Talk:Day of Prayer for the Peace of Jerusalem

This Article Needs Better Material

The fact that this group, club or organization has only been producing this event or activity since 2004 suggests to me that it may not meet the notability requirement for Wikipedia. If it had been consistently produced for 10 or 20 years it might be a different story altogether.

Since this group, club or organization claims an international following and participation, can we back this up with unbiased newspaper and other independent media coverage for the last two years?

Also, the language used to describe Israel as the "Promised Land" is presented here in very non-neutral terms, expressing agreement or advocacy for the agenda of the subject group, club or organization. This can probably be cured with a simple re-write. OfficeGirl 17:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

100 million people not notable? President, prime ministers and 1000 "notable" leaders in the Christian community not good enough? :) Sources added. Also, the language used by promoters is "Promised Land" I'll add quotes to demonstrate. --Home Computer 17:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide Reliable Sources on the 100 million? Reports in independent news media, for example? Fan-1967 17:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

On it. Chek out the Israel today link. Peace --Home Computer 17:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Israel national news should do nicely as well yes? --Home Computer 18:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Home Computer, these concerns we have raised were not an attempt to disparage the group, club or organization made the subject of this article, but to render assistance in making the article better and more suitable for Wikipedia. The additional references you have provided appear to be only press releases from the subject club, group or organization and other participants in the event made the subject of the article. These are original sources and self-published sources. Original Research is not what goes in a Wikipedia article. SURELY an even of the magnitude you have described has been covered by USA Today or the New York Times or CNN or some such independent new source?OfficeGirl 18:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, American media sources just might not be the most reliable when it comes to global events. I'm sure if you look into Israel National News you'll find what you're looking for. Or do a google search for it yourself and let us know what you come up with. Peace. --Home Computer 18:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Israel National News, Israel Today, biased non-independent sources

Home Computer, my google search for Israel National News returns that it is a Zionist-biased publication. And Israel Today is a biased source as well-- Their site states: "israel today is a Jerusalem-based news agency providing a biblical and objective perspective on local news." It appears quite clear that these are organizations which are participating actively in the "Day of Prayer for the Peace of Jerusalem," and that makes them part of the SUBJECT and not independent reporters of events.

And in any case, an article which only reprints the group, club, or organization's own press release is not very helpful in producing an encyclopedic resource.

If you don't trust American media sources to even mention an event which you claim has significant magnitude, maybe that is a personal bias on your part. Have you even looked for an independent newspaper source that is not a religious-based publication? You might be surprised at what you'll find. If the information you are promoting here is true, I'll bet there's independent media coverage SOMEWHERE. Even a completely atheist news reporter will say "Hey, look at all those people praying over there. That's what a big bunch of people did today..." And have you tried searching for resources from the BBC or other European media sources? They're not American...

Really, even though this article has problems with the references and source material, I'd like to see it developed into a balanced encyclopedic article that all Wikipedians can be proud of.OfficeGirl 18:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Listen to what you're saying. An event happens that been described as zionist involving Christian and Jewish people praying for and in Jerusalem. Israeli news papers and some Christian papers cover the story. You're upset because the BBC and New York times don't care. If there's an anti-prayer POV that's not being represented I can see where your contention would lie. Actually there is.. it's called the anti-zionist Jihad.. they would probably have an opinion that's not represented here because it's not appropriate. But just because you have a problem with a Christian/Jewish event doesn't mean it's not appropriate wiki material. --Home Computer 19:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I DON'T have any problem at all with Christian/Jewish events. In fact, as a personal note, I participate in Christian-based events whenever possible. But WHAT I AM SAYING is that I think there ARE probably legitimate secondary sources who have published SOME kind of report of this "Day of Prayer" event. I live in Alabama. The secular media has a lot of respect for the fact that a majority of the people here are Bible-based Protestants, and they report on large prayer gatherings and religious rallies routinely (even though they are American media). I am sure there are other areas where the major newspapers of each city report on religious events. Try Atlanta, or the "Religion" section of newspapers in Chicago or even Las Vegas. Home Computer, I just think you haven't even tried yet to find an independent secondary source for your article. There's no proof that the secular news media "didn't care" to report on your event. I'll bet they did, somewhere. I want to encourage you! Roll up your sleeves and do some research cogent to an encyclopedic article! Don't just advertise an agenda that is important to you, show in a neutral manner how this article BELONGS in Wikipedia. OfficeGirl 19:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, since you have so much energy vested in this article FEEL FREE to take your own suggestions and actually improve the article. --Home Computer 20:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

CONTENT of the article needs a LOT of work

To anyone interested in improving this article, you will see that Home Computer has added some links to external sources on the subject of this article, but he/she probably didn't have time at the moment to incorporate any information from those sources into the TEXT of the article. I would like to encourage your participation in looking for information that can appropriately be worked in to the TEXT of the article.

