Hi. I'm afraid that this is one of the harder areas to handle on Wikipedia - reaching agreement amongst editors who have very different views on how content should evolve. :/ Noticeboards are frequently the best recourse for these, but I'm not sure that the WP:BLPN is going to be most effective here. The listing is quite old as such things go, and it doesn't seem to have brought much assistance.

What I might recommend is opening a new discussion at WP:NPOVN, explaining that the issue has been discussed at BLPN but not received much feedback. You should concisely and (so far as possible) neutrally explain what's going on and ask for uninvolved editors to try to help reach balanced presentation of the issues. It's really important to stay concise and neutral, because editors pick what they want to work on, and they are much more likely to involve themselves if you do. Given what happened at the failed "Request for comment" (RFC) at the Yohannan article, I fear that there may be some misunderstanding about how our consensus process works. The interpretation and application of policy is what works here, and great numbers of people are not always your friend. They can obscure the real issue as people focus instead on canvassing concerns.

Before starting something at a noticeboard, you might want to consider proposing a draft on the talk page of the specific articles - something that gives due coverage to controversies while avoiding drawing conclusions about them or overstating their significance. If you and other editors to those articles can draw something together that you can agree on, great. If not, you'll have something to point at when you request dispute resolution. It's really important, though, that you or whoever writes this tries to do so from a standpoint of strictest neutrality - it's part of our mandate to neutrally summarize in due weight what reliable sources say about subjects, for good or for ill. That means that even unpleasant episodes that have been settled happily are sometimes included in articles. We just try to be informative, not persuasive one way or another.

If you do file on one of the boards, please leave a note at the talk page of each article indicating that you've done so. It would probably also be a good idea to note that it's been done at the current listing at BLPN.

If all else fails, you can always try another RFC, but this needs to be carefully managed. Clearly, the last one was a dismal failure. For starters, it was interpreted as an "either/or" situation, and that's hardly ever the way things are going to. The focus must be on the best way to present material to be fair to the subjects but also to meet our mandate.

If you have any questions about the above, you are very welcome to come back by my talk page. :) My ability to watch conversations on other pages has diminished quite a bit as I'm not on Wikipedia quite as much as I used to be. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey friend, Thank you very much!. Your source was actually useful. I've added information and improved the research and the section in the article Gospel for Asia. I've also added the section to the page "K. P. Yohannan". The section "controversy" in the article "Believers church" was not about fraud allegations, but about religious controversies, which I researched and were not lies.

I detest when people slander biased stereotyped and deceitful defamations against God's people, or anybody else, but I'm also very disappointed to see that Mr. Yohannan has founded a new Christian denomination with episcopalian, ecumenical elements. May Jesus guide you --Goose friend (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]