Talk:Joel Osteen

Blog Photos/Lifestyle Criticism

One other editor and I have reverted changes today that are in violation of WP:BLP, WP:NOR and WP:verifiability. To this point, the anon IP has not engaged in discussion.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In the latest revert, the anon user stated "Published photos and critical question raised are relevant. Your evangelical userboxes show bias." This, in itself, may be a strong clue of WP:TE. I do wonder why having evangelical tags/userboxes would show bias, though. Personally, I have a good deal of dislike for Osteen's prosperity gospel, and I would agree with the criticism the anon IP is raising. Even so, without demonstration of overall relevance to the BLP from a verifiably published source, it can't stay in the article.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The user re-added the information and I reverted it, again. Basileias (talk)

He just did it again. Basileias (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

He is at it again. I've escalated the warning message so a senior editor should be attracted to this soon. Basileias (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

User keeps at it. I have submitted a request for semi-protection. Basileias (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

He's still at it. I am reverting the edits as they come in and have reported him for vandalism also. Calabe1992 (talk) 03:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's looks like we have a brand new user Jmann20871 adding well sourced lines like "HORNY FROG BENDER," etc. It's probably not a coincidence and our anon is possibly back at it. Basileias (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that unless he already had an account, this is probably not him, as account creation was blocked from his IP. If we do see a similar edit to the IP edits, however, it can go down as a sockpuppet. Calabe1992 (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Having read the stream of edit summaries and this guy's unblock request, all I can say is "wow". I've got no idea why he thinks I'm a mic salesman (I work in project management at a pharma company in the midwest), or that I'm on the payroll of a church 2000 miles away, but that's just whacked.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh come one, I've always figured you to be part of a cabal of secret plotters. I am watching you too. =) Basileias (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It just happened again. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This account jumper left this on my talk page. Basileias (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not engage in edit warring as you have on the Joel Osteen page recently and in June. This censorship by you and one other evangelical wiki user has caused a Joel Osteen Wikipedia Censorship Watch group to form. This is your warning to stop censoring and reverting sourced edits. Let's be civil. Your practice of 'bait and switch' with new made up reverting reasons each time you undo a legitimate edit is underhanded. Additionally, to add to the refutation of your last reversion, please review the Reliable sources rules in regards to Criticism/Statements of opinion of a living person by a professional freelance journalist. Remember, wiki is not here for you to censor and own. It is not your promotional tool for the evangelical cause you are a part of. You have used four different reasons for having the same edit removed. Each time your argument is refuted with a valid Wikipedia rule, you switch to a new reversion reason. This is not honest, and this is not good for an encyclopedia. The Criticism section on the Joel Osteen page is there for a valid reason and so is the inclusion of an opinion article by a professional freelance journalist. The article "Joel Osteen Lives Luxuriously in His Heavenly $10.5 Million Mansion" belongs in this section. It is the perfectly appropriated place and it is a perfectly appropriated inclusion. Also the information has in the article and photos have been crosschecked with two independent news sources. They are as legitimate as can possibly be. Please respect other editors. This is your warning to not engage in this vandalistic behavior. Thank you. Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you removed topically-relevant content from a Wikipedia article. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. (Markelmonument (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC))

I entered a request for a protect. Basileias (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I've protected the page for a week, though that may well need to be extended later (let me know if this persists after this; it's on my watchlist now but I may not notice). To the other user, first, "professional freelance journalists" aren't reliable sources when they publish on blogs. Period. End of question. The only exception would be if the journalist was recognized as an expert on the subject (here, I guess that would be either Evangelical Christianity or Real Estate); that would mean that they've been widely published and cited on the subject. And even if they were reliable, they still wouldn't be reliable for a Biographical article, because BLP's have stricter sourcing rules. Second, any actual evidence of a "Censorship Watch group" will result in a swift round of blocks going to any and all involved: coordinating efforts off-wiki to enforce a POV is strictly forbidden (it falls under WP:MEATPUPPETRY and WP:TAGTEAM). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I forgot that actually even my above exception isn't a legitimate exception for blogs on living people. The full policy, found at WP:BLP, states, "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)." The only exception are things on newspaper pages called "blogs," but that article is not hosted on a newspaper site, and thus is not "subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." That blog will never, in any situation, be allowed as a source on any article about living people. So there is no need to form a team to try to get that blog in here, because it will never be allowed. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

