Talk:Generation of Youth for Christ

Previously deleted page

I just realised that this article was previously deleted, under the title "General Youth Conference", which I just added as a redirect. I believe it is notable, and neutrally worded now. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Without speaking to notability, I think there may reamain here issues with weasel words and with bias. I can offer a couple of examples. If I knew more about the topic, I would try to clean this up myself, but my knowledge is limited, and I'm not finding (in a cursory search) much good source material.

Regarding weasel words, the fourth paragraph includes this sentence: "However, the growth of GYC has also been greeted with opposition and criticism." Readers are not told by whom, when, or in what form. Following: "Often, a lack of accurate information has led to a misunderstanding, if not a deliberate misinformation, about GYC in certain quarters of the church." What misunderstanding(s)? What misinformation, and how is it known to be deliberate? Which "quarters of the church"? Finally, "Similarly, those who have reasons to oppose what GYC stands for have tried to exploit this lack of knowledge to discredit the movement and all those known to be associated with GYC." Who so opposes? What are their reasons? How have they "tried to exploit" the ignorance? How are these attempts known?

Regarding bias, the first and third opening paragraphs provide a number of examples in the use of terms such as "thriving," "radically," "life-transforming," "unique," and "serious." If these words were quotations or paraphrases, it would be easy to understand their context. As they stand, they sound like advertisement or promotion. —SkipperPilot (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It turns out that the Wikipedia word I was looking for, in talking about bias, was "peacock terms." —SkipperPilot (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi SkipperPilot, I agree with you. these recent edits were made just before you added the "weasel" banner. In my opinion there was much helpful material (although unsourced or sourced from the primary source of the group's own website), and unhelpful too. Please, be bold and do some heavy editing. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made a few edits as well as moving the discussion of growing pains to its own section. Still haven't included any "hard" sources. Ekoester (talk) 14:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This page lacks sufficient in article citations.

This page lacks neutrality, and reads more like an advertisement.

"Since its first official conference in 2002, GYC has provided teaching and training along side real-life opportunities for service. This has proven a winning combination among young people serious about whole-hearted service to Christ and his world."

Wiki Articles must maintain Neutrality. They must report only fact pertinent to an Encyclopedic article.

"Christian leaders and laypeople alike agree that youth ministry is a top priority. What is not so clear is how to do it most effectively. An unknown author once described a fitting analogy, "If a large group of young people were to find themselves stationed in a lush tropical paradise at the foot of a rugged mountain it is only natural that some would soon tire of the comfortable existence at the bottom and seek to conquer the towering peak above." Are youth best reached at the base of the mountain, surrounded by the comforts and realities of modern life? Or are they to be "called up higher" with the expectation that if given the proper equipment and training they will reach the peak of usefulness to Christ and the church?"

In example th following passage reads like an essay. Questions have no place in an Encyclopedia entry.

These are but a few of the most glaring errors.

I encourage anyone interested in this article to please visit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_contributors%27_help_page

If Wiki standards are not met this article will be flagged for deletion.

machghostine 4-14-2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Machghostine (talk • contribs) 19:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Old Adventist Youth Conference section

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)

In Australia, the Adventist Youth Conference (formerly known as the Australia Youth Conference) is a related unofficial training conference organised and run by members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Australia, which targets Adventist youth.

History

The inaugural meeting was held on 23–26 February 2006, with a subsequent meeting on 15–18 February 2007; both meetings were held in Melbourne, Australia. The 2008 conference was held in Sydney, from 14–17 February. The 2009 conference was also held in Sydney, from 5–8 February. Two separate conferences are planned for 2010.

