![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 30 January 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi,
I'm a little suspicious of this article, please look at the following sentence:
"In August 2005, Gospel for Asia announced the launching of YTV, 24-hour TV network based in India, which will reach the lost in 120 nations across Asia, parts of Africa, and the Middle East. YTV stands for Yathra TV."
The use of the words 'the lost' refers to I suspect non believers. Since this is an article about a Missionary organisation I am almost certain I am right. If this guess is correct then it implies a values judgement that non christians are need to be found and converted. The reference to 'lost' should be replaced with 'non christian'. The sentence sounds like it could be advertising material for this organisation, which would imply that it was written by the organisation.
Juan Incognito 02:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Juan Incognito
What's with this sentence?
GFA operates a radio network to access hard to reach areas with the love of Jesus, and operates in 92 languages. -- 24.218.46.78 05:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Gospel for Asia is an extremely influential Christian missionary organization. It would be great to update this article and get some more sources other than its own website (which needs to be changed per wikipedia policy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristamaranatha ( talk • contribs) 04:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy and guidelines state:
It is NOT appropriate to cite an article almost solely to the topic's webpages, and this DOES NOT establish notability. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I would further point out that much of the material is LUDICROUSLY POV & hagiographical -- to the point of being little better than an advertisement. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
"...contact page cited do list physical addresses of all of them."
This is WP:Complete bollocks, as can be seen from this contacts list:
None of these indicate that GfA has a physical office in these countries.
US & Canada appear to be the only locations where they have a physical office. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, if the presence of their websites stating their presence in those countries doesn't satisfy you (I didn't think their presence would be challenged) then third-party sources can easily be found. I'll update the article accordingly.
hrafn, regarding your previous reverts, you are right that most of the citations I used were from self-published sources, mostly as an aid to readers in order to show that the organization actually made such claims. However, there were enough reliable third party sources cited to establish notability. Next time I add content I'll be sure to use primarily secondary and tertiary sources. Jaydge ( talk) 05:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the credibility of Gospel for Asia is not in question, and the fact that they assert on the contact page of their international website that they have international offices in the aforementioned countries should be enough to establish the verifiability of this claim. It's not necessary for an editor to have to go to such lengths to prove something the organization in question (whose notability has been established) already asserts themselves. Jaydge ( talk) 05:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
"Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves..." and "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
* the material is not unduly self-serving; * it does not involve claims about third parties; * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; * there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; * the article is not based primarily on such sources.
The websites of GFA's international offices, which self-claim their presence in the respective countries and usually cite their registered charity number, are not the primary sources on which the article should be based, but they are legitimate enough to make the claim (about themselves) that they have said offices. Also, it is informative about the organization in general to know in which locations they operate - this does not fit under Wikipedia's definition of "Directory" because it has a greater purpose to provide substance to the description of the organization. Jaydge ( talk) 18:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and does not contain all data or expression found elsewhere on the Internet.
...
Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.
...
As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
Information about the "GFA's international offices" post office boxes is trivia. Wikipedia IS NOT here to mindlessly repeat everything an organisation happens to says about itself -- even when that information doesn't fail
WP:SELFPUB. Things like location of head office, head of the organisation, and the organisation's stated aim are reasonable. Most articles would not contain a listing of any of the satellite physical offices of an organisation -- let alone its mere mail-drops -- let alone all of them.
Hrafn
Talk
Stalk(
P)
19:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Points well taken. As I sat back and thought about it, this information, while valid, is not highly useful in an encyclopedia. It will be best to focus on what people are most interested in learning about the organization. Thanks for your help here, as I'm still somewhat new to wikipedia editing. Jaydge ( talk) 15:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The one book cited contains viewpoints contrary to Gospel for Asia's own claims and actions, the mention of which could unnecessarily damage their reputation. Gospel for Asia does not oppose Western missionary work, as this author accuses them of doing. Instead they point out (throughout their literature, namely Revolution in World Missions<ref>Yohannan, K.P. (2004). Revolution in world missions : one man's journey to change a generation. Carrollton, TX: GFA Books. ISBN 1595890610.</ref> ) the lack of Western support toward indigenous missionary work in places where the indigenous people are generally much more effective at operating their own church outreach, and in turn they promote awareness and support of indigenous missions among Western Christian churches that are well equipped with the resources to make a huge difference among less privileged people groups. The book, Revolution in World Missions, also points out the hypocrisy of Christians who claim to follow Christ's example of caring for the poor and needy spending lavishly on needless luxuries while the world's poor go hungry and many have no lasting hope or sense of purpose.