A noteworthy correction and good points. Basileias (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Qwyrxian. I just got the following message on my talk page, as well (from a brand-new account):

It is always a wonderful thing when a censor or oppressor is forced to show their hand. It is an even better day when an agenda is exposed. You are a fraud, and that has been exposed through the "Joel Osteen Wikipedia Watch Group" that has formed as a direct result of your censorship control of Osteen's page for more than three years. The top of Wikipedia wonders why people don't want to edit anymore, as you and one or two others gang up to stifle outside editors.

I suspect this is just the same anon/sockpuppet user from earlier this year.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I added Clubhrt to the same SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Openbluesky); all the rest have been tagged and blocked. You can add future socks to that SPI, or just post them here and I can add them. I'm guessing that the semi-protection will probably have to be extended beyond this week; some of the socks (we're not sure exactly how many real people are behind all of these accounts) were using Tor nodes to create the accounts, which means that they know how to dodge the blocks. Every time they pop up, though, please tell me or another admin and we'll keep blocking them. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I just noticed that Courcelles extended the semi-protection out for a whole year. Well, that makes things easier. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection for a whole year? That is crazy! I am sorry Qwyrxian, but you nor Basileias own this article, though you both act like you do. On this discussion page, under the Criticism and controversy section, Basileias even typed himself that something should "probably should be worded more fair". That is so biased it isn't even funny. You admit you wan't to word things so they are fair.--99.177.248.92 (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection is just to stop people from creating new accounts and repeatedly disrupting the article. There's nothing else we can do to stop the disruption, if people won't listen and just keep creating more and more accounts instead of discussing the issue as is required. Furthermore, semi-protection doesn't stop you (or anyone else, confirmed or not) from discussing issues on this talk page. If the consensus of editors is that the change should be made, it will. If you think that there is still something that needs to change, please make a new section below and explain. Note, of course, that any threats or disruptive editing here could still result in blocks. Also note that no one is going to add anything to the article that doesn't conform with our policies--so, for example, blogs are still not reliable sources, and thus we can't add blog-based info to the articles. But if someone should find a good, reliable source that has some criticism that they think should be added, please, make a new section and explain. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 December 2011

Literature

• Your Best Life Now (2007)
• Becoming Your Best You (2007)
• It's Your Time (2010)
• The Christmas Spirit (2010)
• Every Day a Friday (2011)

98.165.91.114 (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Osteen is the author of dozens of books. Is there any reason why these particular ones are notable? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Frivolous edits

Previous editor added one line to Rev. Osteen's facts: Known for being heretic. People do abuse Wikipedia's democratic rules that everybody can edit anything, but I hope there are some replication in the cases like this.65.8.11.183 (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits & POV tag

Recent edits I believe have problems. First, the criticisms are about the ministry and not specifically the person. The BBB is not even really a third party source but something you climb into to gin up a controversy. Ministrywatch.com strikes me as a site that could just put up anything. Again, it is dealing with the ministry where the article is about the person. I am adding the POV tag until this can get more input. Basileias (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ministry Watch issues "Donor Alert"

In March 2011, due to a lack of transparency the independent financial and accountability review organization Ministry Watch, issued a Donor Alert against the ministry.

BBB Wise Giving Alliance issues non disclosure warning

In April 2012 BBB Wise Giving Alliance issued a Did Not Disclose warning for Joel Osteen Ministries in a comment by BBB Wise Giving Alliance they indicated that Joel Osteen Ministries failed to respond to their postal request and/or choose not to disclose.