References

Unilateral Edits

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. _WikiMan^One 22:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

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. _WikiMan^One 23:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

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. _WikiMan^One 23:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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? _WikiMan^One 00:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

• 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. _WikiMan^One 01:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You guys do what you will with the article, fight it out. _WikiMan^One 01:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

Protected

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)

I would like to seek consensus to roll this article back to the version [1] 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. _WikiMan^One 23:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

Oh. Awesome. Arigatougozaimasu, Nihonjoe sama. _WikiMan^One 23:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

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. _WikiMan^One 00:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• I searched on Google Scholar [2] 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. _WikiMan^One 00:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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.. _WikiMan^One 00:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

Recent IP Edits

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)

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)

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)

Read WP:OTHERSTUFF. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

It is PR fluff and hence fails the NPOV policy. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not PR fluff. It is relevant information just like any other article has.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't include long quotes. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

It accounted for over a third of the article. That is too much. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

• Removing referenced material from an article is usually unwise. I'd suggest that after you've been bold, and had it reverted, that you then discuss why you made the change. LHM 02:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And now he has removed more sections from this article. This is getting close to disruptive editing. I would revert but I don't want to get into an edit war.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

AfD

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)

I disagree this is a sort of stub that needs worked on. Not deleted.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sigh. Good luck with this, you two. If you're really interested in saving this article, FVK, I'd suggest you find some mentions of the group in reliable, 3rd party sources. LHM 02:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Serious concerns about this article:

1. I'm not convinced that it is a notable topic--at least not yet.
2. Much of the article consists of little more than quotes from official sites. I would say around 1/2 of the article relies on long quotes.
3. There is little in the way of reliable, 3rd party referencing. As mentioned above, most "references" are from sites close to this religious organization.

I may look into this further, when I have some time. If these issues are unfixable, the article may well merit deletion at some point. Best, LHM 02:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I wanted to remove the quote from its website, but apparently, you thought it should be included. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to stop. Not everyone who disagrees with you has an agenda. LHM 02:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There are many third party references I could give. Yes this article in it's present form is pretty poor. That why it needs strengthened. I say give us some time to fix it up. I can find a variety of sources for it. Some are already on other wiki articles. Especially if we get Colin or Donald back here.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest stubbing the article, down to what can be sourced from reliable, 3rd party sources. At that point, the AFD will likely end with a "keep" result. LHM 02:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that what I was trying to do? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll work on that. Of course the IP will want it down within 10 minutes or he'll post a "waiting" comment on here like he's doing to me on other places.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Have we considered merging this article with one of the following: Seventh-day Adventist Church, History of Seventh-day Adventist Church, the GYC movement is certainly making an impact on Adventist youth. Is that enough for a stand alone article? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A merge & redirect outcome would be something I would support. LHM 05:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure I'd support merging it if we could find a proper home. I still believe it COULD become a stand alone, but a merge would work out too.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The article just barely passes WP:N. If we applied ourselves we should be able to expand. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been working on several Review articles about GYC. I don't think the issue should be focused on information from non-Adventist sources. There are many Seventh-day Adventist articles here at Wikipedia which are properly sourced from church journals not directly related to the topic addressed. The Adventist church has one of the most impressive archives available online. I think we can make this article quite respectable. I am still wondering, though, whether this whole article could be a sub-section on the Seventh-day Adventist Church article. The movement is a bonafide youth movement within Adventism and is notable on that basis. I have found over 500 Adventist-related articles at Wikipedia. This GYC article is as notable as many others in this category. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Donald. I believe however we could find 1 or 2 non SDA sources, but yes most should come from the church since they have the best records and information.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No, this is not correct. What is required is that there needs to be significant 3rd party coverage. LHM 20:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Third party does not have to equal non SDA. If that were the case then half the aricles on the Seventh-day Adventist project page would be gone. There's only a little non SDA coverage of these specific groups, but they are known enough to be on wiki.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does. And if there are a significant number of articles on WP that are sourced only to SDA sources, then they need to be merged to more notable topics as well. LHM 02:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

These other articles have already survived attempts to merge or delete them by the community. The point of Donald, Lionel, myself and others is that right now we have a double standard. Previously SDA article were accepted if there were enough third party sources not directly tied to the organization or person the article was discussing. That allowed many many SDA articles to flourish using specific SDA sources that were independent, had editorial guidelines, and were professional news magazines or journals. Now however you are saying that only non-SDA sources are reliable, which essentially then means you would have to merge or delete most of the articles in the SDA history or theology sections. The rest of us argue that using SDA sources if they have editorial oversight separate from the denominational leadership makes these articles reliable and therefore GYC should be given this same opportunity. I don't think you realize the implications fully.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It doesn't matter what has happened at other articles. This particular article relies exclusively on sourcing that is SDA-related. That doesn't mean those sources are somehow unethical or unreliable, just that--without substantial third-party coverage--they don't provide sufficient notability for a stand-alone article.