Gospel for Asia also do not oppose humanitarian work as such, but rather use it is a cornerstone of their ministry (for example, their Bridge of Hope child sponsorship program which provides education, food and hygiene for thousands of children. However, they do believe that humanitarian work has little lasting value if it is not done with the intention of communicating the hope that Christians believe can be found in the Gospel, because that concerns the eternal state of a person's soul. (See chapter 12 of Revolution in World Missions, "Good Works and the Gospel.")
I'm not an expert editor so I'm not sure how to bring this information into the article in a meaningful way without unknowingly violating some Wikipedia guideline, but I think the article would benefit from better sources of information than just one book, especially one that presents Gospel for Asia in a negative light and contrary to their own claims. Jaydge ( talk) 19:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 19:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Also please discuss how your source compares with Weltmission auf neuen Wegan (German translation of Revolution in World Missions) p148, also by Yohannan -- which is the source Bergunder cites for his claim). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 19:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Former Indian presidents A. P. J. Abdul Kalam and Pratibha Devi Singh Patil demonstrated appreciation to the organisation[citation needed]and their plea stated that "there is no negative remark about them from any corner".[15]
Dr A P J Abdul Kalam and Pratibha Devi Singh Patil were the ex presidents of India and if their name is being discussed in this article then there should be solid reference of them commenting about this organization. Here the editor had mentioned lines quoted in a petition filed by Gospel For Asia. If the editor is not able to give reference of a creditable source I think the names of the above mentioned personalities should be removed. Benedictdilton ( talk) 21:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules state that for controversial issues, like the case of accusations against Yohannan, there must be a neutral representation: "the differing points of view" got to be "presented as differing points of view, not as widely accepted facts". Before I edited, the last versions were widely and evidently failing to do so. They even deviate from the central topic (which is the ministry Gospel for Asia) and dedicated most of the article talking about the allegations against Yohannan, in a non-neutral manner, more critical than descriptive
-- Goose friend ( talk) 22:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC).
I've been accused of writing from a "fan's point of view". However, I think do not wrote what I wrote as giving a fact. Wikipedia states that an article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views. Yohannan's own response, and the view of its supporters should be included here (descriptively) to make this article neutral. Certainly, the neutrality of the "controversy" section has been also highly biased, as written from a "hater's point of view".-- Goose friend ( talk) 22:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear Goose friend the points provided over there are almost close to what mentioned on the reference provided. Changes are made only to avoid the copyright violation. The meaning of both the point mentioned here and the reference are same. Some of the references were more critical than what mentioned on the points. Benedictdilton ( talk) 01:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I request admin and moderators to keep a close eye on the following articles Gospel for Asia, K. P. Yohannan, Believers Church there is a clear indication that a there can be again a massive puppetry as happened in the talk page of K. P. Yohannan. Benedictdilton ( talk) 01:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to know why my contributions has been deleted. I consider it censorship and lack of neutrality. It's unfair not to allow in the article the statements of the very person involved here, K. P. Yohannan, who has the right to defend his integrity and the integrity of his organization. I agree that this should be presented in the article descriptively, but it should be presented in order to reach true neutrality.
There are several malicious contents with intent to defame and destroy the reputation of entire organisation... Certain persons with vested interest are continuously trying to malign the reputation of the organisation by uploading defamatory contents on Internet.
— [4]
What I wrote had "creditable" sources from newspapers, and the organization itself, or its branches. Please tell which parts of the text above are written from a "fan's point of view". I think the fragment should be allowed, in order to introduce the point of view of the organization itself, as this article is supposed to talk about the organization encyclopaedically. Talking about the organization's own point of view may not suit biased criticisms or anti-Christian prejudices, but although opinions on a given issue differ, they should be presented. Please read Wikipedia:NPOV dispute and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.-- Goose friend ( talk) 23:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Recently, attempts have been made to delete sourced material regarding the financial accountability issues facing GFA. Doing a quick Google News archive search shows that the majority of the coverage the group has been getting has been focused on these matters, from sources both church-focused (ChristianityToday, World Magazine, Christian Post) and not (Toronto Star, Daily Beast). As such, it would be irresponsible not to cover this matter in this article. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 13:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gospel for Asia. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
A link to the GFA F.C. was recently deleted as confusing. While the team is using the logo of the Believers Church. I've not found references that make clear what relationship the team has to the subject of this article. (There is this piece on GFA having a student team, but that was years before the supposed 2013 establishment of the FC that has its own page.) Keep an eye out for sources that explain any link between the team and the organization. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Don't have time to integrate this into the article at the moment, but GfA has lost their right to bring money into India. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I was just thumbing through this page, when I realized that several citations are "401 Not Found", from Patheos. I don't know why this is, but I tried to find articles that would give me the same info to just update the sources, but couldn't find any. So with the majority of the last two sections not having any sources to verify its validity, I believe its best to remove these sections for the time being so we don't sacrifice the credibility of this page (as per the rules on citing sources). Any thoughts? James Smith1967 ( talk) 04:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Below article recently decided court case regarding the rubber plant. I nominate section for deletion due to unverified claims that couldn't be proven in court. http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2018/apr/13/harrisons-case-setback-may-cost-kerala-government-dear-in-erumeli-airport-project-1800878.html Dt502 ( talk) 15:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello NatGertler,
Thank you for your concern on the Gospel for Asia edits I've made. I'm fairly new to the platform so I'm just curious what specifically was wrong with my additions? According to your comment, my edits were propaganda and improperly sourced. But all of the information I added was sourced by government documents as well as publicly accessible information such as Gospel for Asia's settlement and claims. I thought it provided resolution to the lawsuit referenced on the wiki.