Well, first, in this case, the ministry and person are practically equivalent, given that it's called "Joel Osteen Ministries". Second, calling the BBB a means to generate controversy makes me strongly suspect your neutrality here--the BBB is an internationally renowned organization that helps fight (mainly business, but also charity) fraud and poor practices. I figured MinistryWatch is okay based on the way their WP article describes them. The question is whether or not their opinion is considered to be important in the field of Christian evangelicals (i.e., if their opinion is WP:UNDUE. If you are concerns about BLP issues; I recommend the BLP noticeboard; I'll abide by whatever consensus says. As an interim measure, I am going to remove the section headings; they give WP:UNDUE emphasis to these events, and it's fine to have all of the criticisms bundled into 1 paragraph. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It is the norm for controversy sections to get out of control in the evangelical articles, more the reason why I am a bit of a bulldog with the sources. I will note this on the BLP noticeboard and go with what their direction. Basileias (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I would note that "Joel Osteen" and "Joel Osteen Ministries", for the sake of Wikipedia artitlces are *not* equivalent (practically, or otherwise) - they are two separate entities, and are not interchangeable. So, ratings/rankings of Osteen's business/ministry, if reliable, verifiable and notable, could potentially be included in a separate article on Joel Osteen Ministries. Also, MinistryWatch does not meet the criteria of a Reliable Source, as it is self-published (and therefore verboten in a WP:BLP, and I don't believe, IIRC, that the BBB qualifies, either.--Lyonscc (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I came here after this edit. I've done a bit of digging in the archives and agree with the removal but I thought I'd give my opinion and a link. Just in case anyone cares.

1. I think the conversation here is not really conclusive. I don't find the "they are not equivalent" argument convincing. If they were seperate articles I might actually argue for them to be merged.
2. What is much more persuasive is the conversation at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive168#Joel Osteen. Specifically the point that someone not participating with BBB need not be constued as a negative opinion. This being the case, the previous wording about a "warning" and the inclusion in the "criticism" section is a bit dodgey. More generally, there will be lots of organisations that don't participate with BBB so its probably not worth mentioning in most cases, including this one.

Yaris678 (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Hoax resignation

Sorry about that, I got fooled by a very convincing cross-linked piece. I really should know better. *hangs head in shame* Mongoletsi (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

why can't we see Joel in Jacksonville, Florida any more; what happened :-(

Is Joel alright. We haven't seen him for two Sundays. is he coming back to channel 12 here...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.178.242 (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia talk pages are not a way to contact the subject or a way to contact any media outlet, they exist solely for discussing ways to improve the article. Shearonink (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

book overview

Why is there no book overview? book overview is missing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slimjim1984 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean an overview of the book he wrote? There isn't one because we probably don't need one. This article is about Joel Osteen, the person. One or two sentences summarizing it would be fine, but we shouldn't have anything in depth, as that's outside of the focus of this page. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Education?

Why does this article have a subsection titled "early life and education" which doesn't even mention his education? Interwebs (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Both Joel Osteen and his sister Tamara attended and graduated from Oral Roberts University in the 80s. I would think that would be important to note. Sclawyergal (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)sclawyergal

Absolutely. Is there a reliable source? Grayfell (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually the best source I can find says Osteen dropped out of ORU and that he does not have a divinity degree.[2] This is from Salt Lake's second largest daily newspaper, so the source is reliable. The information is also corroborated by several other sources I've seen online which may or may not meet WP:RS. Regardless, I think it's enough to include in the article at this point. Interwebs (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Good find. Technically the article merely says he hasn't received a divinity school degree, not that he never attended divinity school. I just checked, and ORU's College of Theology & Ministry does offer undergraduate degrees, so a case could be made that he did, possibly, technically attend a divinity school. It's splitting some very tiny hairs, but the term 'divinity school' is just ambiguous enough that I'm going to change the wording. Grayfell (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. Frankly, I'm becoming intensely curious about Osteen's life prior to taking over as pastor of his giant church due simply to the lack of good info out there. I hate that every source which discusses it seems to have an agenda and barely touch anything substantive. Interwebs (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Now you have me curious as well. If you find any good sources, let me know. Grayfell (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joel Osteen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: StAnselm (talk · contribs) 03:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have reviewed it and I am going to fail this article at this time. My reasoning is as follows.