No information has been added to the article to describe exactly HOW the "Day of Prayer for the Peace of Jerusalem" has been celebrated for the years of 2004, 2005 and 2006. For example: Do the participants all get online in a "virtual prayer meeting?" Are there local gatherings of participants on this "Day of Prayer?" If so, where do they gather, and what do they do when they get there? Do they meet in churches? synagogues? everyday public buildings, such as a civic center or auditorium? Is it an outdoor rally and march? Do the participants pay an entry fee or buy tickets for a certain price? Are donations collected? Where do the ticket sales or donations go once they are collected? How long does the event last? Are there guest speakers, or is a video of the one main leader played for all participants to see? If so many notable people support this event, then what do they actually DO at the events? Do they all get up and speak to the audience? Wouldn't local newspapers make at least a brief mention that such an event occured in their towns? Can someone get a copy?

Seems like this "Day of Prayer" organization would have a "press kit" available with photos that could be used on Wikipedia, or they might freely give permission to use some of their photos. Maybe someone can look into this.

Also, the people at the "Day of Prayer" organization might keep a scrapbook or file of newspaper clippings about their events, etc., including independent secular news articles. Why not ask them if they can make you some copies and send them to you with the relevant information about publication dates, page in publication, name of publication, name of reporters, etc.OfficeGirl 19:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As I noted elsewhere if you'd spend half of the effort you gave into this talk page on the actual page, to improve the content the world would be a better place. peace. --Home Computer 19:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if you could actually put some effort into coming up with reliable sources, it might help. You claim that 100 million people are participating. Your citation for the claim is a website for the organization itself, saying their goal is 100 million. In other words, the citation does not support the claim. Let's be frank: the article looks like promotion for your organization, and I don't see any reliable sources that say you have large numbers of participants, or even a lot of people aware of the effort. Wikipedia is not a bulletin board to help people promote little-known ventures, and your failure to come up with better sources than you have sure makes it look like that's what this is. Fan-1967 19:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Look all I've done is add links and make a few edits according to what the links claim. And yes only Christian and Zionist publications have a vested interest enough to publish the info. This isn't a mainstream enough event for the mainstream media so it is what it is.. --Home Computer 20:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You have also removed legitimate tags placed on the article highlighting problems with the article which must be addressed before the article can be developed into a Featured Article, but you have done nothing to resolve those problems. You have only prevented others from having their attention brought to the fact that the unresolved problems persist and need work. Please stop arbitrarily removing tags posted by other editors, Home Computer. By all rights this article should have already been nominated for deletion from Wikipedia altogether because it is not an encyclopedic article. Instead of nominating the article for deletion I have proposed that certain work be done on the article to make it cogent to this site. As you can see from other participants, the problems I have noted are recognized by others who would also like to see the article STAY on Wikipedia once it is developed properly.

It is very important to note that you, as an advocate for the group, club or organization made the subject of this article, admit yourself that the "Day of Prayer" event "isn't a mainstream enough event for the mainstream media." Maybe that's an indication that the "Day of Prayer" event shouldn't be in an article on Wikipedia yet. Maybe we should wait until they get closer to their GOAL of 100 million participants and re-visit the topic in a new article a few years from now.OfficeGirl 20:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that a verified, actual one million people would be worth a lot more than a goal of 100 million. My goal is to be independently wealthy on my private Carribean island, but in the meantime I'll keep working through another Chicago winter. Fan-1967 20:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's my goal too!OfficeGirl 20:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well that's a wonderful goal, in the meantime the article is noted that 100Million is the goal and not the facts. --Home Computer 21:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, someone, add independent 3rd-party references, not just advocates for the "Day of Prayer"