Let me know how I can improve my presentation of that information.
Thanks, Mckaylagrace ( talk) 16:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much for this. The explanation helps a lot! -- Mckaylagrace ( talk) 14:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Nat Gertler -- I have a couple questions in response to your edits if you don't mind helping me out:
If it is the only information available and it is a reliable source, can it be used as a reference? If not, I'm wondering if the footnotes--and the text they support--should be removed for references 47 and 48 as well.
Thanks for your time and help -- Mckaylagrace ( talk) 16:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm requesting some input from moderators. I'm concerned that there is no section addressing the conclusion of the civil suit against Gospel for Asia, but I don't believe I have the experience and knowledge necessary to make such a large contribution. I tried in the past but received opposition in the way I presented the information.
For example, I was told the document I used as reference was a copy of a settlement contract and that these actually make very poor sources on the settlement, as they are WP:PRIMARY and are not designed to be clear nor to show context nor to be updated.
By the same logic, the footnotes--and the text they support--should be removed for references 47 and 48.
The website where the "Final Order and Judgment" [1] which I referenced, states, "This website is authorized by the Court, supervised by counsel and controlled by the Settlement Administrator approved by the Court. This is the only authorized website for this case."
As of now, there is very little further reporting on the matter, so this would have to be the only source available. I've also noticed that several other wiki sites reference similar documents without being contested.
Again, I do not have the experience necessary to present and format the information properly, but I believe it should be presented in a fair and balanced way. As of right now, the topic of the lawsuit is left open-ended here.
Thank you for your time. Mckaylagrace ( talk) 16:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
References
I hope that that helps. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 23:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The article, Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources observes that “Identifying and using primary sources requires careful thought and some extra knowledge on the part of Wikipedia’s editors.” It goes on to note three criteria for a primary source:
Is this source self-published or not? The legal settlement we wish to quote is not self-published, it is a court-issued document.
Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject?
It is from an independent, third party—the United States District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division.
The document is housed on an independent and third-party site, www.gfaclassaction.org, and is “authorized by the court.” The company curating the site, "Heffler Claims Group". Retrieved 24 September 2019., has been administering class action notices for over 50 years.
Is this source primary? Yes, it “constitute[s] the entire agreement among the settling parties.”
So clearly, the settlement agreement is a primary source. And as Wikipedia notes in the article cited above, “Every possible combination of these three traits has been seen in sources on Wikipedia. Any combination of these three traits can produce a source that is usable for some purpose in a Wikipedia article.”
Nat contends that legal documents are inherently suspectable to misinterpretation and can’t simply be quoted because of that risk. But of the secondary sources written about the settlement, none were written by lawyers or even legal experts. A reporter who may or may not have been trained in journalism but was not trained in law read the documents on www.gfaclassaction.org, picked out what he or she deemed relevant points, and gave his or her own interpretation of them.
Because of these things, I don’t see how it provides superior understanding to block quotes from the legal document until a journalist or scholar without legal training happens upon the sentence, decides he understands it, and quotes it. I think this exactly why the Wikipedia article cited above noted that “’Secondary’ does not mean ‘good.’”
And indeed right now there are already several citations in the article to primary legal sources (albeit sometimes pointing to the wrong page) to www.gfaclassaction.us (which now redirects to www.gfaclassaction.org), which directs to primary legal documents in references 46, 47, and 48. References 42 and 48 are also direct citations of legal documents. How is it right to quote from primary legal sources when it comes to the legal maneuvering and positioning before settlement but a violation of Wikipedia rules upon settlement?
That’s why I think the most dispassionate, even-handed, non-prejudicial way is to keep quoting from the primary legal documents. That way, people can make up their own minds. It seems like the salient facts in the settlement are these:
Gospel for Asia must return $37 million in donations to its donors, less the $12.2 million in plaintiff’s attorney fees and $750,000 in attorney expenses.
Gospel for Asia did this, not as an admission of guilt, but because the ministry would cease to exist if it didn’t settle.
