, someone, add independent 3rd-party references, not just advocates for the "Day of Prayer" 

message: How many churches need to participate in an event to make it notable? To some no ammount of churches is notable. To an npov i would say that several thousand should suffice. See the external links for the numbers (in the thousands) of churches that have participated.
Also, endorsements by the Israeli government, endorsements by all sorts of well known Christian leaders.. it's notable allready. --Home Computer 21:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Home Computer, perhaps the issue is that you are unfamiliar with the style and manner of research needed for an encyclopedic article.  The consensus in this discussion is that your sources are not sufficient.  That doesn't mean that GOOD sources aren't out there.  Please stop deleting tags posted by other editors.  No one has deleted your edits.  You have not provided justification for deleting the edits by other Wikipedians, and you have deleted the tags in defiance of the general consensus of the participants in this discussion.  Sad thing is, you are only preventing other Wikipedians from finding out that their help is needed and WANTED to make this a very GOOD article!OfficeGirl 21:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, the information you added, though valuable, did not constitute proof of notability.  Don't think that the entire existence of this article depends only on you.  it may be that you don't have the experience or skills in research needed to fix the problems in this article.  That's why the tags are there.  To attract others who DO have the skills and experience and let them know that their help is needed.  You are extinguishing the S.O.S. beacon that would lead the cavalry here to come to the rescue! OfficeGirl 22:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahah.. show me the skills! Quit talking about it and fix it if it needs fixin. And I can't help it if notable Christians are not notable in your eyes.. thats not an article problem. --Home Computer 22:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Home Computer, you appear to be overcome with anger over this article.  I haven't said that any particular individual mentioned in the article is non-notable, and I haven't deleted anyone's name from the article.  Please stop making personal attacks.  Why not try leaving the article with the additions you have made and the tags calling out for help from other Wikipedians?  Give it time, maybe a few days or a week, for others to add helpful research.  You might be too emotionally involved in this article to assist in obtaining and presenting neutral material.OfficeGirl 23:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry that you feel attacked. I'm not angry. I think it's funny that you find mllions of people including former key members of the Israelli government non notable. I'm sorry if you thought I thought you deleted anything.. I haven't. I'm actually attempting to challenge you to do SOMETHING, perhaps ANYTHING to improve the article other than to talk and tag. Like showing me those sweet skills you were talkin about. :) Peace --Home Computer 00:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notabillity

message: The tags presently on this article allow other Wikipedians to come and help fix the problems in this article.  If you do not have the research skills and experience to find independent references for this article, do not fret or fear.  The tags being present on the article will attract the attention of other Wikipedians who DO have those skills, and then they will be able to lend a hand!
At present, facts derived from primarily Original Research have been added to the article.  These facts can be verified by independent sources which other Wikipedians can look up for you.  Give them a chance to see the tags and some time to do their research.  NO ONE has proposed this article for deletion, just for IMPROVEMENT!OfficeGirl 22:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When your definition of a good source is one that is not Jewish and one that is not Christian I do not think that your request is applicable. --Home Computer 22:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Home Computer, you are making accusations against me that are unsubstantiated.  Your sources don't meet Wikipedia guidelines, and that's what matters.  Original research and self-published sources from the organization that is the subject of the article, while interesting, aren't what is needed in the way of independent sources.  Neither are articles published by organizations that are participating in the event hosted by the group, club or organization made the subject of this article.  Give it some time, so that other Wikipedians who have stronger research skills and more experience can come to the article and help to accomplish something with it.  It doesn't all depend on you.  Let the tags do their work to get other people in on the process.  Be patient, Home Computer, and don't be angry.  Others will come and help if you let the tags stay up on the article.OfficeGirl 22:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The information that you added, when you deleted relevant tags without a consensus, was not sufficient to clear up the problems that the article still has.  I have addressed this every time you have arbitrarily removed the tags.  You have demonstrated that you do not understand what Original Research is and you weren't able to distinguish a press release from an actual article by an actual journalist.  Wait until another person whose research skills are more advanced comes along and helps with the article, rather than making personal attacks against those who have flagged cogent issues with the article.  Just because you LIKE this event or organization doesn't mean that you have been able to locate independent, reliable references to fix the problems with the article.  Stop making this a personal issue.  If you can't stop making it a personal issue, that's a good reason to take a couple days away from the article.  The article will probably still be here when you get back.OfficeGirl 00:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The OR tag wasn't even up. Perhaps you should take your own advice and take a step back, come back and examine the artiicle again.. your choice of notabillity tagging is particularly unusual. I'm not sure why you consider millions of Christians and leaders and the Jewish government non notable.. sure you have a problem accepting thier media but to say that thier endorsement qualifies as lack of notibility doesn't add up to good editorialism.--Home Computer 00:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not delete tags until a consensus has been reached 

message: Many sources are cited for this article. An argument could be made for the POV of those sources but the factually existance of this event has been indepentantly verified apart from the organization that created it. Namely several international denominations and governmetnal announcements. Also a few Christian news sources writing an article on it or interviewing about it. This satisfies the concerns in the 3 tags present.. 
notabillity guideline -  Removed, the indepentant sources apply to meet more than the bare minumum for an organization, read the guidelines for more.
citing more reliable sources -  I'm gonna leave that one up in case some people can come up with more, however I don't think there are more reliable sources than the ones provided. I don't think the even was covered by any major networks or anything. I cited the Israeli sources that did though.
Self published - Removed, an organization's webpage is good to cite what they claim and then to be backed up by the Israli government bullitens, the Israelli Newspaper, the smaller Christian newspapers, etc.. there's allot of good cited material that the tag doesn't account for.
Peace --Homecomputer∴Peace 19:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources and Notablillity