All of the references listed thus far are from groups which support or participate in the group, club or organization made the subject of this article. Organizations which are participating actively in the "Day of Prayer for the Peace of Jerusalem" are part of the SUBJECT and not independent reporters of events. If the event really did happen in 169 countries as is claimed, and if such notables as are named were truly present, then there must certainly have been a mention somewhere in an independent news source. Once someone finds this information it will certainly address some of the notability and POV concerns tagged on this article. Until these are located, please leave the tags on the article.OfficeGirl 20:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way but churches agreeing to pray on the same day is just not that big of a deal to mainstream media. Israeli newspapers are cited because there was a rally there. It's been cited. --Home Computer 21:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

http://www.daytopray.com here is the original claim from the source. http://www.christianpost.com/article/20050922/22414.htm Here is a respected Christian news source that covers issues such as this commonly. http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=69672 This is a recognised newspaper, not a Christian source. Completely different POV than the Christian links provided. It agrees with the other sources. --Home Computer 21:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Israel National News is a Zionist publication, i.e. biased in favor of the event made the subject of this article. It clearly is a PARTICIPANT in the event and not an independent reporter of facts. Since it is clearly in favor of the event by editorial policy it is not a different POV at all. But POV issues are not only found in the references cited, but also in the LANGUAGE used to describe this event. Wikipedia works by consensus, and there simply is not a consensus here. The majority opinion is that independent sources have not yet been obtained, but they would be welcomed.

Home Computer, your contributions to the article are valuable, but they are not sufficient to overcome or solve the problems that persist in the article. Please note that I have not deleted any content that you have added to the article. Not once. I think your contributions are worth something, just that those contributions haven't cleared up the problems in the article. Please leave the tags on the article so that others who may be more experienced researchers than yourself can dig in to reliable sources to support this article.

You have responded on this discussion page as if you believe you are defending this article from possible deletion. But no one has proposed the article for deletion. We have only pointed out how MUCH work the article needs so that many, many Wikipedians can join in to fix it. If appropriate 3rd party documentation isn't referenced on this article, say, a week from now, someone just might propose that the article be deleted altogether. Everyone in this discussion, including yourself, has given reasons why this topic may not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Now the task is to find INDEPENDENT resources confirming that the event is indeed notable.OfficeGirl 21:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hahah.. http://community.fox16.com/calendar/communitycalendar/748230.aspx Yup. Good old FOX news covered the event. :) Tags removed. Side note.. thats a lame link. --Home Computer 21:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a link to a COMMUNITY CALENDAR, where the organization that is the subject of the article posted its OWN PRESS RELEASE. It is not an independent resource.OfficeGirl 22:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a wierd one.. but it fits your cry for independance.. http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=31091 --Home Computer 22:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is only a re-print of a PRESS RELEASE from the organization made the basis of this article. It is not an independent resource.OfficeGirl 22:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's from the Knesset Christian Allies Caucus Administrative Assistant. Did you even read it? So what not the Whole Isralli government is non-notable and POV'd?--Home Computer

It is a PRESS RELEASE. That means it is a self-published source, not a 3rd party reference. It is not an independent source, but rather it is something written by one of the participants in the event. However, a good researcher might be able to track down where a reputable and independent, nonreligious newspaper followed up on the press release and went on their own to cover the event. Good research takes time, Home Computer. It may be that the research needed to improve this article cannot be accomplished by a few quick Google searches. It may be that the reliable, reputable sources that are needed are really out there, but that it will take a few days to get a copy of the news articles in actual paper form and give the references. Don't get so worried about this process. It doesn't depend all on yourself. Let the tags do their work to attract the attention of other people who can come and help.OfficeGirl 23:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, read the press release to see where it came from. We have two in question, one issued by the organisers, one issed by the Israeli government. According to wiki standards, a secondary source press release is a good source for verification. --Homecomputer 14:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Home Computer, please do not delete the tags of other Wikipedians without a consensus. let other people have a chance to know that the article has issues that need to be addressed by someone whose research skills are a little more advanced. No one has proposed this article for deletion, please don't panic so much as if someone had. OfficeGirl 22:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Again as noted below when your definition of a good source is one that is niether Jewish nor Christian then I believe that perhaps the POV issues are not inherrent within the article but perhaps those that would consider all Jewish and Christian sources to be bad sources. --Home Computer 22:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Notabillity

