Talk:Gospel for Asia

NPOV

Hi,

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. 147.145.40.43 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. --24.218.46.78 05:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This sentence, as well as the aforementioned ones, are messages as stated by the organization. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 04:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing needed

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)

Updating done; I've tracked down the needed citations for the various parts of this article, and added more relevant information. The article still needs a lot of help, as GFA supports such a large variety of work in South Asia. Jaydge (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2011 (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)

It is NOT appropriate to cite an article almost solely to the topic's webpages, and this DOES NOT establish notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I would further point out that much of the material is LUDICROUSLY POV & hagiographical -- to the point of being little better than an advertisement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Physical addresses

"...contact page cited do list physical addresses of all of them."

This is WP:Complete bollocks, as can be seen from this contacts list:

• 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.

US & Canada appear to be the only locations where they have a physical office. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

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 (5 6/8) still appear to be mere PO Boxes not physical offices. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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).

• WP:NOTDIRECTORY & WP:UNDUE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:35, 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)

WP:NOT:

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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)

1. Please do not use ref-tags on talk -- they are a hindrance to following the reference.
2. Please provide a page-number (and preferably a quote).
3. It is Wikipedia policy to favour secondary sources over primary sources.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

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). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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 organisation[citation needed]and their plea stated that "there is no negative remark about them from any corner".[15]

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

--Goose friend (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC).

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)

Censorship

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" [1] 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[2]

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. [3] 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.

— [4]

The civil suit included statements from former Indian presidents A. P. J. Abdul Kalam and Pratibha Devi Singh Patil in which they had supposedly demonstrated appreciation to the organisation [5].

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.[6], and Believers Church claims that "allegations are without any basis or data" and "no irregularities have been found".[7]

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)

Financial issues

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)

External links modified

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Football club

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)

Link Issues

I was just thumbing through this page, when I realized that several citations are "401 Not Found", from Patheos. I don't know why this is, but I tried to find articles that would give me the same info to just update the sources, but couldn't find any. So with the majority of the last two sections not having any sources to verify its validity, I believe its best to remove these sections for the time being so we don't sacrifice the credibility of this page (as per the rules on citing sources). Any thoughts? James Smith1967 (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

In most cases, dead links to otherwise reliable sources should be tagged per WP:LINKROT, and should only be removed as a last resort. Are these reliable? My understanding is that Patheos is a WP:SPS site. In this case content supported by blogs should be removed if it cannot be supported by something more reliable. If kept, at the very least, it should be treated as opinion instead of news. Anything from Patheos would almost certainly have to be attributed as the opinion of whoever is making the claim, but even then only if there's a specific reason to include it at all. WP:RSN has probably already gone over this at some point. Grayfell (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Grayfell, Thanks so much for your input. After reviewing the links you posted and doing more research, I agree with you that this needs to be changed to keep in step with the guidelines stated above. James Smith1967 (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The Patheos blog has been moved to https://www.wthrockmorton.com/. 31.50.240.5 (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Rubber Plant

Below article recently decided court case regarding the rubber plant. I nominate section for deletion due to unverified claims that couldn't be proven in court. http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2018/apr/13/harrisons-case-setback-may-cost-kerala-government-dear-in-erumeli-airport-project-1800878.html Dt502 (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Undid revision 911591576 by Mckaylagrace

Hello NatGertler,

Thank you for your concern on the Gospel for Asia edits I've made. I'm fairly new to the platform so I'm just curious what specifically was wrong with my additions? According to your comment, my edits were propaganda and improperly sourced. But all of the information I added was sourced by government documents as well as publicly accessible information such as Gospel for Asia's settlement and claims. I thought it provided resolution to the lawsuit referenced on the wiki.

Let me know how I can improve my presentation of that information.

Thanks, Mckaylagrace (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. There are a number of problems with the edit.

