Talk:G12 Vision

General Lacks

I find many lacks in this article, most of which I'm unable to fulfill due to lack of information.

Cesar Castellanos murder attempt.
How the vision was delivered to Cesar.
Visions written in The revelation of the cross book.
Literature used in the organization.
--Chepech 21:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)chepech

I too find this page lacking in critical philosophies, goals, methods, and material regarding Cesar Castellanos's g12 vision. I shall in the near future make a comprehensive effort to update and monitor this page.

I say the article is bias. G12 is a divisive religious group and has divided many churches with its questionable doctrines. this religious group teaches Word of Faith teachings but it is never mentioned in the article. There are also reports of manipulations among its members and brain washing. I hope i can contribute to this article. thanks you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belovedelect (talk • contribs) 13:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

My proposed revert

Resolved

Hello, I propose we revert edits by User:G12vision (to the last version by 204.83.222.147). The User G12vision (COI?) removed a number of citations, and added a number of unsourced statements as well as a number of possibly biased sources. I'm going to do the revert tomorrow unless somebody disagrees. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't check talk page. Yes, I agree! peterl 05:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Artfish (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC) I am one of those who occasionally returns to view this page and check on its revisions. The G12 movement is highly controversial, and this page needs to reflect that. The overall tone of it should be neutral, while quoting positive and negative facts. Yet again, it is the G12 enthusiasts who have come back and vandalised the page to take out anything remotely critical or even questioning. I am removing all of Generacion12's edits. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT G12'S PROPAGANDA PLATFORM!!! Neither is it an anti-G12 platform, but nobody from the other side has tried to remove all the positive info and turn it into one. The censorship only comes from one side [User Artfish 7 December 2007

Re: The current dispute between Peterl and Progdog: As I stated before it is important that this page stays broadly neutral and factual. I have edited this page before when it has been attacked by G12 supporters who have removed any negative points, links etc - or made wild sweeping statements of their own! Apart from once removing the word "satanic" from the text, I have never had to do the same to G12 opponents. Progdog obviously has some knowledge and relevant factual material to contribute, but must avoid the statements of personal opinion and the emotive language - as G12 supporters have regularly been reminded before. Think carefully about how you are putting your points - and remember this is an encyclopaedia - not a discussion forum. I hope that others will leave any such, carefully considered edits stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artfish (talk • contribs) 17:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re copy vio

I'm not convinced that the copy vio is in fact that. Looks more to me like the page http://g12community.com/about/71-about-g12 is a copy of wikipedia. How can we tell? While we figure that out, I've reverted it to a more full version. Please discuss. peterl (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Until we can determine it isn't a copyright violation - it should remain at the stub version. --Versageek 21:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've started to add back info that is not contested. peterl (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Improvements

For the sake of communication, I'd like to explain my personal feelings towards this subject first. I am a Christian and I attend a church implementing the G12 Vision. I am committed to this church and I respect my pastors and the authorities that they respect. I am fond of my pastors and the people who have helped me get where I am. So, the topic of this article is somewhat close to my heart.

That being said, I would like to contribute to this article as well as I can while respecting the values of Wikipedia. I have read several of the guidelines for editors. Including Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability among others.

Concerning this article, I have two interests.

1. First, I noticed the details on the pastors Cesar and Claudia Castellanos. Discussing their income here doesn't seem to be necessary because the subject of this article is the G12 Vision. Linking to the pastor's personal pages instead would make more sense. Discussing their personal lives there would be more fitting.

1. Second, the article is also notably lacking in detail. The article appears to be just a general introduction followed by complaints. Having attended a church doing G12 for 4 years, I am relatively an expert in the area and I feel I can contribute helpful information about the G12 Vision.

These are the areas that I would like to address. I'd like to see the article be very authoritative and professional.

Any comments?

Crionell (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You should review the history of this topic - there used to be a lot more info but is was removed due to copyright concerns. If you personally created material that covered similar topics, that would be good. peterl (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to do that. Crionell (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing Improvements

Feel free to discuss here the improvements I am making.

Initial Research

From what I can tell, most of the useful content came from User:Amrix. I will keep looking through the history for ideas of topics to cover. Crionell (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Biased, Opinionated Sources Removing biased, and opinionated sources and content. I will continue to do so. HalcyonHaylon (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Accusations/criticism of "pyramid scheme"...

I'm going to add in the criticisms/concerns section that many opponents of G12 feel that it is a pyramid scheme. I will NOT be saying that it actually is, just that the concern/criticism exists and is wide-spread among G12 opponents. You can Google "G12 pyramid scheme" and find tons of websites which are voicing this concern and even making the direct accusations. In my local area, there are a few big G12 churches, and a lot of neighboring churches preach against G12 and call it a pyramid scheme. Sure, that's "original research" I observed here in my area from talking to people from local churches (note, I don't attend church). But the point is NOT to say that it either is or isn't a pyramid scheme; just that it's accused of being that by opponents.