KP Yohannan’s wife must resign her position on the Gospel for Asia board and be replaced by a person acceptable by the plaintiff and defendant
Plaintiff will have a seat on the Gospel for Asia board for three years.
Plaintiff and defendant stipulate that all donations designated for use in the field were ultimately sent to the field. The key complaint of the plaintiff was the donations designated for use in the field were not sent to the field.
Right now, the article contains none of this information, but instead selected information about legal maneuvering that took place for the settlement. That makes the article more than incomplete, it makes it prejudicial, and as such, not up to the standards of Wikipedia. This is a fact that Wikipedia itself acknowledges, noting “This section may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources.” This is exactly what I’m trying to fix, and would welcome your help since I’m being blocked from doing so. Mckaylagrace ( talk) 18:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Mckaylagrace ( talk · contribs), who has for a year been doing substantial edits to this article with a pro-GFA bent, has now disclosed that they are a paid editor, and his since continued doing substantial edits on the article. Their edits need to be reviewed carefully. They are encouraged not to edit the article directly, but to suggest or request edits on this Talk page, due to their strong conflicts of interest. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 23:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I have been advised to suggest edits here instead of implementing them myself as it may be perceived as a COI. I had previously made edits before being advised against it, but the edits made were only to correct misinformation and provide updates to ongoing stories. To continue this effort of updating the info here, I would suggest providing information in the Affiliate Offices section. Some helpful unbiased info can be found for different offices on the respective country's charity registration sites. For example, founding date and office locations may be found at Canada's charity registry.
Would any fellow editors like to help find and insert this info? -- Mckaylagrace ( talk) 17:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The final paragraph of the Believer's Church section reads, "GFA has been criticized for engaging in predatory proselytization while providing aid in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami. The Hindu American Foundation condemned the organization for pressuring vulnerable tsunami victims to convert to Christianity, setting up illegal unregistered orphanages and forcing orphans recite the Christian prayers several times a day.[76]"
I suggest that this information be removed or edited as it contains emotionally leading verbiage from a source that would naturally be in opposition to the organization as a "competing" religious movement. The source link is also unavailable, so the many claims cannot be verified. Mckaylagrace ( talk) 18:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
References
I see that information on the lawsuit has been added to the lead. I wonder if to keep this neutral the information should include a citation as well as a clear statement that the settlement included the stipulation that all funds intended for the field went there. Otherwise the lead excludes the fact of no admission of guilt. The $50 million is also inaccurate. The settlement was $37 million according to the sources in the lawsuit section further down the page. The intro/lead also fails to give any scope of the ministry. Mckaylagrace ( talk) 20:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Two previous edits were reverted, removing key information from the lede of this entry:
1. This is my previous edit that was removed from the lede:
“Gospel for Asia supports national workers through Christ by sponsoring national ministries to minister to people's needs, sponsoring children, investing in community development, and helping families in need of care or during disasters.”
I understand a potential removal of the term “in Christ," but the remaining information in the previous quote is 100% factual and supported by many reliable sources. The lede is to not only define the group as being non-profit but to give readers a snapshot of what non-profit work the organization renders.
2. I find it redundant to include information about the lawsuit in the lead because there is a lengthy section of the entry dedicated to this topic. But, if the lede must include information on the lawsuit (although I believe it to be unnecessary), it should at least include the final verdict that “all funds designated to the field were sent to the field and used for ministry purposes; and no Individual Defendant, as defined herein, received any improper personal gain or enrichment from or related to donated funds".[55] This will at least ensure that the description of the event is complete, factual and unbiased. I recommend this replace the current, uncited description of the class action lawsuit in the lede. It is a disservice to readers to inaccurately state that the settlement was $50 million. The settlement paid to donors was $37 million, the rest was attorney fees.
Shelbychesbro ( talk) 17:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)shelbychesbro
Declining request for Third Opinion: Dear fellow editors. I am declining the request for a 3O here. User Shelbychesbro is a WP:SPA [8] (if not a sock puppet, though I make no allegation) and clearly unable to edit from a neutral point of view. I commend Nat Gertler's patience. @User Shelbychesbro; if you are genuine in your desire to improve the encyclopedia please have a look at some of the other 6,243,111 articles here, the vast majority of which - unlike this article - you can edit with no conflict of interest. Please do not continue to attempt to edit this article. With all respect, Springnuts ( talk) 09:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I am uncertain of the reliability of The Karma News, who are reporting fresh legal entanglements for the Believer's Church, which is funded through GFA. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 02:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Material was just added regarding Rwanda, but it's all sourced to a single article from OneNewsNow.com - a site that has fared poorly on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard in the past. This article is pretty clearly WP:CHURNALISM of this piece written by a "GFA Staff Writer". -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 23:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 30 January 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi,
I'm a little suspicious of this article, please look at the following sentence:
"In August 2005, Gospel for Asia announced the launching of YTV, 24-hour TV network based in India, which will reach the lost in 120 nations across Asia, parts of Africa, and the Middle East. YTV stands for Yathra TV."
