Talk:Steven Furtick

Deletion?

This article should not be deleted for the following reasons:

• Pastor Steven Furtick is in fact a notable figure. He pastors the second fastest growing church in the country, Elevation Church, which already has a wiki entry. Giving Furtick his own wiki entry gives more context and reference to this existing information about Elevation Church. The church has been mentioned in many publications including: Outreach Magazine, Church Executive, the Charlotte Observer, Collide Magazine, Church Solutions, The Christian Post. He is one of the American churches leading young voices and has spoken at numerous conferences and events around the country.
• Also, he is a notable figure by having similar influence to that of other pastors with their own wiki pages: Pastor Craig Groeschel, Pastor Rob Bell, and Pastor Andy Stanley.

If these are not sufficient reasons, please let me know what to do in order to give further credibility. Thank you. [Unsigned comment by Hollingsworthr1 21:34, 3 September 2009]

I propose that this article be merged into Elevation Church per Wikipedia:Notability. The Charlotte Observer reference seems to be the only citation for the article citing his relative notability. The link to the church growth ranks does not imply notability to an entity other than the church itself as very little information is provided. I will perform the merger unless more sources are added citing his notability. Dmarquard (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: I am concerned that your interests may conflict with Wikipedia's. You cannot defend an article you want to keep because you assert a bias, it must conform to Wikipedia's policies. Dmarquard (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Who exactly are you referring to? Anyway I would not be opposed to merging. Furtick's notability is tied to the church's. But I would wait to get more input before I just unilaterally merged it. I'll put a tag on both articles to alert editors. Ltwin (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ltwin. Though I may have spoke out of school, I was referring to questionable edits made in the past by Hollingsworthr1. I agree that a consensus should be made. Dmarquard (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Give it a day or two. Because these are lightly edited pages I doubt we'd get much input anyway unless we advertised but this seems pretty uncontroversial. Ltwin (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

I added a few lines with links to critiques of Furtick. Given his fame, and given that other wiki pages about famous pastors (Bell, McClaren, Driscoll, etc), I think this is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.223.50.242 (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed 'critiques' of Furtick, due to lack of legitimate sourcing. Both sources referenced base their critiques on generalizations and assumptions, lacking proof and reason. One was a defamatory fake Twitter account that uses the platform as an attempt to damage the character of the Pastor. The blog referenced is unsubstantiated in its claims of Furtick. Other critiques of 'famous' Pastor's (Pastor Craig Groeschel, Pastor Mark Driscoll, Pastor Rob Bell) don't reference similar trivial critiques aimed at this type of character damage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollingsworthr1 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The fake twitter account is (i) an obvious fake account given the title "FakeFurtick and (ii) a parody of Furtick. Given that Furtick is very well known not only in the Charlotte region but also nationally, parody is to be expected. Given that it is a parody, it is not intended as proof or evidence of Furtick's character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.223.50.242 (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Discrimination" section

I am removing this section. The paragraph on the child is best covered on the church's page. This is an attempt to make him look back for what staff did at the church and doesn't even attempt to be neutral. On the Ted Haggard issue, this is not notable enough to be included here. You can apply guilt by association all you want, but Wikipedia doesn't do that here. Ltwin (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

"Controversy"

The justification for Furtick having his own page on the Elevation talk page is that he's a controversial figure. Yet, he has no controversy section to detail this. The page is only basic information that, while informative and true, is unimportant for why he is a controversial figure and why he should have his own page. This information should either be included here, or this page should be merged with the Elevation Church Page. Ebgraham —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC).

But you can't even definitively say that Steven Furtick has done anything controversial regarding the cerebral palsy case. In the instance of Ted Haggard, you essentially list a bunch of negative qualities about him and then say, "he was invited to speak at Furtick's church." What is the controversy? Ltwin (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The controversy was a media storm around both incidents. (a) about discrimination regarding the boy, which caused resentment in the church and the community (from personal firsthand knowledge of the situation) and (b) about whether or not Ted Haggard should be allowed at the church. I don't agree that Steven Furtick should have his own page, but since he does, these should be reflected on it. Adding back in and will continue to do so.Ebgraham (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

1)The removal of the boy is not about Steven Furtick. It is about the church he pastors. There is a whole paragraph which intimately describes the incident from both perspectives, and Steven Furtick is not the subject of the story. This belongs on the church's page.