Additionally, you refer here to "the rest of us." Please do not imply that there is anything remotely like a consensus on your side of the discussion. I am a completely uninvolved editor here, who initially came here to undo that IP's blanking. Upon further review, it became clear to me that this article should be a redirect to a larger, notable topic. I (and others who have disagreed with you) have been made out to be some kind of enemy or something. I would ask again, as I have a few other times, that this not be treated as a WP:BATTLEground upon which to make a stand. LHM 21:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it as a battleground, but rather as a significant example of what could happen to SDA-related articles. Why are we defining "third party coverage" as non SDA? I think we can use consensus from other SDA articles as an argument for precedent. That's the way wikipedia operates right? Once a principle is accepted it applies to other simliar articles unless the community consensus changes. By "rest of us" I mean 80% of the people who edit SDA-related articles. You can tell me if I'm wrong, but I can almost guarantee they do not want 200+ articles merged into one or two(or even 50). You have to remember that even though we are only discussing GYC (one article) our decisions could/should be applied to all of the related articles. I am appreciate for your involvement, but I don't know if you understand the situation completely. What I have been seeing here with the SDA related articles is knowledge vs. law and policy. Those who are SDA and know the instituions regularly edit and speak from a position opposite yours. Those who argue from a policy perspective often little if any knowledge about the articles or subjects they are discussing on. They might understand certain policies better. What we need is a way to merge the two. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me be clear, here. It doesn't matter at all to me that "those who are SDA...speak from a position opposite" of mine. What matters is whether their views align with the policies that this project uses. Apparently, they do not. It doesn't surprise me at all that a lot of editors "who are SDA" would think there needed to be an article about almost everything having to do with the religion. That has absolutely no effect on what needs to be on this project. And I will repeat what I've tried to get through to you over and over and over: the fact that various stubs about random SDA-related topics doesn't matter at all. We are discussing only the fate of this article, and will deal with the others as the need arises. As we seem to be talking past each other (Donald seems far more reasonable about this issue) this will be my last reply to your posts here. LHM 01:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and it doesn't say that those SDA topics don't matter at all. It says that it depends on the situation. Please do not put words in the article that are not there. It says that when discussing the fate of related articles sometimes comparsion is relevant and sometimes it's not. You say Donald is reasonable becaues he agrees with you. He recognizes that the crop of editors out against the SDA related articles won't budge and he has nothing to gain. It's too bad those with knowledge couldn't be listened to more. Some good article will be lost in this process. Oh well, let the wikijustice be done.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think it is time to attempt a merge with an article of a larger entity. My concern remains: let's not lose the story of how GYC began. (It is significant for the documentation of how a grass roots idea can make a difference.) Merging with the Seventh-day Adventist independent ministries or History of the Adventist Church (recent history, of course); either seems workable. Is there anything that stands in the way of such a merge being attempted? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

  I think you're probably right. A merge will require a bit of reworking at the target article, particularly with respect to the creation of relevant subsections. This shouldn't present too much of a hurdle to those who are knowledgeable about the SDA, however. LHM 02:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

  Ok. I think the History of the Seventh-day_Adventist Church#Early 21st century can be worked. I will try. If not, a revert is acceptable to me. I am not sure of the redirect mechanism, I will need some help on that, I think. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Without changing the status, or reading, of the Generation of Youth for Christ article, I have put some information on the History of the Seventh-day_Adventist Church#Early 21st century article. It probably needs more editorial work, but it seems to be appropriate to that section. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Brief glance, it looks fine so far. Are you ready to redirect this, or do you need more time to merge relevant content into parent articles? LHM 04:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I am okay with a redirect now, but there is some information that might be important to other editors which might get lost. It may be wise to let a day or two go by before doing the redirect thing??? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to add more of the relevant information? There are a lot of key points in the article that I don't see in the re-direct. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

FAQS.ORG

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)

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 {{infobox}}), 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)

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

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."[3]
I've posted it on WP:RSN. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Lots of Work to do

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)

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)

Notability concerns remain, merge proposal forthcoming.