1. It placed information about a lawsuit settlement somewhere where it was not connected to what the lawsuit was, making it impossible to follow.
2. It used as reference a copy of a settlement contract. These actually make very poor sources on the settlement, as they are WP:PRIMARY and are not designed to be clear nor to show context nor to be updated.
3. It is unclear where, if anywhere, in this document it says that it is agreed that the funds were "appropriately distributed". None of the uses of the term "appropriate" in the document apply.
4. The document is dated February of this year, but it is being used as reference for a claimed June settlement date.
5. The largest part of the edit is a 17-mile long stretch of spin from KPY, full out of any sense of WP:BALANCE, coming solely from a first-party source so no sense of import, This is not KPY or GFA's website, and is not intended to act as a megaphone for them.
6. Even if it were somehow otherwise appropriate, the big mass of text would also be a copyright violation concern.
7. The text directs the reader to two more sources of KPY's spin. At best, those would be in the External Links section, but they'd be problematic even there, pushing a bias and unbalanced source.

If you have a reliable, third party source stating there was a settlement and summarizing its nature, that would of course be quite welcome. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this. The explanation helps a lot! -- Mckaylagrace (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Nat Gertler -- I have a couple questions in response to your edits if you don't mind helping me out:

In your second point, you mentioned that this was a misuse of WP:PRIMARY. But the website where the "Final Order and Judgment" appear notes, "This website is authorized by the Court, supervised by counsel and controlled by the Settlement Administrator approved by the Court. This is the only authorized website for this case." http://www.gfaclassaction.us/home/documents/.

If it is the only information available and it is a reliable source, can it be used as a reference? If not, I'm wondering if the footnotes--and the text they support--should be removed for references 47 and 48 as well.

Your third point adddresses the verbiage "appropriate." Would it be correct to use the exact verbiage of the setttlement agreement instead, which states, "The Parties also mutually stipulate that all donations designated for use in the field were ultimately sent to the field.”?

Thanks for your time and help -- Mckaylagrace (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The key problem with use of Primary source court documents is not the question of whether they are accurate represent the official document (although of course that could be a concern in some cases), it's that a court document is an often ornate and complex item, not designed for laymen, and selecting and interpreting information from it is prone to error and bias. That's what we rely on reliable, third-party sources for. They also serve as indicators of what is important in the document, which is why your choosing a sentence to quote is of concern. I'm not a lawyer, but my suspicion is that when gotten for a large some of money, a statement of lack of guilt is simply a condition of settlement rather than a revelation, making that sentence unremarkable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

For Admin/Moderators: Lawsuit Resolution

I'm requesting some input from moderators. I'm concerned that there is no section addressing the conclusion of the civil suit against Gospel for Asia, but I don't believe I have the experience and knowledge necessary to make such a large contribution. I tried in the past but received opposition in the way I presented the information.

For example, I was told the document I used as reference was a copy of a settlement contract and that these actually make very poor sources on the settlement, as they are WP:PRIMARY and are not designed to be clear nor to show context nor to be updated.

By the same logic, the footnotes--and the text they support--should be removed for references 47 and 48.

The website where the "Final Order and Judgment" which I referenced, states, "This website is authorized by the Court, supervised by counsel and controlled by the Settlement Administrator approved by the Court. This is the only authorized website for this case."

As of now, there is very little further reporting on the matter, so this would have to be the only source available. I've also noticed that several other wiki sites reference similar documents without being contested.

• The Wikipedia article on the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the text is quoted--a primary source, and retrieved from the Legal Information Institute at Cornell .
• In the Wikipedia article on Brown v. Board of Education , it begins with a citation to a source that allows for the reading of the entire opinions.
• Wikipedia gives a template for citing legal cases that goes to primary sources--why would it do that if it was against the rules?
• In the Wikipedia article on Case Citation, it says "If you are looking for the text of an opinion, you may find it in the external links at the bottom of the article on that case. For Wikipedia's template for citing cases, see Template:Cite court." Why would it do that citing the text of a legal agreement was disqualified from Wikipedia as an inherently untrustworthy source?
• The Wikipedia article on the civil suit, "Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants." This not only cites the primary source but quotes liberally from it .