2) To start with, you cannot use a wikipedia article as a source. Wikipedia only uses reliable sources. Wikipedia, by its very nature, is not a reliable source. Now while the phrase "accused meth user, closet homosexual, and male prostitute client" is indeed sourced, and no one doubts that all that stuff happened, the way you have phrased it is shameful and unnecessary. If a description of why Haggard is controversial was needed, there are better ways of doing it. However, it isn't needed. You provide no context for why this is supposedly controversial. I can only imagine, from reading the article, it is controversial because gay members were let down that Furtick didn't condone homosexuality. You didn't write that though. All you did was write the above description of Haggard, which is guilt by association and not encyclopedic. In short, I see nothing that indicates a controversy. Who is saying there is a controversy? Ltwin (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

added source for Ted Haggard's invite being controversial. Leaving in "accused meth user, closet homosexual, and male prostitute client" because that is exactly why he was controversial. You're right about the wikipedia source...I'm new at this but will change name to link instead. [edit: Numerous news stories reference Ted Haggard's speaking as a controversy including the added reference and this sotry: http://sandhills.news14.com/content/top_stories/608329/disgraced-pastor-speaks-at-charlotte-church/ You seem to be the only person in doubt that there was controversy.Ebgraham (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)] Leaving in the story about the boy because Furtick is not only founder but also head pastor and, therefore, responsible for all the other pastor's in his church. The situation reflects badly on him and should be included on his personal page.Ebgraham (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how seriously Wikipedia takes the biographies of living persons. If not, you should definitely read WP:BLP. Just because an article is written about an event (in this case Ted Haggard speaking at Elevation) does not mean it is controversial. To establish that there is a controversy, the sources we cite must say there was a controversy. Then, when we mention the controversy in this article, we must say why it was controversial. None of the articles you cite say that Furtick is controversial because he let Ted Haggard speak in his church. The burden of proof is on you to show there is a controversy here using reliable sources.

Now about the removal of the boy, you write yourself "(possibly Furtick)". This is a biography of a living person, if we're gonna write anything on here, we have to get it right. Ltwin (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You didn't read the source I added. Direct quote "Steven Furtick, lead pastor of Elevation Church in Charlotte, N.C., knew inviting the disgraced pastor who was involved in a sex and drugs scandal was controversial" and from http://sandhills.news14.com/content/top_stories/608329/disgraced-pastor-speaks-at-charlotte-church/, "Elevation pastors say the controversy is not just a story about the preacher's downfall, but about forgiveness." that meets the burden of proof. will take out the "Possiby Furtick"Ebgraham (talk) 05:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You are putting your own meaning into the source. Furtick is talking about the Ted Haggard's actions as being controversial, not his speaking at the church. You have shown nothing which says Ted Haggard speaking at the church was controversial, except that gays and lesbians who attend Elevation were upset that Furtick did not condone homosexuality. If you want to put that in, then the sources would support that. Ltwin (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you still not read it? "Furtick...knew inviting the disgraced pastor...was controversial"Ebgraham (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I read it. There was no controversy noted, except that LGBT persons were upset that Furtick did not condone homosexuality. Is this the controversy you are referring to? If so, say so in the article. If not please tell me who is upset about Haggard's appearance. What news articles mention people upset over this? If this is controversial, then there has to be actual people saying that it is controversial. Ltwin (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Even though this is Steven Furtick's page and he said that it was a controversial decision you have decided that it was not? Leaving it in until you produce a source of Furtick saying it was not controversial.Ebgraham (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's controversial Ridintherails (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The point is you have cited nothing which shows that someone else thinks its controversial. Let me ask you, who is upset by this? Furtick isn't. Furtick is not opposing his own actions. Who dislikes this? Who is the other side of the controversy? Furtick cannot have a controversy with himself. Where is the proof that there is a controversy???????? Furtick probably does believe his actions would be controversy, but unless there is someone who is saying "I don't like this" or "this isn't right" there isn't much of a controversy. You have cited neither. Ltwin (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It's clear Ltwin is one of Furtick's "goats" and will fight anything negative about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.190.159.57 (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm no one's "goat." If you actually look at the article history for both Furtick and Elevation Church you will see I have fought to keep things as close to the sources as possible and relevant to this article. I find it funny that an unidentified anonymous user is making accusations of such a nature. Any way, you are probably new here so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just direct you to WP:AGF, Wikipedia's guideline on "assuming good faith" which all contributors are expected to follow. Ltwin (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Just joining in here after making some edits to the bibliography for Furtick. I'm on Ltwin's side here. I believe the cerebral palsy controversy has little to do with Furtick and everything to do with the church itself. Although Furtick is the lead Pastor, the source states it was a volunteer who removed the boy and that Furtick's response was to order special needs training for his staff. There seems to be no controversy on the part of Furtick here. No source that I can find accuses him of any controversy, unless you count declining the meeting with the mother after the media was involved, which would be the smart choice for any public figure.