1. It is not yet stable, as there has been extensive editing in the last few days, including a dispute about content between User:TheShadowCrow, the nominator, and User:Grayfell.
2. It contains a criticism section, which ought to be avoided per Wikipedia:Criticism (which, to be sure, is only an essay). The point is, Osteen is indeed a controversial figure, and the article will need a whole lot more about his views and his impact (that is, why he is controversial) to meet GA standard. As it stands, the article says that Horton stated that "the problem with Osteen's message is that it makes religion about us instead of about God" and Osteen responded "by stating that he has specifically avoided preaching about money". Obviously, that doesn't address the criticism, and much more context is required.
3. As it stands, the article is completely imbalanced, with the preaching style and the hoaxes section have disproportionately more coverage.
4. The article needs some weightier secondary sources, and significant expansion based on those. I did a quick search, and found a book:

• Richard Young, The Rise of Lakewood Church and Joel Osteen (2012)

a number of articles:

• Jason Byassee, "Be happy: the health and wealth gospel," The Christian Century 122 (2005)
• Leanna Fuller, "Perfectionism and Shame: Exploring the Connections," Journal of Pastoral Theology 18 (2008)
• Helje Kringlebotn Sodal, "“Victor, not Victim”: Joel Osteen's Rhetoric of Hope," Journal of Contemporary Religion 25 (2010)
• Christine Miller and Nathan Carlin, "Joel Osteen as cultural selfobject: meeting the needs of the group self and its individual members in and from the largest church in America," Pastoral Psychology 59 (2010)

and some book chapters:

• Shayne Lee and Phillip Luke Sinitiere, "The Smiling Preacher: Joel Osteen and the Happy Church," in Holy Mavericks: Evangelical Innovators and the Spiritual Marketplace (2009)
• David Gutterman, "Narrating Desire: The Gospel of Wealth in Christian America," in Politics and the Religious Imagination (2010)
• Paul Louis Metzger, "The gospel of true prosperity: our best life in the triune God now and not yet," in Trinity and Election in Contemporary Theology (2011)
• Phillip Luke Sinitiere, "Preaching the Good News Glad" in Global and Local Televangelism (2012)

At least some of these should be in an article like this if it is to reach GA standard. At present, the main aspects of the subject are not sufficiently addressed.

I hope all this helps. StAnselm (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

Many peacock terms and redundancies added. Very little concern for WP:WEIGHT. Two sources referring to him (basically in passing) as being a smiling pastor or preacher don't establish that he is "often" known as anything, further more, it is introduced to the lead but left out of the body, which is not ideal. The WP:QUOTEFARM regarding his preaching style is not informative, and reads like a People magazine profile, not an encyclopedia article. The section on his views on homosexuality are front-loaded with as many soft-ball quotes as possible. If you want to include that kind of ultra-flattering nonsense, at least find a better source than WND! Why is all this promotional stuff being put in the lead while none of the controversial stuff is? The lead should summarize the body, so if somebody wants to expand the lead, add his stance on gay marriage and his reputation as part of the prosperity gospel, too. We can't leave those things out of the lead, but then add his iTunes sales and the Barbara Walter's blurb from 2006! Gimme a break. Grayfell (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe at this time the 'smiling pastor' comments and iTunes sales are notable. While they are sourced, it is generally not information that is common to add to articles such as this. I would suggest proposing some of the changes on the talk page. I believe there are a few sources and parts that could be added, if still so desired. I have worked on this article in the past, and I am willing to contribute what time I can. Basileias (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, see above for my GA review. One of the reliable sources uses "smiling preacher" in its title, so I suspect the designation is worth including. StAnselm (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not against having the term included. Basileias (talk) 06:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Before I had made my changes, the article was, and now is once again, a heavily biased, one-sided, POV piece of slander. It barely had any information about his actual life or his family. His personal life section mentioned nothing about his wife or kids and only stated he is opposed to gay marriage, which was quoted from the extremely right-wing FOX news. The preaching style section was (now is) basically a second criticism section, when just one of them is un-encyclopedic. I counted the number of quotes in my version and in Grayfell's version. My contains 5, his 3. Explain to me how that is a quote farm, how that is any worse than his, and, for that matter, how any of these quotes are distracting anything from the article. He also has a major unexplained disagreement with using WND as a source. WND is only used for 2 sources, and Grayfell uses both of them in his version as well! I also want to point out that he has put a dead link back, witch I had replaced with an alive one. Does he even check his changes? The "promotional stuff" that Grayfell is referring to is simply how articles are written. All have long headers that showcase the major events and achievements in the person's life. I will agree, however, that he shouldn't be given two nicknamed (too wordy) and that the iTunes part should be moved to the article and not the header. I will agree to those changes if my version is restored. We will keep the preacher nickname, as it has far more search results. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This is obviously a controversial topic, so making a huge, sweeping change is going to trigger a lot of debate. Looking at the differences you introduced ([3]) into the article, I think the end result has been an over-all improvement. I'm perfectly willing to work with you on some of these edits, but as I explained above, some of them seemed unnecessary or too promotional in tone to me.