Again, I do not have the experience necessary to present and format the information properly, but I believe it should be presented in a fair and balanced way. As of right now, the topic of the lawsuit is left open-ended here.

Thank you for your time. Mckaylagrace (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

References

• @Mckaylagrace:Administrators can not step in to referee a content dispute except in very rare circumstances which do not seem to apply here. You have content you want added; other editors took exception to your sourcing with policy based explanation. Is there some reason that WP:Consensus doesn't apply here? If so, you need to bring an argument based on policy and convention. You might find help at one of the Wiki Projects listed at the top of this page. Just be careful of WP:Canvass when requesting help or feedback. Tiderolls 16:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's see:

1. Yes, in the First Amendment article, the text is quoted. There is no question as to which part of the Amendment should be quoted, for the whole thing is only one sentence. The source used for the relevance of the quote is not WP:PRIMARY, it is the page from the respected Cornell Law site, a third-party site (they did not formulate the Amendment) which discusses the Amendment.
2. Brown v. Board of Ed may site a source where the entire opinion is listed, but it's for a very mechanical piece of information - the case number. There is no need to seek out the relevant piece, this is mere identification.
3. Citing legal cases can be used for many things besides being the first reference for things. They are used in infoboxes, in external links, and for secondary reference (pointing to the full document after a non-Primary reference has already established relevancy.) They are also used as non-primary references; when case A is citing case B, it's a non-primary reference about case B.
4. Yes, the case citation article talks about finding the link to the ruling in the external links. Putting an item in the "external links" section does not make it a reference for the article.
5. Yes, you found an article that relies too much on a primary source. Other stuff exists.

I hope that that helps. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Have you done a search through news articles? I note the Christianity Today article Zylstra, Sarah Eekhoff (1 March 2019). "Gospel for Asia Settles Lawsuit with $37 Million Refund to Donors". News & Reporting. Retrieved 17 September 2019. Also the Times of India Tom, Disney (6 March 2019). "Yohannan Settles US Lawsuit for Rs 261cr". The Times of India. Retrieved 17 September 2019.. The basic terms seem to be that GFA does not admit wrong doing but will pay 37 million dollars to reimburse donors in the class action lawsuit and to pay plaintiffs' legal costs. Also Yohannan's wife has to step down as a board member and no future board member can be a relation and one of the plaintiffs, Garland Murphy, will become a board member. There are also some accounting steps that GFA will have to do in the next few years. --Erp (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• @NatGertler: Thank you for the further explanation. I appreciate it.
• @Erp: Thank you for the examples. These are helpful.

• @Tide rolls: Thank you for the info. That helps me understand a bit more. I would love to reach a consensus, but I’m not sure how since it seems to come down to whether use of a primary source is fair game or not.

The article, Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources observes that “Identifying and using primary sources requires careful thought and some extra knowledge on the part of Wikipedia’s editors.” It goes on to note three criteria for a primary source:

Is this source self-published or not? The legal settlement we wish to quote is not self-published, it is a court-issued document.

Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject?

It is from an independent, third party—the United States District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division.

The document is housed on an independent and third-party site, www.gfaclassaction.org, and is “authorized by the court.” The company curating the site, "Heffler Claims Group". Retrieved 24 September 2019., has been administering class action notices for over 50 years.

Is this source primary? Yes, it “constitute[s] the entire agreement among the settling parties.”

So clearly, the settlement agreement is a primary source. And as Wikipedia notes in the article cited above, “Every possible combination of these three traits has been seen in sources on Wikipedia. Any combination of these three traits can produce a source that is usable for some purpose in a Wikipedia article.”

Nat contends that legal documents are inherently suspectable to misinterpretation and can’t simply be quoted because of that risk. But of the secondary sources written about the settlement, none were written by lawyers or even legal experts. A reporter who may or may not have been trained in journalism but was not trained in law read the documents on www.gfaclassaction.org, picked out what he or she deemed relevant points, and gave his or her own interpretation of them.

Because of these things, I don’t see how it provides superior understanding to block quotes from the legal document until a journalist or scholar without legal training happens upon the sentence, decides he understands it, and quotes it. I think this exactly why the Wikipedia article cited above noted that “’Secondary’ does not mean ‘good.’”