As for Haggard, this is even more clearly not a controversy. The sources refer only to Furtick's belief about the controversy, saying "he knew" it was controversial to invite Haggard, but state no outside opinions on the matter being controversial, so I would consider Furtick's claim of controversy to be marketing for his church rather than a high quality source.

Based on the positions in WP:BLP on Balance, Challenged or Likely to Be Challenged, and People Who are relatively Unknown I am removing this content from the article and placing it here in case further sources are cited. The WP:CRITICISM rule also applies here, specifically Avoid sections and articles focusing on "criticisms" or "controversies". Given that this is the Biography of a Living Person, I feel it is appropriate and proper to remove this content immediately. I agree that the Haggard "controversy" is valuable in terms of characterizing Furtick and would definitely support this information make its way back into the article if it is fit into the context of the article and not broken into a controversy section. If the cerebral palsy incident is not already included in the article for Furtick's church, it should probably be there instead. Eventhewise (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Controversy Section from Article

Furtick invited Ted Haggard, the former pastor of New Life Church of Colorado Springs, Colorado, who resigned amid a drug and homosexual sex scandal, and his wife to take part in an interview at his church in April 2009. Furtick stated that the purpose of the invitation was neither "a gesture of endorsement nor of condemnation".

Furtick has received attention for his church's treatment of a child with cerebral palsy. The child's mother stated that they were escorted to the church's lobby after the child said "his own kind of Amen" during the 2011 Easter service. The church defended its action, saying the child was not removed from the church but only escorted to another section of the church to watch the service. The mother and church officials had planned to meet to discuss the incident; however, the meeting was cancelled after the mother contacted the media. Even though the pastor canceled the meeting with the mother, he called the Mecklenburg County ARC, an advocacy group for the disabled, and asked for special needs training for his staff. When Helms was told of this, she said that "this was the answer to [her] prayers."

"Outreach" section

I added some depth about Furtick's Love Week initiative including some more sources. Any other editors who'd like to offer help on this section would be greatly appreciated. I tried to stick closely to the sources, but I feel like it might read a little too promotional, even so. Any editors who can contribute to helping this section meet WP:NPOV would be very appreciated! Eventhewise (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"Public Ministry" section

I am going to remove the recent addition of content to this section referencing the Emerging Church, as the source appears to be a self-published blog and cites only self-published blogs as references, thus making it an unreliable source for biographical information (WP:BLP, "Avoid self-published sources"). Solongagothegarden (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"Church paying for much of the advertising"

I have removed this addition. It is not neutrally worded: "readily apparent... a clear conflict". StAnselm (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I will reword it and resubmit. JFTR, Eventhewise and 71.68.60.201 are consistently editing this page and the Steven Furtick pages to eliminate lots of information that while they may not like, and reflects poorly on the church and Furtick -- is accurate. This doesn't seem like it's in keeping with the spirit of Wiki. How can we make them stop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridintherails (talk • contribs) 22:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, hold on, that's a heavy accusation, Ridintherails. I have been active on this page and many other Christian pages for over a year. And if you'll review the edits, you'll notice -I- am the one who added this story to the article in the first place. In my removals I am only interested in upholding NPOV and BLP. The information you added about co-mingling of funds is properly cited AND inaccurate. Another article by the same author for the same publication specifies that the church was paid by the publisher for providing marketing services. The non-profit did not pay for the m0arketing, the non-profit performed the marketing work at the expense of the publisher, this is not "resume" information, it's in the source. Quote: "Third, the publisher pays the church outright to produce slick videos marketing the book, although the church won’t say how much" Remember another part of the spirit of Wiki, Assume Good Faith. BLP has very specific guidelines and we must be careful. I definitely appreciate your desire to improve this article, but you must be careful how you do it, on the Elevation Church page you attempted to cast aspersions on the financial integrity of an entire church by questioning what the church said versus some outdated statistics on the wikipedia page when the article you were citing gave you updated statistics with which you could have improved the article, rather than using the wikipedia page to draw conclusions. It is firmly not our job on wikipedia to draw lines and connect dots, but merely to report encyclopedic information as it has been collected and dispersed by other organizations. Please hear my heart in this, I am not trying to sugar coat anything, but rather be very careful to be accurate, especially in the case of a BLP, like this one.Eventhewise (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I stand by every word of my statement. Clear as day, you're a shill. Ridintherails (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"you attempted to cast aspersions on the financial integrity of an entire church by questioning what the church said versus some outdated statistics on the wikipedia page"

If those stats are outdated you need to update Furtick's page, because the $3.4 million figure still appears there. You should have left it alone, you're gonna like it less when I'm done this time.....and it will be to the letter of the law!!!