Talk:World Youth Day
The controversies of the 2008 WYD are well covered but seem to be overly emphasised, especially when considering WYD as an event not just defined by the 2008 WYD which at the time of writing has not yet begun. Wouldn't this information be better placed in the 'World Youth Day 2008' wiki page? Mrbrack (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Try merging it properly instead of trying to drown out criticism. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 23:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I deleted all the misplaced information, not merely criticism as has been suggested. "Merging it properly" would be a mistake, because this information does not belong here. It belongs on the World Youth Day 2008 page.Cube T. Butler (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I reduced the size of the paragraph. There is no use in maintaining information on two sites. Please feel free to correct my grammar, I'm not a native speaker. --Saint-Louis (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- ... "reduced". Ha. Removed it more accurate. Since you're obviously intent on misleading ("no use maintaining info on two sites[sic, pages]", half the info isn't in the 2008 article!) I'll merge the bloody criticisms myself, but not right now. I'm reverting the changes for now and will remove the stuff again after I've merged it into the 2008 article. (No guarantees!)
- Try looking at the title of the article, and the title of the linked article. And seriously. Don't put up your little smokescreen of well... quite frankly... bullshit. "There has been a lot of controversies in the forefront of the event. The government was criticized for an alleged massive funding and a NoToPope Coalition was formed to organize protests". One short line that really didn't speak about anything. Yeah, you /totally/ left the criticism in.
- Are you so concerned that a few extra criticisms will tarnish World Youth Day forever? This section not only works perpetually (your section would require changing for every WYD, they're not often but it's not good practice) and well, it's still that one line of criticism you love so much (just more in detail)... and please, don't mention "balance" again since it doesn't need balance. Infact, your version didn't have balance either, it just had more specifics on the particular World Youth Day, which like I said before... it's bad practice! --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Stop being ... sensitive. Everything gets criticised and loads of Wiki articles contain criticism sections, why on earth do you think World Youth Day suddenly deserves immunity from this? Are you a physical manifestation of World Youth Day? Keeping secrets from us all... naughty naughty.
- All you're doing is making the criticisms seem more valid. OMGZ CATHOLICS HATE FREEDOM OMGZ. Of course, I don't think that, but... hey... you're the one perpetuating the myth. And don't be hypocrite, you're the one reverting me.
- But hey... if you're unhappy with the changes, let's change it back to what it was before I trimmed the article. Woo, I'm being snarky. And hey, you better get this article deleted since the entire thing is a about criticism. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 09:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, you are totally misinterpreting the Edit history. First, I trimmed the article. You reverted me. --Saint-Louis (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- I reinstated my factual section and moved the criticism section to its proper place like in other Wikipedia article. --Saint-Louis (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- You took out the criticism you had in your version, so please, stop trolling and ... BULL-F'in-SHITTING about aiming for neutrality. I had written this out nice and civilly until I realised you had removed that; you're just way to sensitive and it's ridiculous... sigh. Compromise version, even though it's completely pointless your section will inevitably removed and replaced with mine due to the ephemeral nature of the event. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 06:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh. I didn't notice the criticism section was still there... (so that's what you meant by move) - my apologies. Well anyways, I can live with the current version. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
"The event has caused significant controversy in the Australian community due to the introduction of vague "annoyance" laws, the far reaching expansion of police powers, the venue and the unjustified spending of public funds." <-- Sorry if i have done this wrong, as i am new to wikipedia, however. I believe this comment is irrelevent. Even if it were relevent i believe it to be simply untrue, to say that it caused "significant controversy" I live in Australia and these were looked at too much in the media. Therfore how could they be significant. Also stating that the spending is "Unjustified" is most defently not neutral. You could easily say "spending of public funds" The word Unjustified does to have to be in there. This new sentence still says that there was controversy over public spending, without implying that the money was spent unjustly. Furthermore the way the first sentence talks about the "annoyance" laws i believe is written in such a way that implies that the annoyance laws have somthing to do with the World Youth Day being the "annoying" party. The annoyance laws were trying to be put through so that protesters could not "annoy" pilgrims. The event itself did not cause the expansion of police powers, the government of sydney did, i don't see how the event itself caused it. If one were to say that controversy was caused over the expansion of police powers, one could not loggicaly blame the World Youth Day event, but they would blame the Sydney government for bringing in such laws. What do others think? Thanks. Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- You're right about the "unjustified" word, I mean some people think it's unjustified but yeah, I agree the wording was poor. Umm, considering that a lot of Wiki sources are from the media... wouldn't a lot of media coverage mean ... you're not making sense in that sense.
- Also, you seem to be reading it in an over sensitive way. The context of the sentence and the link it points to make it exceedingly obvious it's not about the WYD itself being annoying. I'm not sure how much the WYD organisers had to do with the expansion of powers for the public services but at the very least there is tacit support for it. If I remember (I probably won't) I'll look more into that but yeah, the catholic church never disagreed with the increase in powers which... when it comes to civil rights is support in my eyes.