And indeed right now there are already several citations in the article to primary legal sources (albeit sometimes pointing to the wrong page) to www.gfaclassaction.us (which now redirects to www.gfaclassaction.org), which directs to primary legal documents in references 46, 47, and 48. References 42 and 48 are also direct citations of legal documents. How is it right to quote from primary legal sources when it comes to the legal maneuvering and positioning before settlement but a violation of Wikipedia rules upon settlement?

That’s why I think the most dispassionate, even-handed, non-prejudicial way is to keep quoting from the primary legal documents. That way, people can make up their own minds. It seems like the salient facts in the settlement are these:

Gospel for Asia must return $37 million in donations to its donors, less the $12.2 million in plaintiff’s attorney fees and $750,000 in attorney expenses.

Gospel for Asia did this, not as an admission of guilt, but because the ministry would cease to exist if it didn’t settle.

KP Yohannan’s wife must resign her position on the Gospel for Asia board and be replaced by a person acceptable by the plaintiff and defendant

Plaintiff will have a seat on the Gospel for Asia board for three years.

Plaintiff and defendant stipulate that all donations designated for use in the field were ultimately sent to the field. The key complaint of the plaintiff was the donations designated for use in the field were not sent to the field.

Right now, the article contains none of this information, but instead selected information about legal maneuvering that took place for the settlement. That makes the article more than incomplete, it makes it prejudicial, and as such, not up to the standards of Wikipedia. This is a fact that Wikipedia itself acknowledges, noting “This section may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources.” This is exactly what I’m trying to fix, and would welcome your help since I’m being blocked from doing so. Mckaylagrace (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that you aren't a legal expert either. Also you forgot court financial oversight for three years from your list. From what I read the issue for the plaintiff was that the funds raised for specific purposes were not spent on those purposes but elsewhere albeit they are stipulating it was spent somewhere in the field. Now there can be very legitimate reasons for redirecting funds but organizations should be upfront (e.g., stating that donations to Org. X for Hurricane Dorian may be used for other disasters). The article is confusing as is, I agree --Erp (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Erp:, you make a good point. In fact, GFA is not under financial oversight for three years. There are provisions in this agreement that play out over three years. 4.3.9 calls for an annual report for three years "to monitor GFA-USA's compliance with this agreement." This makes sense given that board appointments agreed to in the settlement will last for three years.

Furthermore, if you look at another primary source, the original "class action complaint". Retrieved 30 September 2019., you see how much of the complaint revolves around the claim that 100% of donations go to the field. The plaintiffs' main complaint was that this hadn't happened, and yet they agreed that it had in fact happened in the Settlement. Again, primary sources turn out to be critical.

So again, I believe it becomes ever more clear that to convey an accurate understanding of this case and its outcome, the only way to do this is to rely on the Settlement as a primary source. What are your thoughts?Mckaylagrace (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Which would require interpretation to a degree that neither of us in our roles as editors are permitted to do. Legalese is its own dialect. Note in my edit of the article I think I stuck pretty close to what the secondary sources stated (I did not use financial oversight by the court just that it would receive reports). I have added a link to the documents so the reader is free to look at the originals and draw their own conclusions. --Erp (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Erp: Thank you for your edits. I believe we're moving in the right direction. My real concern is a lack of symmetry throughout the page, with so much of the content focusing on controversy instead of the work and impact of the organization. The word count of the controversy sections is actually higher than the rest of the articles. As one of the largest missions organizations in the world, the article seems imbalanced. This becomes very clear in the class action section in which the four paragraphs present what come across as a partisan picture of Gospel for Asia. For example, allegations are outlined, but not the subsequent categorical denials from Gospel for Asia as well as the fact that the Plaintiffs ultimately stipulated that they rejected their central allegations that brought class action against GFA in the first place, vacating their own charges in the settlement.