The use of the words 'the lost' refers to I suspect non believers. Since this is an article about a Missionary organisation I am almost certain I am right. If this guess is correct then it implies a values judgement that non christians are need to be found and converted. The reference to 'lost' should be replaced with 'non christian'. The sentence sounds like it could be advertising material for this organisation, which would imply that it was written by the organisation.
Juan Incognito 02:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Juan Incognito
What's with this sentence?
GFA operates a radio network to access hard to reach areas with the love of Jesus, and operates in 92 languages. -- 24.218.46.78 05:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Gospel for Asia is an extremely influential Christian missionary organization. It would be great to update this article and get some more sources other than its own website (which needs to be changed per wikipedia policy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristamaranatha ( talk • contribs) 04:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy and guidelines state:
It is NOT appropriate to cite an article almost solely to the topic's webpages, and this DOES NOT establish notability. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I would further point out that much of the material is LUDICROUSLY POV & hagiographical -- to the point of being little better than an advertisement. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
"...contact page cited do list physical addresses of all of them."
This is WP:Complete bollocks, as can be seen from this contacts list:
None of these indicate that GfA has a physical office in these countries.
US & Canada appear to be the only locations where they have a physical office. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, if the presence of their websites stating their presence in those countries doesn't satisfy you (I didn't think their presence would be challenged) then third-party sources can easily be found. I'll update the article accordingly.
hrafn, regarding your previous reverts, you are right that most of the citations I used were from self-published sources, mostly as an aid to readers in order to show that the organization actually made such claims. However, there were enough reliable third party sources cited to establish notability. Next time I add content I'll be sure to use primarily secondary and tertiary sources. Jaydge ( talk) 05:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the credibility of Gospel for Asia is not in question, and the fact that they assert on the contact page of their international website that they have international offices in the aforementioned countries should be enough to establish the verifiability of this claim. It's not necessary for an editor to have to go to such lengths to prove something the organization in question (whose notability has been established) already asserts themselves. Jaydge ( talk) 05:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
"Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves..." and "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
* the material is not unduly self-serving; * it does not involve claims about third parties; * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; * there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; * the article is not based primarily on such sources.
The websites of GFA's international offices, which self-claim their presence in the respective countries and usually cite their registered charity number, are not the primary sources on which the article should be based, but they are legitimate enough to make the claim (about themselves) that they have said offices. Also, it is informative about the organization in general to know in which locations they operate - this does not fit under Wikipedia's definition of "Directory" because it has a greater purpose to provide substance to the description of the organization. Jaydge ( talk) 18:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and does not contain all data or expression found elsewhere on the Internet.
...
Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.
...
As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
Information about the "GFA's international offices" post office boxes is trivia. Wikipedia IS NOT here to mindlessly repeat everything an organisation happens to says about itself -- even when that information doesn't fail
WP:SELFPUB. Things like location of head office, head of the organisation, and the organisation's stated aim are reasonable. Most articles would not contain a listing of any of the satellite physical offices of an organisation -- let alone its mere mail-drops -- let alone all of them.
Hrafn
Talk
Stalk(
P)
19:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Points well taken. As I sat back and thought about it, this information, while valid, is not highly useful in an encyclopedia. It will be best to focus on what people are most interested in learning about the organization. Thanks for your help here, as I'm still somewhat new to wikipedia editing. Jaydge ( talk) 15:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The one book cited contains viewpoints contrary to Gospel for Asia's own claims and actions, the mention of which could unnecessarily damage their reputation. Gospel for Asia does not oppose Western missionary work, as this author accuses them of doing. Instead they point out (throughout their literature, namely Revolution in World Missions<ref>Yohannan, K.P. (2004). Revolution in world missions : one man's journey to change a generation. Carrollton, TX: GFA Books. ISBN 1595890610.</ref> ) the lack of Western support toward indigenous missionary work in places where the indigenous people are generally much more effective at operating their own church outreach, and in turn they promote awareness and support of indigenous missions among Western Christian churches that are well equipped with the resources to make a huge difference among less privileged people groups. The book, Revolution in World Missions, also points out the hypocrisy of Christians who claim to follow Christ's example of caring for the poor and needy spending lavishly on needless luxuries while the world's poor go hungry and many have no lasting hope or sense of purpose.