How many churches need to participate in an event to make it notable? To some no ammount of churches is notable. To an npov i would say that several thousand should suffice. See the external links for the numbers (in the thousands) of churches that have participated. Also, endorsements by the Israeli government, endorsements by all sorts of well known Christian leaders.. it's notable allready. --Home Computer 21:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to some of the leaders: http://ew.us.churchinsight.com/group/group.aspx?id=1000002775--Home Computer 21:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Home Computer, perhaps the issue is that you are unfamiliar with the style and manner of research needed for an encyclopedic article. The consensus in this discussion is that your sources are not sufficient. That doesn't mean that GOOD sources aren't out there. Please stop deleting tags posted by other editors. No one has deleted your edits. You have not provided justification for deleting the edits by other Wikipedians, and you have deleted the tags in defiance of the general consensus of the participants in this discussion. Sad thing is, you are only preventing other Wikipedians from finding out that their help is needed and WANTED to make this a very GOOD article!OfficeGirl 21:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tag for notabillity because I added proof of notabillity. --Home Computer 21:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the information you added, though valuable, did not constitute proof of notability. Don't think that the entire existence of this article depends only on you. it may be that you don't have the experience or skills in research needed to fix the problems in this article. That's why the tags are there. To attract others who DO have the skills and experience and let them know that their help is needed. You are extinguishing the S.O.S. beacon that would lead the cavalry here to come to the rescue! OfficeGirl 22:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hahah.. show me the skills! Quit talking about it and fix it if it needs fixin. And I can't help it if notable Christians are not notable in your eyes.. thats not an article problem. --Home Computer 22:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Home Computer, you appear to be overcome with anger over this article. I haven't said that any particular individual mentioned in the article is non-notable, and I haven't deleted anyone's name from the article. Please stop making personal attacks. Why not try leaving the article with the additions you have made and the tags calling out for help from other Wikipedians? Give it time, maybe a few days or a week, for others to add helpful research. You might be too emotionally involved in this article to assist in obtaining and presenting neutral material.OfficeGirl 23:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel attacked. I'm not angry. I think it's funny that you find mllions of people including former key members of the Israelli government non notable. I'm sorry if you thought I thought you deleted anything.. I haven't. I'm actually attempting to challenge you to do SOMETHING, perhaps ANYTHING to improve the article other than to talk and tag. Like showing me those sweet skills you were talkin about. :) Peace --Home Computer 00:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

K, links to verification of the mayoral endorsement to the day are in place. Is that not notabillity? And if you really really feel like putting the notabillity tag up again, at least discuss the reason. --Home Computer 00:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This is gonna be long.. Please review notabillity guidelines:

Criteria for clubs, societies, and organizations A club, society, or organization is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:

The club, society, or organization has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the club, society, or organization itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations6 except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the club or organization talks about itself, and advertising for the club, society, or organization. 1 Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply announce forthcoming club meetings or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in directories.

Having the Israeli government do a press release for the event clearly fits notabillity for this organization. The organizations press release is also available. Also several news papers were also noted. Please do NOT add the notabillity tag again based on the wiki guidelines. Thanks. --Home Computer 00:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete tags until a consensus has been reached

The tags presently on this article allow other Wikipedians to come and help fix the problems in this article. If you do not have the research skills and experience to find independent references for this article, do not fret or fear. The tags being present on the article will attract the attention of other Wikipedians who DO have those skills, and then they will be able to lend a hand! At present, facts derived from primarily Original Research have been added to the article. These facts can be verified by independent sources which other Wikipedians can look up for you. Give them a chance to see the tags and some time to do their research. NO ONE has proposed this article for deletion, just for IMPROVEMENT!OfficeGirl 22:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

