Talk:Hillsong Conference

Image copyright problem with Image:Hillsong logo.png

The image Image:Hillsong logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hillsong Conference: Attempt 2

I have resurrected this page as Hillsong Conference has gained more notability since, and deserves its own page.

I have removed obviously biased content, mostly that which was biased and POV from Hillsong's Perspective, and kept as many things as matter of fact as possible. I will continue to improve the article and appreciate assistance in doing so.

I think the article should be an overall view of the conference, not a history of the conference. Pages for individual years should be considered if they are notable, but I don't feel anything before 2015 is notable enough to warrant a page. Hillsong Conference 2016 onwards has continually gained much media attention.

I have also proposed deletion of Hillsong Conference 2006 as it was a strange article and did not contribute much, and contained ramblings of someone who may have had a fall out with the church (see talk page). Please avoid bias in the new article, from both perspectives. One this article has reached a good standard, I will link Hillsong Church to this page for the conference section. L32007 (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE

People keep removing parts cited which are self sourced. Just a reminder that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field".

Cheers, L32007 (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Self-sourced material is NOT appropriate for article content, UNLESS it is mentioned in a Independent Source. See: WP:IS#Why_independent_sources_are_required

Independent sources are a necessary foundation for any article. Although Wikipedia is not paper, it is also not a dumping ground for any and all information that readers consider important or useful. For the sake of neutrality, Wikipedia cannot rely upon any editor's opinion about what topics are important. Everything in Wikipedia must be verified in reliable sources, including statements about what subjects are important and why. To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation. A source too close to the subject will always believe that the subject is important enough to warrant detailed coverage, and relying exclusively upon this source will present a conflict of interest and a threat to a neutral encyclopedia.

WithOUT Independent Sources for material, the article becomes WP:UNDUEly full of material promoting the subject. If some aspect is important enough that people OTHER than the subject of the article think it is important, it will be covered in an Independent Source. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I can piece together independent sources for everything on the page, but again. WP:Selfsource says that it's okay to use self source as long as the conditions are met. There's no point getting outside sources when they're not needed. For example the schedule, It's mentioned in ELLE and GQ, but it's easier just to link to the example schedule & easier for people who want to do more research on the topic. L32007 (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC) (Edited for clarity on L32007 (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC))

I'm fine with using self-sourced material IN ADDITION to Independent Sources, (so link first to Hillsong Conference's page describing whatever in greater detail, and then also to the Independent Sources that mention that specific topic) as long as we show that the Conference's PR employees and a Wikipedia editor are not the only people who think that the topic is important. Again, this is to avoid the UNDUE coverage an editor could generate by duplicating everything on the subject's website.---Avatar317^(talk) 05:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)