If it's not adequate to leave that unsourced, I'm not sure how to do it. I'm a Wikipedia newbie. So would I want to link to webpages which criticize it in this way? Here are some if someone else wants to do it or teach me:

squidoo(dot)com /big_church_ii#module100976091 (blacklisted for some reason?) http://www.gotquestions.org/g12-vision.html http://www.francesandfriends.com/G12 http://letters.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2006/01/27/doubting_christian/permalink/630e74063683f6f1e0c30f0369dbc7be.html http://www.letusreason.org/latrain24.htm http://ja-jp.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=107822009259787&topic=23

Mind you, these are not necessarily what we would consider "scholarly" sources. It's just to demonstrate that many Christians and non-Christians alike view G12 as a financial and/or hierarchical pyramid scheme. There is no denying that the pattern of each disciple getting 12 of his/her own creates a pyramid if you draw it on paper. But we're not focusing on whether the accusations are true, again, just that they're being put out there.

If no one objects, I will make the addition in the next 24-48hrs to give more experienced editors (who don't have a vested interest in the topic) a chance to steer me in the right direction. I don't want to make an edit which appears unreliable or biased. Thanks! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.23 (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Low quality "Concerns" section

As a pastor (not executive) in a 10k+ member G12 Church, I think the Concerns section is lacking. Two lines, neither of which actually specify any concerns, how unprofessional. Joel's concerns can easily be cited from his website, and this article in particular: http://www.joelcomiskeygroup.com/articles/coaching/concernsG12.htm

Those concerns are: -Spiritualization of the Number Twelve in the Bible

   Basically, there is no president for how much emphasis is put on the power of the number 12.

-Franchising of the G12 model

   Suggesting that G12 is the only way is a problem

-The division this model is causing

   G12 is causing division amongst like minded pastors

I will add to this article some of these problems tomorrow, unless otherwise protested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristGuard (talk • contribs) 07:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do! Be bold! Feel free to make edits, referencing them well. peterl (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The line "There are negative personal experiences from former members." seems to be poorly sourced. The source is one testimony of one man, and a testimony notably lacking specific details. I think we either need to expand on this line of thought and add more sources, or remove it. What do you think? ChristGuard (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I added some formatting and a well sourced introductory line into the "Concerns" Section. I will add more details latter, as this is getting spiritually wearing (And I am going to an encounter weekend starting this evening and I don't want to go in with a bad heart. While I think a lot of these concerns that I will be adding in the near future are out of context, or baseless, I think they need to be listed and cited for a proper article. Later I will add those concerns afrom Joel, and I have found a good 10 Testimonies online that I will work on adding under the 'Personal Experiences section. ChristGuard (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we remove it or replace it with like a "Controversy" section. Nothing notable about it. References are taken from non-credible materials. Cite from reliable websites, as per WP:Verifiability. See also WP:Identifying reliable sources.

--PH 0447 (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of concerns section

Please refer to the comment section (repeated below).

   NOTE: Just because you might disagree with this section doesn't mean you can delete legitimate text, discussion and references.
   Unsupported changes to this section *will be reverted*.

I understand that there are some/many that don't want the "Concerns" section here. But it is a legitimate discussion. People's experiences are a significant issue with the G12 movement, and the weight of the influence must be noted somewhere.

Please do not revert this restore without discussion.

peterl (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on G12 Vision. 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/20130718231836/http://thecenters.org/searchgroups.aspx?groupid=16 to http://www.thecenters.org/searchgroups.aspx?groupid=16
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219030311/http://www.midwestoutreach.org/Pdf%20Journals/2007/spring_2007.pdf to http://www.midwestoutreach.org/Pdf%20Journals/2007/spring_2007.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130310082417/http://gotdiscernment.com:80/2009/11/17/the-truth-about-the-g12-movement to http://gotdiscernment.com/2009/11/17/the-truth-about-the-g12-movement

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) 19:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on G12 Vision. 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/20110723184029/http://web.presidencia.gov.co/discursos/discursos2004/enero/mision_carismatica.htm to http://web.presidencia.gov.co/discursos/discursos2004/enero/mision_carismatica.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723184150/http://web.presidencia.gov.co/discursos/discursos2008/enero/cristo_30012008.html to http://web.presidencia.gov.co/discursos/discursos2008/enero/cristo_30012008.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723184142/http://web.presidencia.gov.co/sp/2009/enero/26/11262009_i.html to http://web.presidencia.gov.co/sp/2009/enero/26/11262009_i.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://gotdiscernment.com/2009/11/17/the-truth-about-the-g12-movement

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) 11:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)