As for the dead link, I tried to go through the huge edit you did bit-by-bit but I may very well have I missed something, that doesn't seem like a good enough reason to attack my competence. Regarding the promotional style issue, I don't think that's "how articles are written". The quotes you added were lengthy, quite flattering, and could easily be summarized in half the space used. You also removed information about his educational background, as well as removing legitimate sourced controversy. You added a large amount of information using a single, fluff-journalism profile [4] twelve times. That seems like a good indicator that there are some WP:WEIGHT issues with those edits. You added redundant information on the Barbara Walters thing and the NYT Best Selling books. There's more, but hopefully I'm making myself clear. Grayfell (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest posting the sources for a start. With the sources agreed upon it is much easier to go forward. Sources like pennlive.com are sometimes poorly vetted. One of the FOX news sources is simply a transcript of an interview. If there is sources that are also of issue, we should list those here and update them or remove the poor source and maybe the information too. Basileias (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I am pretty late responding. Anyways, I have combined parts of my past edits that I felt should have stayed with the current version. I undid it then so we can talk about what parts of it you don't agree with if there are any. I personally think the edit has improved because of the changes we both made. Also, I remember you didn't want to include the Barbara Walters list, but current news seems to show the award is a pretty big deal. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

First the Walters thing: I think the recent news about Walters kinda proves my point. Walters making a list based on who agrees to appear on her show seems to undercut its significance. Those sources are also mostly just rephrasing one particular story from Radar Online, which is a celebrity gossip site, so I'm not sure why it's a big deal.

As for the rest of the changes, they still seem mostly too promotional to me. I have incorporated some of them, but much of the rest reads like the back of a book jacket, not an encyclopedia. Regarding his preaching style, the proposed changes were way too 'chummy' and conversational without actually being very informative. The bit about how he prepares his sermons was redundant with the last paragraph of the section, in about twice the amount of words. Since he's not a Catholic, I don't think his opinion on the Pope should be included without a source explaining why it's significant. Maybe if the interview were more focused on the Pope or something, but the only reason to mention I can think of is because they're both popular religious figures. That's way too flimsy. For awards for which there is no established notability, such as the Church Report Magazine blurb, a solid WP:SECONDARY source is vital, otherwise it is pure puff, and flat-out doesn't belong. The stuff about Lakewood Church belongs there, not here. Grayfell (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's a dumb honor, but it's also a significant one. You can find an article of it on basically every major English speaking news website. The honor is also mentioned in the header of other articles, such as Susan Lucci.

Please point out the parts that sound promotional and I'll rewrite them. The first paragraph of the preaching style (only change in section) I thought would be useful to include because Osteen is known for being an untraditional preacher, so it would be important to note his father and predecessor was more traditional and Joel originally used the same style as him. I didn't change your shortened version of how he prepares sermons. I thought his opinion of the Pope would be insightful to add since both are pretty well known for their opinions on homosexuality, not to mention the Pope is traditionally looked at as the face of Christianity as a whole in politics. Here is a secondary source from an organization website, I'd be happy to add it. I thought the Lakewood belongs here because he is the first member to use a stadium, which is obviously a significant change. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

He's known for being an untraditional preacher by whom? In comparison to what standard? I'm not saying that statement isn't true, but your additions don't actually make that clear or give enough context to be informative. What you added simply says that he doesn't preach in the same style his father did. If that's what you want to say, then say it, but quote-farming for bits like "stayed within [his] own gifts." adds no meaningful information, and as far as I can see, only serves as padding to make him seem more likable. Likewise, saying that it took him a few months to develop his preaching style seems kinda obvious. If secondary sources commented on how quickly (or slowly) he developed his style, that might be something worth adding.

