Talk:Gospel for Asia
|WikiProject India||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Christianity / India||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 30 January 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.|
- 1 NPOV
- 2 Editing needed
- 3 Sourcing and notability
- 4 Physical addresses
- 5 Accuracy and Relevance of Info Presented
- 6 Removing the names of A. P. J. Abdul Kalam and Pratibha Devi Singh Patil
- 7 Lack of neutrality.
- 8 For the attention of Admin and Moderators
- 9 Censorship
- 10 Financial issues
- 11 External links modified
- 12 Football club
- 13 Funds for India
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
- The sentence has been corrected as suggested. However, I do believe that this (brief) article has achieved neutral POV, as it has not included many of GFA's statistical references, potted biographies, etc., that can be found in other discussions of GFA's works in the 10/40 window.
- Further, I am hoping that, just because this is an evangelical organization, that elaborating and listing GFA's goals, accomplishments, etc., will not be automatically considered non-neutral.
- Finally, I found this article to be rather bland, boring, and non-informative compared to the work GFA actually does. To that end, I have asked GFA's PR department to update the article. 18.104.22.168 19:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
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. --22.214.171.124 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)
Sourcing and notability
Wikipedia policy and guidelines state:
- "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (WP:V)
- "Self-published and questionable sources may be used...so long as...the article is not based primarily on such sources." (WP:SELFPUB)
- "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." (WP:Notability)
- "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." (WP:PSTS)
- UK: Freepost NAT11108, York (UK site contact info lists a PO Box)
- NZ: PO Box 302580 (NZ site lists 7 Target Court, Glenfield, Auckland = address of Calvary Chapel Auckland, telephone book lists just the PO Box)
- Korea: PO Box 984, Yeouido
- Germany: Postfach 1360
- Australia: PO Box 3587 Village Fair
- SA: PO Box 28880
None of these indicate that GfA has a physical office in these countries.
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)
- UK Office:
- The UK Government Charity Commission has registered Gospel for Asia's UK Office with Charity Number 1064738 and asserted that they operate an office in York with 4 employees, on their [website].
- GFA UK's address is not a PO box at a post office - rather it's a mail stop in the actual physical building. Google maps shows their address as a [valid physical address].
- Christian Today's UK website includes Gospel for Asia's UK Office in their [listing of UK Charities].
- The website developers for www.gfauk.org mention the UK Office in their [portfolio].
- A recent post on the [personal blog] of one of the staff at GFA's UK office, while technically a primary source, shows photos of the physical office in the UK where he works and has no reason to be considered questionable.
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)
- Jaydge: Wikipedia is not a repository for an organisation's self-published assertions about themselves. Nor is it a WP:DIRECTORY. Unless/until a third party source has taken any notice of any of these offices, per WP:WEIGHT, I see no reason why Wikipedia should. This is particularly true given that the majority of them (
56/8) still appear to be mere PO Boxes not physical offices. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I just checked out Winterscale House's address on Winterscale St, York using Google Maps. One side of the street is occupied by St George's RC Primary School, the other by Tower House Business Centre, which offers "Virtual Offices" with "Prestigious business address" & "Mail collection and forwarding". I would suggest therefore that there is no evidence that "Winterscale House" demonstrates a physical office. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Whether there is a physical office or not is immaterial to the point that Gospel for Asia UK has an office, in York, with 4 employees, as verified by the UK Government Charity Commission. Even if it were a "virtual" office whose employees all telecommuted, it would still be considered an office if it is a registered business entity in that particular country, which it is. Jaydge (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC).
- hrafn, giving credit where credit is due, the earlier version of this article which stated that all the physical locations were listed was incorrect and your efforts to keep the article accurate are appreciated. However, as [Wikipedia:SOURCES] states,
"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. HrafnTalkStalk(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)
Accuracy and Relevance of Info Presented
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)
- Please do not use ref-tags on talk -- they are a hindrance to following the reference.
- Please provide a page-number (and preferably a quote).
- It is Wikipedia policy to favour secondary sources over primary sources.
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). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Removing the names of A. P. J. Abdul Kalam and Pratibha Devi Singh Patil
Former Indian presidents A. P. J. Abdul Kalam and Pratibha Devi Singh Patil demonstrated appreciation to the organisationand their plea stated that "there is no negative remark about them from any corner".
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)
Lack of neutrality.
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
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)
For the attention of Admin and Moderators
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.
- K. P. Yohannan claims that there has been a lot of wrong information surfacing on the Internet about him and his ministry. He assures that accusations are due to misinformation campaigns and a "propaganda war"  related to the anti-Christian sentiment. In his website, he says he has already been falsely accused of fraud several times, and he claims that certain authorities have confirmed certain allegations to be scams
- National newspapers, The Indian Express and the Business Standard, covered some events regarding a plea that Gospel for Asia and Believers Church presented to the Delhi High Court for removal of "defamatory and derogatory" articles against these ministries on social networks.  The complaint said:
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.— 
- In addition, K. P. Yohannan wrote a letter regarding his integrity and the accusations, which he considers to be "A New Type of Persecution". GFA became a charter of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA) to ensure its financial accountability to their donors., and Believers Church claims that "allegations are without any basis or data" and "no irregularities have been found".
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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808170719/http://www.believerschurch.com/cheruvally-estate/ to http://www.believerschurch.com/cheruvally-estate/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- 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.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
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)
Funds for India
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)