Talk:Planetshakers/Archive 1

Can we get a band redirection
Can we get a "This article is about Planetshakers church, If you are looking for the band see Planetshakers (band). I want to make sure everyones cool with that before we do anything --Casket56 (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Controversies

 * There has been an issue with people editing the article saying the Planetshakers is a cult, they also have no accountability due to not having a wikipedia account.

The person saying this has an IP address for Queensland, yet Planetshakers is located in Melbourne and this also “original research” which isn’t allowed on Wikipedia, unless there is factual information available that can be sited. If it cant be sited then it can’t be included on the article. Actually you’ll see that I’ve updated the page article with the latest news article from “The Age”, the Age reporters had 3 weeks to report any information about the church. And it turns out there isnt a problem, we've also had the ABC report about Planetshakers and there still wasn't an issue. I'd invite those who have a problem to post their concern here before posting on the main article. Lodders 01:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see that there is one particular person who keeps vandalizing this page. One of them saying "with allegations that it has cultish tendancies."

Please cite who has made those allegations, and discuss it here first. Saying something such as that without any proof or backup is not neutral, and is childish. A church that has a large amount of attendees, is not enough to justify it being a cult. The same thing has happened with Hillsong - people like to call it a cult without any credible evidence just because it is big. Clarky3429 18:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * They were obviously vandalising the article...! Don't take them seriously...

Yoda921 03:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Yoda


 * Yoda921, I'm all up for a good joke but this keeps happening and reflects badly on the organization as a whole. It also lowers wikipedia's standards. Also if you ask any of the city church staff, they are very unimpressed with what they do being called "cultish".

Lodders 00:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is now controversy, just vandalism and the section should be removed from the article. Also check WP:ASR. Rettetast 13:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In an attempt to compromise with our anonymous friend, I have added a real source and made the sentence more generalised... i figure it's the best of both worlds - it recognises a negative but isn't overly nasty. Jaems 03:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got no problem although the fact that its generalised may cause others to have an issue, nice work. Lodders 12:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed that "section" - this "real source," as you call it, never stated what you said it did.

Yoda921 05:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Yoda


 * I didn't claim it said anything... what I did was add a real source in an attempt to placate the anonymous contributor (the one who consistently labelled Planetshakers, in effect, a dangerous cult) while balancing the paragraph away from its strongly-worded allegations. You will note that the change I made actually lessened the invective aimed at Planetshakers. I am not sure why you are taking it out on me. To be honest, users like you are the reason why I have stopped editing Wikipedia regularly. You can "work" with the troll alone now. Jaems 12:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Other
I notice that this page is in severa; "not important" Categories. While I'm not personally fan of this movement, they did recieve coverage on the 7:30 report, a high profile half hour TV show on the govenment run TV network (one of 5 networks in Australia, and usually considered the most 'objective') on 11/1/2007 (Australian topic, Australian dates) so they might pass the 'importance' tags slapped all over the bottom of the peice. The peice focused almost entirely on emerging youth movements, strong links to World Vision (which is headed by a pastor that is also related to the treasurer) and a "political alignment" in the movement wich was denied by the leader. Could potentially make a addition to the contrevesies section.203.173.3.67

Re:203.173.3.67 Theres no point creating a "contrevesies section" seeing as the spelling is incorrect. As for the "political alignment" denied by the leader, the information is factually true, I would add the information myself but it comes under "original research" and if one would like to review all of the church sessions, you can get in contact with the church as they have recordings of virtually all preaching. Also the relation between the head of World Vision Australia and Australia's Treasurer is that they are brothers, how is that remotely controversial? Also why bring it up in the Planetshakers artical when that would me more related to the World Vision artical? --Lodders 23:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've made some edits, categorised the topics into groups, etc. But in terms of appearance, it doesn't look very pretty. Do forgive me... Jaems 13:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

To 203.214.90.63, who changed the language of this piece: you deleted all references that promoted a NPOV. For instance. If you have an issue with what is said regarding Evans' actions when he moved to Melbourne, bring it up here in the Talk page before making big changes like that. And by the way, it is certainly not verifiable that Planetshakers church has an attendence of 3000, so don't add it. This is not a promo site for PS. Jaems 09:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Your comments are fair enough Jaems, still have yet to understand the Wikipedia method of doing things so forgive me of the unadvised changes. However, don't you think some language in the article appear to have a certain bias against PS? Phrases like: These speakers are imported to instill a sense of "excitement" about the event, to "inspire" young people in their Christian walk. and ''...'poaching' of parishoners from other churches. This has been a deliberate attempt...'' sounds a bit one sided to me, in my opinion at least. I think writing to inform the public about the church populace is fair, perhaps not the actual figure but the demographical makeup should be alright? Please impart. Philip Ben 10:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Another thing, perhaps it's possible to have another Controversies section where all the not so rosy items can be slotted under? Philip Ben 10:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks mate... You can feel free to add sections on "Controversy". Take a look at the make-up of the Hillsong page (or this one) to see how to set it up. There is no way Evans has 3000 in his church... And it is true that many of the people that go there are from other churches originally. I can see how you were trying to balance it out a bit, so good on you. Maybe just change the language to what you perceive as less anti-PS (keeping in mind though, that, for example, the word "imparting" is Christianese and promotes a Christian POV). It is also important not to deleting assertions merely because you disagree. The assertions - if they are to be properly refuted - must me met head-on, not suppressed. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm (relatively) new myself. Jaems 13:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Done some minor changes, mostly rewording the language to having a somewhat less anti-PS bias but still maintaining the core meaning. Philip Ben 12:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't that better than just deleting the allegations? Good stuff. Jaems 01:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