Gospel for Asia also do not oppose humanitarian work as such, but rather use it is a cornerstone of their ministry (for example, their Bridge of Hope child sponsorship program which provides education, food and hygiene for thousands of children. However, they do believe that humanitarian work has little lasting value if it is not done with the intention of communicating the hope that Christians believe can be found in the Gospel, because that concerns the eternal state of a person's soul. (See chapter 12 of Revolution in World Missions, "Good Works and the Gospel.")
I'm not an expert editor so I'm not sure how to bring this information into the article in a meaningful way without unknowingly violating some Wikipedia guideline, but I think the article would benefit from better sources of information than just one book, especially one that presents Gospel for Asia in a negative light and contrary to their own claims. Jaydge ( talk) 19:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 19:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Also please discuss how your source compares with Weltmission auf neuen Wegan (German translation of Revolution in World Missions) p148, also by Yohannan -- which is the source Bergunder cites for his claim). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 19:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Former Indian presidents A. P. J. Abdul Kalam and Pratibha Devi Singh Patil demonstrated appreciation to the organisation[citation needed]and their plea stated that "there is no negative remark about them from any corner".[15]
Dr A P J Abdul Kalam and Pratibha Devi Singh Patil were the ex presidents of India and if their name is being discussed in this article then there should be solid reference of them commenting about this organization. Here the editor had mentioned lines quoted in a petition filed by Gospel For Asia. If the editor is not able to give reference of a creditable source I think the names of the above mentioned personalities should be removed. Benedictdilton ( talk) 21:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules state that for controversial issues, like the case of accusations against Yohannan, there must be a neutral representation: "the differing points of view" got to be "presented as differing points of view, not as widely accepted facts". Before I edited, the last versions were widely and evidently failing to do so. They even deviate from the central topic (which is the ministry Gospel for Asia) and dedicated most of the article talking about the allegations against Yohannan, in a non-neutral manner, more critical than descriptive
-- Goose friend ( talk) 22:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC).
I've been accused of writing from a "fan's point of view". However, I think do not wrote what I wrote as giving a fact. Wikipedia states that an article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views. Yohannan's own response, and the view of its supporters should be included here (descriptively) to make this article neutral. Certainly, the neutrality of the "controversy" section has been also highly biased, as written from a "hater's point of view".-- Goose friend ( talk) 22:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear Goose friend the points provided over there are almost close to what mentioned on the reference provided. Changes are made only to avoid the copyright violation. The meaning of both the point mentioned here and the reference are same. Some of the references were more critical than what mentioned on the points. Benedictdilton ( talk) 01:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I request admin and moderators to keep a close eye on the following articles Gospel for Asia, K. P. Yohannan, Believers Church there is a clear indication that a there can be again a massive puppetry as happened in the talk page of K. P. Yohannan. Benedictdilton ( talk) 01:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to know why my contributions has been deleted. I consider it censorship and lack of neutrality. It's unfair not to allow in the article the statements of the very person involved here, K. P. Yohannan, who has the right to defend his integrity and the integrity of his organization. I agree that this should be presented in the article descriptively, but it should be presented in order to reach true neutrality.
There are several malicious contents with intent to defame and destroy the reputation of entire organisation... Certain persons with vested interest are continuously trying to malign the reputation of the organisation by uploading defamatory contents on Internet.
— [4]
What I wrote had "creditable" sources from newspapers, and the organization itself, or its branches. Please tell which parts of the text above are written from a "fan's point of view". I think the fragment should be allowed, in order to introduce the point of view of the organization itself, as this article is supposed to talk about the organization encyclopaedically. Talking about the organization's own point of view may not suit biased criticisms or anti-Christian prejudices, but although opinions on a given issue differ, they should be presented. Please read Wikipedia:NPOV dispute and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.-- Goose friend ( talk) 23:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Recently, attempts have been made to delete sourced material regarding the financial accountability issues facing GFA. Doing a quick Google News archive search shows that the majority of the coverage the group has been getting has been focused on these matters, from sources both church-focused (ChristianityToday, World Magazine, Christian Post) and not (Toronto Star, Daily Beast). As such, it would be irresponsible not to cover this matter in this article. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 13:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gospel for Asia. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
A link to the GFA F.C. was recently deleted as confusing. While the team is using the logo of the Believers Church. I've not found references that make clear what relationship the team has to the subject of this article. (There is this piece on GFA having a student team, but that was years before the supposed 2013 establishment of the FC that has its own page.) Keep an eye out for sources that explain any link between the team and the organization. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Don't have time to integrate this into the article at the moment, but GfA has lost their right to bring money into India. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I was just thumbing through this page, when I realized that several citations are "401 Not Found", from Patheos. I don't know why this is, but I tried to find articles that would give me the same info to just update the sources, but couldn't find any. So with the majority of the last two sections not having any sources to verify its validity, I believe its best to remove these sections for the time being so we don't sacrifice the credibility of this page (as per the rules on citing sources). Any thoughts? James Smith1967 ( talk) 04:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Below article recently decided court case regarding the rubber plant. I nominate section for deletion due to unverified claims that couldn't be proven in court. http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2018/apr/13/harrisons-case-setback-may-cost-kerala-government-dear-in-erumeli-airport-project-1800878.html Dt502 ( talk) 15:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello NatGertler,
Thank you for your concern on the Gospel for Asia edits I've made. I'm fairly new to the platform so I'm just curious what specifically was wrong with my additions? According to your comment, my edits were propaganda and improperly sourced. But all of the information I added was sourced by government documents as well as publicly accessible information such as Gospel for Asia's settlement and claims. I thought it provided resolution to the lawsuit referenced on the wiki.
