Talk:I Am Second

Notability

This reads like a press release.

Not written in an impartial manner 139.222.232.142 (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Amen. It seems the only thing notable about this organization is their entry in the SXSW website contest. Not at all clear they warrant their own article. Glaucus (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have little doubt that they'd pass GNG. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Then please find some actual coverage of the organization beyond the SXSW bit, or their brief and press release-like coverage in non-WP:RS religious news sources. Glaucus (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• I will as time permits. However, you can't dismiss reliable sources because they are religion-based. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict: The subject it is notable. Besides the SXSW bit, there is also that Christian Post article. As per Niteshift above, just because it is Christian does not mean that it is not reliable (or else Nature is unreliable for science articles!). I did a g-hits search for the organization and then a few of the many names that they have done videos on. A short search found two Christian Post articles, this one and this one; a book review by The Christian Manifesto; a write-up by Charisma; an article by Courier Press; and a short blurb by Rapzilla in a post that otherwise just repeats Lecrae's testimony verbatim. This organization is definitely notable. I don't even see a problem with the writing. It isn't promotional, it is informative.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Promotional talk "Below includes a list of famous Seconds who are involved in the I Am Second movement and have dedicated their lives to Jesus Christ, which were transformed through the power of their Christian faith:" - This is not a neutral statement. A more faith-neutral way of putting this? "Below includes a list of individuals who are involved in the I Am Second movement. They describe themselves as having dedicated their lives to Jesus Christ and claim that Christianity had a transformative impact on their lives." 159.15.129.64 (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• You could substitute "notable" for "famous", but I'm not sure about trying to insert "claim". they've said it impacted their lives in that way. Who are we to insert verbiage that makes it sound questionable. Their statements aren't questionable sounding when they make them. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm - Biased?

From what I read that is questioning the information on this site as potentially not credible lacks "credibility". Just because something has a Christian connotation does NOT mean it is not reliable. The I am Second movement does NOT and is NOT a threat to anyone. Its main purpose is to put the principles of Jesus Christ (the Savior of many) into the forefront and to bring Peace, Love and Humanity to the world. The world allows tolerance of many religions and beliefs but when it comes to Christianity, it is very biased. Please ask yourself why that is? Also, ask yourself why does the message of "I am Second" scares you so much?

Let the validity of this page be authorized by who knows who, and stop censuring items that ring true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.205.5 (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)