While the AFD resulted in "no consensus", it did not result in "keep." I will be working up a straight "merge" proposal based upon the notability problems with this article, hopefully within a very short time. The notability tag I placed was removed by Lionel with an edit summary claiming that "surving AFD is prima facie evidence of notability" and this is quite simply not the case. The tag should remain, until and unless third-party sourcing is found for the article. LHM 23:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No consensus means de facto keep. You can try merging the article but there was no consensus for such an action because it would have involved the loss of a lot of great information that is relevant to the organization. Third party source is found many places in this article. Granted I know LHM disagrees but he is making a statement which has not been accepted as policy. No where has it been said that sources such as Spectrum Magazine, Adventist Today, or even Review magazine are not "third party sources". This is a debate and should be understood as such.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Those sources are openly SDA sources. They make so secret about it. Thus, not "third party", in any way. And "no consensus" means "no consensus." I've been following a lot of AFDs, and participating in a few, and when the consensus is to "keep" that's what it says. That AFD has absolutely no bearing on any potential merge discussions, that may be forthcoming. Also, if I may, I didn't even support the filing of the AFD in the first place by BelloWello's IP. I would have greatly preferred a quieter merge discussion, which I think my more nuanced recommendation at the AFD made clear. LHM 23:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Again you are making a logical fallacy by assuming that which has not yet been proven.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what you're saying here. Are you denying that these sources make no secret of their SDA affiliation? And what part of my statement was a logical fallacy? LHM 23:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

1. The reason Bello nominated the article was "I would like to nominate this article for deletion as it does not fulfill any of the notability guidelines (emph. mine)." After 7 days of discussion an admin did not find this reason justified.
2. The article was in fact kept per WP:NotEarly: "the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept. (emph. mine)"
3. There is no consensus for the tag. You should respect the result of the AfD and the closing admin. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

   I will repeat, a result of "No consensus" is not the same as "keep." There was no consensus for any one result, therefore the status quo remains, at least for now. It in no way makes a statement about the notability of the article, nor does it preclude proposing a merger at the talk page, or placing a notability tag on the article. LHM 00:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

So you reject the language I cited from WP:NotEarly? Not good. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

LHM again I would like to see an example of an article you would merge GYC with.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There were a couple of examples offered at the AFD. It's likely to be the "History" one, but that will (obviously) be a part of my merge proposal, so I reserve the right to change my mind on that between now and when I write up that proposal. (For the record, if the only two choices at the AFD had been "keep" and "delete", I've come to the conclusion that I would have recommended "weak keep, with caveats.") LHM 00:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What about the fact that all of the examples at the AFD which were offered for the merge have the same "problem" as the GYC article? --Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• I would request that Lionel stop removing the notability tag while discussions are on-going on the talkpage. Tagging an article with a concern does not require "consensus", but is rather a way for an editor to express a specific concern about an article. Continually removing it is unacceptable. LHM 00:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but repeatedly reverting (including more than 3 times in 24 hours) also I don't believe is acceptable. We'll see what comes out of it. Where can this discussion go to?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

LHM you are incorrect. A tag does require consensus. Per WP:TAGGING "... normal talk page discussion should proceed, per consensus-building." Let me point out the following:

1. You do not have consensus
2. You are at 3RR and if you revert again you will in all likelihood be blocked. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hence LHM has done this--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Note

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

Neutrality concerns

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[4] gets 175 words in the article (and top billing in the 'Reception' section), whilst a lengthy 952-word critique[5] (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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2015

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)

I am suggesting a removal of subjective labels such as "Progressive Adventist" and "liberal." In the first sentence I have removed the phrase "by Progressive Adventists." There is controversy over GYC in various Adventist communities, some who are not progressive. In the second sentence I've removed the parenthetical label "liberal," since that is not what Spectrum calls itself. It is, therefore, a subjective label that does not factually apply. In the fourth sentence, I have removed the phrase "the Progressive Adventist magazine" and replaced it with "another independent Adventist magazine..." These changes, I believe, more accurately and objectively label the groups mentioned in this section of the article.

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)

External links modified

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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.atoday.org/article.php?id=111
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://news.3abn.org/?p=1266
• Added {{dead link}} 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.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2024

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)

 Not done: Wikipedia does not need to conform to "branding" RudolfRed (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)