Let me know how I can improve my presentation of that information.
Thanks, Mckaylagrace ( talk) 16:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much for this. The explanation helps a lot! -- Mckaylagrace ( talk) 14:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Nat Gertler -- I have a couple questions in response to your edits if you don't mind helping me out:
If it is the only information available and it is a reliable source, can it be used as a reference? If not, I'm wondering if the footnotes--and the text they support--should be removed for references 47 and 48 as well.
Thanks for your time and help -- Mckaylagrace ( talk) 16:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm requesting some input from moderators. I'm concerned that there is no section addressing the conclusion of the civil suit against Gospel for Asia, but I don't believe I have the experience and knowledge necessary to make such a large contribution. I tried in the past but received opposition in the way I presented the information.
For example, I was told the document I used as reference was a copy of a settlement contract and that these actually make very poor sources on the settlement, as they are WP:PRIMARY and are not designed to be clear nor to show context nor to be updated.
By the same logic, the footnotes--and the text they support--should be removed for references 47 and 48.
The website where the "Final Order and Judgment" [1] which I referenced, states, "This website is authorized by the Court, supervised by counsel and controlled by the Settlement Administrator approved by the Court. This is the only authorized website for this case."
As of now, there is very little further reporting on the matter, so this would have to be the only source available. I've also noticed that several other wiki sites reference similar documents without being contested.
Again, I do not have the experience necessary to present and format the information properly, but I believe it should be presented in a fair and balanced way. As of right now, the topic of the lawsuit is left open-ended here.
Thank you for your time. Mckaylagrace ( talk) 16:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
References
I hope that that helps. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 23:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The article, Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources observes that “Identifying and using primary sources requires careful thought and some extra knowledge on the part of Wikipedia’s editors.” It goes on to note three criteria for a primary source:
Is this source self-published or not? The legal settlement we wish to quote is not self-published, it is a court-issued document.
Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject?
It is from an independent, third party—the United States District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division.
The document is housed on an independent and third-party site, www.gfaclassaction.org, and is “authorized by the court.” The company curating the site, "Heffler Claims Group". Retrieved 24 September 2019., has been administering class action notices for over 50 years.
Is this source primary? Yes, it “constitute[s] the entire agreement among the settling parties.”
So clearly, the settlement agreement is a primary source. And as Wikipedia notes in the article cited above, “Every possible combination of these three traits has been seen in sources on Wikipedia. Any combination of these three traits can produce a source that is usable for some purpose in a Wikipedia article.”
Nat contends that legal documents are inherently suspectable to misinterpretation and can’t simply be quoted because of that risk. But of the secondary sources written about the settlement, none were written by lawyers or even legal experts. A reporter who may or may not have been trained in journalism but was not trained in law read the documents on www.gfaclassaction.org, picked out what he or she deemed relevant points, and gave his or her own interpretation of them.
Because of these things, I don’t see how it provides superior understanding to block quotes from the legal document until a journalist or scholar without legal training happens upon the sentence, decides he understands it, and quotes it. I think this exactly why the Wikipedia article cited above noted that “’Secondary’ does not mean ‘good.’”
And indeed right now there are already several citations in the article to primary legal sources (albeit sometimes pointing to the wrong page) to www.gfaclassaction.us (which now redirects to www.gfaclassaction.org), which directs to primary legal documents in references 46, 47, and 48. References 42 and 48 are also direct citations of legal documents. How is it right to quote from primary legal sources when it comes to the legal maneuvering and positioning before settlement but a violation of Wikipedia rules upon settlement?
That’s why I think the most dispassionate, even-handed, non-prejudicial way is to keep quoting from the primary legal documents. That way, people can make up their own minds. It seems like the salient facts in the settlement are these:
Gospel for Asia must return $37 million in donations to its donors, less the $12.2 million in plaintiff’s attorney fees and $750,000 in attorney expenses.
Gospel for Asia did this, not as an admission of guilt, but because the ministry would cease to exist if it didn’t settle.