As Judge Brooks noted, “The fundamental question in this case has always been whether these entities have in fact redirected donated money in violation of promises that were made to their donors around the world (https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Murphy-v-Gospel-For-Asia-Inc-et-al/MEMORANDUM-OPINION-AND-ORDER-denying-85-Motion-for-Protective-Order-granting-94-Motion-for-Sanctions-and-deferring-ruling-on-104-Motion-for-Sanctions-Signed-by-Honorable-Timothy-L-Brooks-on-June-4-2018/arwd-5:2017-cv-05035-00125).” There is no sense in this section that in this case, the Plaintiffs agreed that donations went where they were supposed to go, repudiating the very basis for their suit.

What would you recommend to alleviate this? I'm thinking we could either cut down the content to be more straightforward and nonpartisan (ie. Murphy alleged this. GFA alleged this. They settled on this.). Or we could add more content to this section and create symmetry by providing more of GFA's responses to the allegations. What are your thoughts?

Paid editor with conflicts of interest

Mckaylagrace (talk · contribs), who has for a year been doing substantial edits to this article with a pro-GFA bent, has now disclosed that they are a paid editor, and his since continued doing substantial edits on the article. Their edits need to be reviewed carefully. They are encouraged not to edit the article directly, but to suggest or request edits on this Talk page, due to their strong conflicts of interest. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Affiliate Offices

I have been advised to suggest edits here instead of implementing them myself as it may be perceived as a COI. I had previously made edits before being advised against it, but the edits made were only to correct misinformation and provide updates to ongoing stories. To continue this effort of updating the info here, I would suggest providing information in the Affiliate Offices section. Some helpful unbiased info can be found for different offices on the respective country's charity registration sites. For example, founding date and office locations may be found at Canada's charity registry.

Would any fellow editors like to help find and insert this info? --Mckaylagrace (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

We should not be listing addresses of the offices; Wikipedia is not a directory. At the moment, the far more urgent need is to scrape out all of the promotional material that has been added to this article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent edits here. But I noticed one recent edit removed material, flagging it is as ADVERT. The removed material seems to be specific records and examples of the work of the organization without asking for monetary support or any type of promotion.Mckaylagrace (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The adding of the ADVERT tag applied it not to a single edit, but to the article in general. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Ahh okay. May I ask for a few examples of what comes across as advertisement?Mckaylagrace (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

"K.P. and his wife, Gisela Yohannan, have dedicated their lives to spread the knowledge of Jesus throughout South Asia in hopes that people who have never heard of Jesus would have the option to follow the Christian faith." "These wells provide free, clean water to individuals regardless of caste, class, social designation or religion." " in 2018 GFA assisted “more than 70,000 children, free medical services in over 1,200 villages and remote communities, 4,000 wells drilled, 11,000 water filters installed, Christmas gifts for more than 200,000 needy families, and spiritual teaching available in 110 languages in 14 nations through radio ministry.”" (quoting a press release, naturally.) There's a difference in the goals of a press release and the goals of an encyclopedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Believer's Church

The final paragraph of the Believer's Church section reads, "GFA has been criticized for engaging in predatory proselytization while providing aid in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami. The Hindu American Foundation condemned the organization for pressuring vulnerable tsunami victims to convert to Christianity, setting up illegal unregistered orphanages and forcing orphans recite the Christian prayers several times a day.[76]"

I suggest that this information be removed or edited as it contains emotionally leading verbiage from a source that would naturally be in opposition to the organization as a "competing" religious movement. The source link is also unavailable, so the many claims cannot be verified. Mckaylagrace (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Before I could get to it, another editor added an archive link, so the HAF material is verifiable, as well as adding a link to an article from a third party source covering some of the same material. So it looks covered to me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Nat. Another discrepancy I noticed is reference 70. The Hindu reported the Church of South India leaving the KCC but according to the official KCC site and the Kerala Coucil of Churches Wikipedia site, CSI did not leave the KCC. This should be updated. Mckaylagrace (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Support a modification as per https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2017/sep/02/no-severing-ties-with-kerala-council-of-churches-csi-bishop-clarifies-1651381.html which denies removal but does state a lesser action of non-participation. Don't have time to edit right now --Erp (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to pop back in and say this edit still needs to be made. Thanks for the support link, Erp. I would also like to point out that Narada News referenced in this section has been shut down as a publication pertaining to issues of bribery amdist the sting operation it uncovered. What is the required protocol in adjusting information provided by an unreliable source? Mckaylagrace (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