When your definition of a good source is one that is not Jewish and one that is not Christian I do not think that your request is applicable. --Home Computer 22:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Home Computer, you are making accusations against me that are unsubstantiated. Your sources don't meet Wikipedia guidelines, and that's what matters. Original research and self-published sources from the organization that is the subject of the article, while interesting, aren't what is needed in the way of independent sources. Neither are articles published by organizations that are participating in the event hosted by the group, club or organization made the subject of this article. Give it some time, so that other Wikipedians who have stronger research skills and more experience can come to the article and help to accomplish something with it. It doesn't all depend on you. Let the tags do their work to get other people in on the process. Be patient, Home Computer, and don't be angry. Others will come and help if you let the tags stay up on the article.OfficeGirl 22:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said I find your efforts amusing not angering. Take a look at the new sources that have been placed since you put all the tags back up for the fourth time. --Home Computer 00:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Recent Edits

The title you used on the participation section carries the implication that only hundred took place total, I think the title needs to be reworked to count for the global participation not just the group in Jerusalem. Thanks --Homecomputer 14:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Wishing will not make it so. The title reflected what the meager evidence available ACTUALLY SAID. To date you have not provided anything to show what the other participants outside of Jerusalem ACTUALLY DID. For all that we know, they just added a few prayers for Jerusalem in with their regular Sunday prayers in their Church services. For all that we know, the Hayford group "coordinators" did nothing but send out flyers asking preachers to pray about something on the same day. Ho-hum. That's not much for an encyclopedia article.

You have provided nothing but the promotional efforts of this group's own participants.

And a very, very important note is that you have gone back through to places where neutral language has been provided and changed the words to a language of advocacy. Despite efforts to help you develop this into a real Wikipedia article, you have twisted it around turned it into nothing but a sermon for your religious beliefs. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. OfficeGirl 20:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You may have missed the sources that demonstrate the numbers for previous years.. also the official Assemblies of God site, the AG churches are God only knows how many countries and they made the prayer thing an official part of thier services. Peace. --Homecomputer 21:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources and Notablillity

Many sources are cited for this article. An argument could be made for the POV of those sources but the factually existance of this event has been indepentantly verified apart from the organization that created it. Namely several international denominations and governmetnal announcements. Also a few Christian news sources writing an article on it or interviewing about it. This satisfies the concerns in the 3 tags present..

notabillity guideline - Removed, the indepentant sources apply to meet more than the bare minumum for an organization, read the guidelines for more.

citing more reliable sources - I'm gonna leave that one up in case some people can come up with more, however I don't think there are more reliable sources than the ones provided. I don't think the even was covered by any major networks or anything. I cited the Israeli sources that did though.

Self published - Removed, an organization's webpage is good to cite what they claim and then to be backed up by the Israli government bullitens, the Israelli Newspaper, the smaller Christian newspapers, etc.. there's allot of good cited material that the tag doesn't account for.

Peace --Homecomputer∴Peace 19:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Article is sloppy and just not believable

Let's see... we're supposed to believe that there are millions and millions of people involved with this organization, but they only got "hundreds" to attend the main rally in Jerusalem all three times? Is someone going to try to sell us the Brooklyn Bridge next? The claims in the Wiki article are stretched waaayyy out of proportion. It's completely irresponsible. There's not a shred of evidence other than the organization's own very dubious claims. As someone already said, all we can guess is that someone sent out flyers to churches and asked those churches to do something that they already do (pray) at the time that they already would be doing that(church services), and only for a couple of times since 2004. Not one single source is from a 3rd party or even a reputable, well-known news organization. Sloppy research. Only sources given are reports from outfits that are part of the supposed event-- if we take away the info from their own materials there's nothing left. What's next, a quote from Benny Hinn's newsletter? Please. I agree that Pat Robertson and CBN are not reputable sources-- they said the U.S. should go ahead and kill the President of Venezuela. This is written like an attempt to convert everyone to a certain kind of fundamentalism. Let's delete this one. As a Catholic I find it personally embarassing to see pentecostals made to look like a bunch of charlatans and cheaters who just can't stop stretching the truth. DismasMama 23:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Assemblies of God claims participation in their official church link. If thier churches even devoted 10 minutes of prayer on that Sunday that's millions of people right there. They are not the only church denomination to make an official stance of participation.

Also, how are the Israeli Government and the Assemblies of God not 3rd party, reputible, well-known organizations? You may have missed those citations. CBN and Pat Robertson also have some pretty serious POV issues here but what they do offer is an independant source verifying the existance of the event. --Home Computer∴Peace 23:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)