To our anonymous ostrich (head in sand) friend: Stop deleting the "controversy" section re. Planetshakers. Simply because you do not like the allegations does not make them go away. Deal with them appropriately; maybe put a succinct defence up. Do not delete them again. Jaems 09:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

what you have been saying in the "contraversies" section is factually incorecct, as most of the staff of planetshakers church have come from Paradise community church, such as Henry Seeley. Mike Gugglimecci and Mike webber. with one piece of information already shot down, it makes me wonder where you get your information from. And Planetshkers city curch has a membership of over 3000. another pice of your rubbish blown to bits = it has been mentioned in service multiple times that that is the case. and i am the ostrich, and if you wish to discuss this outside of this forum e-mail me. Bjkaus@yahoo.com. Tejas57

I have attempted to put a bit of balance into the artcle. seeing as though the controversy section seems to not want to go away, i have attempted to take your advice and put a succinct defense up. i have also done a general tidy up, adding information (but not deleting any), including the name of the new album. 139.168.29.213 18:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Added the amount of people going to city church as it is now verifiable thanks to the age article here: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/gods-calling-attracts-6500/2006/01/04/1136050495638.html 60.230.143.98 06:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

theres a link near the top linking to a russell evans page but it seems to be to the wrong russell. is the section taking a stab at the Worship Him and Praise Him albums really helpful? do we have evedence that its really an issue that the releases are close together or is it just someones opinion? i kinda agree on the sematics point but its the way the words are commonly used. i haven't heard of ether being a real issue joanna 11:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

To user Tmjsmith, If you are going to modify the article, do it properly. You are flooding the history with junk, and making the article page look bad. Please leave it. Clarky3429 14:31, 01 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and verify tags
The Help Desk mailing list received an e-mail from PlanetShakers claiming that the church would consider legal action over the article. I assume that he means the controversies situation.

I have added the NPOV and verify tag because we need verifiable information for the material in the articles especially the controversies section. Our Cite Sources provides additional information. In particular, what we are after is third party sources such as newspaper articles, magazine or journal articles confirming the information in this article. If sources can't be found immediately, I would suggest putting the controversies and other sections that can't be verified in here while sources are looked for. Because of the complaint, the NPOV tag has been added but in my view can be removed once sources have been found and the article complies with Neutral point of view. If you require further clarification, please contact me on my talkpage. Capitalistroadster 19:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm pretty sure I started the Planetshakers article on WP, but admittedly haven't edited it much recently. While I am pro-Planetshakers, I'm all for a fair NPOV article.  The controversy section is however, of very little benefit and doesn't really add anything to the article.  It's just hearsay, or more of a single opinion.  I'm familiar with many people from churches all around Melbourne, and on the whole, there is very little hostility towards Planetshakers.  The controvesy section however does present them as being resented by the majority of churches in Melbourne -- definitely a far stretch from the truth.  While there may be some legitimate concerns some people have of particular aspects of their ministry, the controversy section doesn't really reflect much of that. None of that content is really worth keeping. &mdash; SimonEast 01:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, well I did a fairly big rewrite of the article, hoping I didn't stand on too-many people's toes. See the differences here. I cut down most of the Controversies section, not because I disagree, but because some was irrelevant, and the rest was unsubstantiated. The single remaining sentence is very much "weasel wording" and so should probably be removed also (see the Wikipedia policy at Avoid weasel words).  But here is the original paragraph, for discussion's sake.
 * "Planetshakers City Church", which started in 2004, sparked a degree of controversy in Christian circles in Melbourne. The Planetshakers 'team' were recruited from various churches around Australia (with the majority however, coming from the church that spawned the movement, Paradise Community Church in Adelaide) and the church was started in the knowledge that early growth would be at the expense of other churches. The "Boom" youth group is a prime example of this. However alot that go to boom are eather unchurched or attened youth groups on other nights of the week as well. While such conduct has raised claims of arrogance, Evans, for his part, claims that it is all "God-ordained" and therefore the "right" thing to do.
 * Let me know if you have any disagreements about my edits, or would like to know anything further. The weasel words template might be appropriate until that sentence is attributed to a legitimate source. &mdash; SimonEast 02:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ...Just a further note. My changes today were made based only on the current content present in the article -- I only just noticed that numerous edits recently had expanded more on the controversies. If any accusations are valid and verifiable, perhaps they could be posted here and discussed (with attributed sources).