Lack of sources etc
In answer to "is this mostly original research" - a lot of the content of the page does seem to be based upon the USCCB page http://www.usccb.org/laity/youth/wydoverview.shtml - I have added that as an external link for now. Not sure if it is copyvio or whether it should be a reference instead of / as well as an external link. 22.214.171.124 20:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add the logotypes for the different world youth days?
I think those should go on the articles for the individual World Youth Days. Except those pages don't exist yet... TheCoffee 19:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Both the logos on this page, and pages for some of the individual WYDs now exist. 126.96.36.199 20:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, to be specific, some of the later logos now exist. See below for why 1993's logo got removed :( 188.8.131.52 20:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone provide a source for the attendance figures given? Thank you! --184.108.40.206 21:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
The numbers seem to have been partly based upon the USCCB website http://www.usccb.org/laity/youth/wydoverview.shtml - I have added that as an external link; the 1.2 million figure for 2005 can be found at various other places, I have added a specific reference for that. 220.127.116.11 20:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It concerns me that these figures rely entirely on official Catholic estimates, given the obvious interest this source has in overstating the actual numbers. Further, this seems to be a consistent trend – see the following sources: www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2008/04/30/1209234957542.html www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_15_26/ai_94043378 Consider also for a moment the ubiquitous discrepancy between police and protestor attendance estimates at political rallies. IMHO attendance figures should be removed unless they are verified by a reasonably independent source. Alternatively, it should be highlighted that these are figures directly from the Catholic Church. Interestingly, it would be quite easy for the Catholic Church to provide official pilgrim numbers, as they are required to register their attendance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
World Youth Festival
Is there a risk of this conference being confused with the World Youth Festival? (The 16:th of which is being held in Venezuela this year.) -- ABostrom 20:52, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Suggest name change to Catholic World Youth Day to clarify, and to prevent appearance of Catholic-centric bias. 22.214.171.124 03:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- I think World Youth Day is the official name and many people know it by that name. Anyway, I changed the first sentence to clarify that the WYD is a Roman Catholic celebration. --Jojit fb 03:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)So they could learn more about the pope and things like that.
The official name is World Youth Day, and the event - while Catholic in concept and content - is actually open to all youth of all faiths. This is the reference: http://www.wyd2008.org/index.php/en/wyd08_pilgrims/frequently_asked_questions#8. Apermal 14:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I checked through Google and could not find a listing for "World Youth Day" that corresponded to anything except the subject of this event. I think the name World Youth Day stands as it's not being confused with the World Youth Festival. Bullschuck 20:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I have edited the intro to clarify the Catholic nature of the event (so as not to introduce bias/confusion to casual browsers), whilst still retaining the open nature of the invitation. Also nb the above reference link no longer works, but the new equivalent link http://www.wyd2008.org/index.php/en/faqs is now a reference in the article itself 126.96.36.199 20:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
WYD is an annual gathering. It happens internationally every 4 years but doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all at other years. NYD (National Youth Day), however, happens every 4 years as well as Asian Youth Day.
--mintchocicecream 07:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- There have been a number of criticisms of WYD during and after Sydney that I'm aware of - there's absolutely no reference to these viewpoints that I can find in the current article. Weird. Actually the numerous arguments on this Talk page are not reflected in the article. So I am considering inserting a POV template on "issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view" GerixAu (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The State Library of New South Wales is collecting ephemera relating to this event. Please send any ephemera to State Library of New South Wales, Macquarie Street, Sydney, N.S.W. 2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oztealady (talk • contribs) 10:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Individual WYD pages
join wyd 2010
dear sir , i want to know & let me know how sould i join the next world youth days gathering
The name is CATHOLIC CHURCH not "Roman Catholic Church", that does not exist. In the Catholic Church there are Roman Catholics, Greek Catholics, Maronites and many others, but WYD day is for the youth of them all - they are all onder one pope. --Josinj (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Regnum Christi and utter lack of NPOV
I find no mention of Regnum Christi in this article which makes we wonder as to the need for a non-Catholic editor to review both facts and sources selected as the history is entangled with the child-abuse scandal and efforts to revise history. The Regnum_Christi article is peculiar for no mention of World Youth Day. See Marcial Maciel and Stanislaw_Dziwisz. The ECyD article is not so careful to have no mention of WYD and care should be taken that no edit elide that mention.
Researchers on the web should search for "Wyd Regnum Christi" to form an idea of how egregious this historical revision truly is as they very often use the acronym in their web-accessible documents.
Contrary to what one article would have the reader believe, full documentation of the 2011 decisions vis. LC and RC are available on the web with published links at both LC and RC sites.
Until amended and supplemented, this article is fully deserving of a POV tag. An article on Wyd without mention of RC and LC is ludicrous.
G. Robert Shiplett 01:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- And what does the LC and RC have to do with WYD? Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
We need a lot more on the world youth days before 1995. A number are notable. Don't just delete info because it is unsourced. I think the dates and places given were right but haven't the time right now to check. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 17:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)