KP Yohannan’s wife must resign her position on the Gospel for Asia board and be replaced by a person acceptable by the plaintiff and defendant
Plaintiff will have a seat on the Gospel for Asia board for three years.
Plaintiff and defendant stipulate that all donations designated for use in the field were ultimately sent to the field. The key complaint of the plaintiff was the donations designated for use in the field were not sent to the field.
Right now, the article contains none of this information, but instead selected information about legal maneuvering that took place for the settlement. That makes the article more than incomplete, it makes it prejudicial, and as such, not up to the standards of Wikipedia. This is a fact that Wikipedia itself acknowledges, noting “This section may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources.” This is exactly what I’m trying to fix, and would welcome your help since I’m being blocked from doing so. Mckaylagrace ( talk) 18:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Mckaylagrace ( talk · contribs), who has for a year been doing substantial edits to this article with a pro-GFA bent, has now disclosed that they are a paid editor, and his since continued doing substantial edits on the article. Their edits need to be reviewed carefully. They are encouraged not to edit the article directly, but to suggest or request edits on this Talk page, due to their strong conflicts of interest. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 23:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I have been advised to suggest edits here instead of implementing them myself as it may be perceived as a COI. I had previously made edits before being advised against it, but the edits made were only to correct misinformation and provide updates to ongoing stories. To continue this effort of updating the info here, I would suggest providing information in the Affiliate Offices section. Some helpful unbiased info can be found for different offices on the respective country's charity registration sites. For example, founding date and office locations may be found at Canada's charity registry.
Would any fellow editors like to help find and insert this info? -- Mckaylagrace ( talk) 17:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The final paragraph of the Believer's Church section reads, "GFA has been criticized for engaging in predatory proselytization while providing aid in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami. The Hindu American Foundation condemned the organization for pressuring vulnerable tsunami victims to convert to Christianity, setting up illegal unregistered orphanages and forcing orphans recite the Christian prayers several times a day.[76]"
I suggest that this information be removed or edited as it contains emotionally leading verbiage from a source that would naturally be in opposition to the organization as a "competing" religious movement. The source link is also unavailable, so the many claims cannot be verified. Mckaylagrace ( talk) 18:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
References
I see that information on the lawsuit has been added to the lead. I wonder if to keep this neutral the information should include a citation as well as a clear statement that the settlement included the stipulation that all funds intended for the field went there. Otherwise the lead excludes the fact of no admission of guilt. The $50 million is also inaccurate. The settlement was $37 million according to the sources in the lawsuit section further down the page. The intro/lead also fails to give any scope of the ministry. Mckaylagrace ( talk) 20:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Two previous edits were reverted, removing key information from the lede of this entry:
1. This is my previous edit that was removed from the lede:
“Gospel for Asia supports national workers through Christ by sponsoring national ministries to minister to people's needs, sponsoring children, investing in community development, and helping families in need of care or during disasters.”
I understand a potential removal of the term “in Christ," but the remaining information in the previous quote is 100% factual and supported by many reliable sources. The lede is to not only define the group as being non-profit but to give readers a snapshot of what non-profit work the organization renders.
2. I find it redundant to include information about the lawsuit in the lead because there is a lengthy section of the entry dedicated to this topic. But, if the lede must include information on the lawsuit (although I believe it to be unnecessary), it should at least include the final verdict that “all funds designated to the field were sent to the field and used for ministry purposes; and no Individual Defendant, as defined herein, received any improper personal gain or enrichment from or related to donated funds".[55] This will at least ensure that the description of the event is complete, factual and unbiased. I recommend this replace the current, uncited description of the class action lawsuit in the lede. It is a disservice to readers to inaccurately state that the settlement was $50 million. The settlement paid to donors was $37 million, the rest was attorney fees.
Shelbychesbro ( talk) 17:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)shelbychesbro
Declining request for Third Opinion: Dear fellow editors. I am declining the request for a 3O here. User Shelbychesbro is a WP:SPA [8] (if not a sock puppet, though I make no allegation) and clearly unable to edit from a neutral point of view. I commend Nat Gertler's patience. @User Shelbychesbro; if you are genuine in your desire to improve the encyclopedia please have a look at some of the other 6,243,111 articles here, the vast majority of which - unlike this article - you can edit with no conflict of interest. Please do not continue to attempt to edit this article. With all respect, Springnuts ( talk) 09:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I am uncertain of the reliability of The Karma News, who are reporting fresh legal entanglements for the Believer's Church, which is funded through GFA. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 02:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Material was just added regarding Rwanda, but it's all sourced to a single article from OneNewsNow.com - a site that has fared poorly on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard in the past. This article is pretty clearly WP:CHURNALISM of this piece written by a "GFA Staff Writer". -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 23:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)