You can raise the question of its reliability at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I will say that "he was arrested a government official who his sting operation showed had taken bribes" is not a great argument for showing unreliability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I have a similar concern with the HAF reference. The Hindu American Foundation also has many allegations against it as being a nationalist/supremacist outlet with clear affiliations with specific political and religious parties while it claims neutrality. What is the best way to go about ensuring the neutrality of the encyclopedia entry in this case? Mckaylagrace (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The HAF is only used as a source for their own statement, which is not presented in Wikipedia's voice. To judge whether that view has significance (which serves our goal of neutral point of view, we look for third-party sources... and in this case, we have third party coverage in the reference that follows. I will also note that the "many accusations" you source are two documents from a single source that has faced some criticism itself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Lead

I see that information on the lawsuit has been added to the lead. I wonder if to keep this neutral the information should include a citation as well as a clear statement that the settlement included the stipulation that all funds intended for the field went there. Otherwise the lead excludes the fact of no admission of guilt. The $50 million is also inaccurate. The settlement was $37 million according to the sources in the lawsuit section further down the page. The intro/lead also fails to give any scope of the ministry.Mckaylagrace (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Mckaylagrace in her reference to the lead and believe neutral information should be present. shelbychesbro

18:04, 30 October 2020

Two previous edits were reverted, removing key information from the lede of this entry:

1. This is my previous edit that was removed from the lede:

“Gospel for Asia supports national workers through Christ by sponsoring national ministries to minister to people's needs, sponsoring children, investing in community development, and helping families in need of care or during disasters.”

I understand a potential removal of the term “in Christ," but the remaining information in the previous quote is 100% factual and supported by many reliable sources. The lede is to not only define the group as being non-profit but to give readers a snapshot of what non-profit work the organization renders.

2. I find it redundant to include information about the lawsuit in the lead because there is a lengthy section of the entry dedicated to this topic. But, if the lede must include information on the lawsuit (although I believe it to be unnecessary), it should at least include the final verdict that “all funds designated to the field were sent to the field and used for ministry purposes; and no Individual Defendant, as defined herein, received any improper personal gain or enrichment from or related to donated funds".[55] This will at least ensure that the description of the event is complete, factual and unbiased. I recommend this replace the current, uncited description of the class action lawsuit in the lede. It is a disservice to readers to inaccurately state that the settlement was $50 million. The settlement paid to donors was $37 million, the rest was attorney fees.

Shelbychesbro (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)shelbychesbro

1. Your spin on what they do is copied directly from their hype material on their about page, which both suggests its bias and makes it a copyright problem.
2. The intro is supposed to be redundant with the body of the article. Per MOS:LEAD, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." Attorney fees are, yes, part of the total of a settlement, so including them in the total figure is not inaccurate. And what you claim is a "verdict" is not a verdict, it's a statement that the GFA effectively paid $50 million for as a form of ending further legal trouble. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Let’s take it phrase by phrase:

“Gospel for Asia supports national workers by sponsoring national ministries.” Historically, this is perhaps the greatest contribution of Gospel for Asia and KP Yohannan. His bestselling book, Revolution in World Missions argues that instead of sending Western Missionaries to foreign countries, the West should send support to local workers in countries. As Gailyn Van Rheenen, notes in Missions: Biblical Foundations and Contemporary Strategies, “In fact, K. P. Yohannan calls Western support of locals the "third wave" in world missions. He argues that since Western missionaries are rarely effective in Asia, Western churches need to provide prayers and finances for only local evangelists (2009). His mission agency, Gospel for Asia, based in Dallas, Texas, raises millions of dollars for the support of local evangelists.” Van Rheenen, Gailyn. Missions: Biblical foundations and contemporary strategies. Zondervan Academic, 2014.