 * And Jaems, you claim to be working for an NPOV article, yet a lot of your edits seem quite opinionated. If you have sources where reservations and criticisms are expressed, then they may be validly presented in the article, otherwise it appears very much like your own opinions, and is what Wikipedia calls "weasel wording". See Avoid weasel words. &mdash; SimonEast 04:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

did a quick edit changing the location of the church - the church has 2 more services at Storey Hall, than moves to the melbourne town hall, not Dallas Brookes. Another few quick edits = i have created pages for Arise (the new studio recording) and also for decade, and linked off to them. Tejas57 14:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Tejas. Thanks for your corrections, but are you sure about Melbourne Town Hall? If you attend the church, then you're probably more in 'the know' than me, but I often attend an Urban Life group, and they mentioned a week or two ago there that they were most-likely moving to the Dallas Brooks Centre. Perhaps that has changed. &mdash; SimonEast 23:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah i'm certain about the town hall - russel mentoned it on sunday. Tejas57

NPOV disputed
After reading this article, I really feel as though someone who is not at all affiliated with the church should go through and remove all of the unnecessary hype? I agree that it requires an article (I came because I was curious as to what it was) but cant help feeling it was written by someone trying to broaden their market.

I am not familiar with wikipedia and its processes, so I wont change anything. Passages like the following were particularly obvious.

running Friday nights (7:15pm) during school terms at Collingwood Town Hall or Melbourne High School (check website for details). The youth ministry has become so successful that the Catholic and Anglican churches are looking at adopting Planetshakers' methods.[2]

The church also runs a children's ministry called "Planetkids", led by pastors Rob and Assunta Bradbury, which is held concurrently with the main church service at 2:59pm & 5:15pm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.241.243 (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It clearly has been written as promotion for the church. I've included some ballancing and accurate referenced information regarding Michael Gugliulmucci. There's an unfortunate tendancy for people to want to re-write history in order to hide embarrasment. Respectful acknowledgment may just be more honest, and also provide future generations to learn from the mistakes of the past. I guess I'm pleading with the planetshakers marketing crew to play fair here. There's a distinct difference between brand maintenance, which is of course a responsibility in some contexts, and simply obliterating anything that doesn't serve your end. That's not an accusation, just a request. Please, lets be honest adults. Besides, having some factual and well referenced information available has to be better than the kind of gossip that gets around otherwise. MG is discussed on the hillsong site as per my reference. Remember this is an encyclopedia, its not myspace. This is intended to be a secular, neutral reference. If you believe that God dislikes such information being available, kindly allow him the opportunity to edit this Himself. If he refrains, go thou and do likewise.

Controversies
I see that my controversy section was not particularly popular. Although I still hold that they are statements of fact, I concur with SimonEast (and congrats on the great edit) that my passage could have been classfied as weasel wording. It is true that there was a degree of controversy about the move, but there are no verifiable sources (eg newspaper articles), so for the sake of WikiIntegrity, I've recanted it. Cheers, guys Jaems 11:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Jaems, thanks a lot for your maturity on the matter - I feared this might become somewhat of a flame war. Wikipedia seems to be developing a struggle with article-integrity lately and I hope we can uphold it. But should you find published criticisms of Planetshakers, I think it's fair that you summarise them in the article. &mdash; SimonEast 23:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem, mate. Like I said, I support the need for Wikipedia to have verifiable articles, in the sake of WikiIntegrity. Cheers. Jaems 02:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and Tejas57, thank you for your bile - a very Christian attitude, I might say. It is much appreciated. I used "team" in a more generic sense. If you analyse the lay-leadership members of Planetshakers Church then it will become abundantly clear who you are dealing with - those not originally from Adelaide, let alone Paradise. And just because Russell has said that there are 3000 adherents on a weekend doesn't make it true... Is it verifiable? I have recanted my negative remarks in the main article because they were not verifiable. You must not add positive ones unless they are verifiable. Jaems 11:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a need for an article about Signposts.com.au because people may not classify them as a worthy reference if they knew more about it and the major posting members. It's just that the site has in itself many controversies which people are likely to be unaware of.brum 07:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair call, it also appears that article has been removed anyway from signposts. Nath85 10:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked at that section from 'history' and it seemed largely unverified. Good thing it was/is deleted :)

Yoda921 12:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Yoda

Fair use rationale for Image:Ps citychurch logo.PNG
Image:Ps citychurch logo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SaviourOfTheWorldCD.jpg
Image:SaviourOfTheWorldCD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 03:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Album image
I linked the album cover to this article and updated the image page for fair use here.

Kresock (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have cut n paste the above from Talk:Saviour of the World. It should follow the article's talkpage.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Visually appealing
Hello fellow editors, have made changes to the page layout making it visually appealing and categorizing information presented in groups for easy readability and added minor new content.

I am very new Wikipedia editor and this page is my first edit. Apologies in advance if I have done some alteration that is outside Wikipedia code of conduct.

Love to hear your feedback and learn some tips from you all. Please leave your feedback if there are any. If you found any of my changes impropriety, please use this section to discuss here. Thanks heaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelkraj (talk • contribs) 11:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)