“To minister to people’s needs.” https://onenewsnow.com/missions/2020/07/10/quenching-the-thirst-of-millions-with-water-and-the-gospel

“Sponsoring children” https://www.christianheadlines.com/contributors/scott-slayton/gospel-for-asia-confronts-epidemic-of-missing-girls-in-africa-and-asia.html

“Investing in community development” https://www.beliefnet.com/wellness/environment/10-faith-based-nonprofits-fighting-the-world-water-crisis.aspx

“Helping families in need of care” https://onenewsnow.com/missions/2020/06/09/scandal-of-starvation-could-claim-millions

“Helping families during disaster” https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/06/23/christian-group-lends-hand-as-poverty-starvation-increase-in-india/

What is a better encapsulation of the work of GFA if you don’t like the one above?

Shelbychesbro ( talk) 18:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)shelbychesbro

One that focuses on their central effort - to spread the Christian religion through use of national missionaries - and not through the individual programs that they promote in their press releases (such as the one reworked for the ChristianHeadlines.com piece) by unreliable sources (the American Family Association, publishers of the OneNewsNow material.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@NatGertler – I believe it would be best for us to come up with a compromise for the lead. I do not want to have a reversal war with changes between you and I. I am willing to work together to come up with a compromise. Re: the change for $37 million versus $50 million. -- You do not have a source that you cite for the $50 million, but I am listing one for $37 million. (It is source #4 that included) Please let me know if you are willing to work toward a compromise. If not, it would be necessary to have an independent editor to evaluate the accuracy of each of our claims. Shelbychesbro (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Shelbychesbro

The introduction is supposed to be a summary of the body of the article, which includes "Gospel for Asia agreed to pay 37 million dollars to refund donations to 200,000 donors, $12,210,000 in Plaintiff's attorney fees and $750,000 in Plaintiff's attorney's expenses". Sources are not required in the introduction for material being summarized. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@NatGertler -- From your lack of addressing the option of compromise, it is obvious you are not willing to do so. I will be seeking other means of addressing the lead with Wikipedia. Re: the $50 million -- I support your claim, as you stated is accurate, that "$37 million refunded donations to 200,000 donors, $12,210,000 was paid in Plaintiff's attorney fees and $750,000 was paid in Plaintiff's attorney's expenses". I think it is important to be transparent with GFA's audience and I will update the lead to state exactly what money amount of money was paid and for what reasoning per your previous recommendation. Shelbychesbro (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)shelbychesbro

That is more depth in detail than we need for the lead, which as I noted, is a summary. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Declining request for Third Opinion: Dear fellow editors. I am declining the request for a 3O here. User Shelbychesbro is a WP:SPA [8] (if not a sock puppet, though I make no allegation) and clearly unable to edit from a neutral point of view. I commend Nat Gertler's patience. @User Shelbychesbro; if you are genuine in your desire to improve the encyclopedia please have a look at some of the other 6,243,111 articles here, the vast majority of which - unlike this article - you can edit with no conflict of interest. Please do not continue to attempt to edit this article. With all respect, Springnuts (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Springnuts Thank you for responding to my request. I appreciate your time.

In your response, "I am declining the request for a 3O here. User Shelbychesbro is a WP:SPA [8] and clearly unable to edit from a neutral point of view" it appears that you are claiming because I am a new user and have only edited one page (up to this point) that my edits are inherently biased.

Would it be a possibility for you to reconsider looking at the merit of my edits? If not, it appears the platform lacks neutrality itself and is more interested in the number of edits in a user's history rather than assessing the validity of these edits. Shelbychesbro (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Developing news

I am uncertain of the reliability of The Karma News, who are reporting fresh legal entanglements for the Believer's Church, which is funded through GFA. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

OneNewsNow source

Material was just added regarding Rwanda, but it's all sourced to a single article from OneNewsNow.com - a site that has fared poorly on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard in the past. This article is pretty clearly WP:CHURNALISM of this piece written by a "GFA Staff Writer". --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)