That link doesn't seem like a solid secondary source at all. It looks like little more than a blog that's merely republishing the Church Report's own press-release without commentary. It's author is unnamed, and the pedigree of the hosting site is is not at all clear. Since it's a site that heavily promotes a email sign-ups and such, their use of press releases says more about the site's lack of original content than it does about the notability of the Church Report Magazine award.

If there is a reliable, secondary source comparing Osteen's and the Pope's stances on homosexuality, then we should make that connection clear with appropriate weight. Your addition explained none of that, it simply used Osteen's own words to say he thinks the Pope is groovy. By giving Osteen a platform to say something nice about an important and popular figure, you are promoting Osteen by association without regard to due weight. He's a very good and prolific speaker, and he's said lots of nice things about lots of people. The article needs to explain why that matters.

As for the promotional style, I'll give another example. You wrote Osteen's popularity led to him being featured as one of ABC News' "10 Most Fascinating People of 2006". There's some buzzwords and distortion in this sentence. It's not exactly ABC news, it's Barbara Walters. By implying that it's the news agency, you're painting it like it's comparable to Time Person of the Year or something. If we agree it's a dumb honor, let's not present it as though it's something more important. Furthermore, by saying that he was 'featured' because of his 'popularity', you're adding peacock terms where much more neutral words would suffice. Just say he was one of Barbara Walters' 10 Most Fascinating people of 2006 and get on with it. Hopefully I've clarified what I mean by promotional edits. Grayfell (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the article makes it pretty clear why he is untraditional. The biggest reason is because he is accused of teaching about prosperity more than Christianity, which there is an entire section explaining. The style section also includes info about his prosperity gospel reception and goes into great detail of him not discussing topics like sin, Satan, Hell, etc. I'll remove to quotes if you want. But I don't see why it would be obvious that it took him a few months to develop his own preaching style. How else would you have known that?

How about The Washington Times?

Mentioning Osteen's opinion on the Pope provides more information to the Politics section, that way it's more about Politics and not just Why Gays Are Bad. I think these two articles make good points about why the Pope is significant in all of Christianity and Politics.

I agree to replacing ABC with Barbara Walters. I had just c/p it from the link, so it wasn't reflecting my personal agenda of promoting Osteen or anything. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not denying that the Pope is politically and religiously significant, that would be very silly. I'm saying that Osteen's opinion on the Pope should not be included without stronger sources connecting Osteen and the Pope. Those sources do not mention Osteen, so they don't address my concern at all. As I said, it looks too much like flattery by association. Simply reporting Osteen's opinion, which is quite vague, is implying that it is significant, but we need to establish why it's significant clearly on the page. Again, he has said many interesting things about many important people, but we shouldn't attempt to include quotes like that without addressing why it's relevant. If it's relevant politically, then the article should also spell that out, and the source for the Pope-quote did not include nearly enough context to accomplish that in the article.

Again, if you want to say he preaches in a different style than his father, just say that. It seemed like an excessivly large amount of space for a routine point that is not at all surprising. The fact that a man took a while to develop a personal style after he first began preaching doesn't seem important enough to explain so floridly. It's like saying "Hendrix didn't immediately know how to play the guitar the first time he tried, and only became skilled with practice." When reduced to its simplest form, it seems a little obvious to me. If you really think it's worth adding please leave off the quote-farm.

The Washington Times article is an okay source. Are you talking about using it for the bit about the Compaq Center/Lakewood Church Central Campus? That could work, but stated simply. The specific details of the renovation, and the notables who attended the grand opening should be left out. I also just noticed that Lakewood didn't actually acquire the building until 2010, they started leasing it in 2003. I would really like to see more sources like the Washington Times one, (or like this NYT one) and less like the <facts/> one. Relying heavily on a small handful of promotional or primary sources is not good, and the direct copy-pastes are especially bad. Grayfell (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I suppose there isn't much to talk about beyond that. But while looking for something, I found this interesting article where Osteen is compared to being a pope of his own right. Do you think that would be something we could fit in? It's a blog, but it's written by former-Evangelical now-Catholic priest.

I'll make it more to the point and take out the quotes and unnecessary wordings.

I thought you wanted another source for the "Most Influential Christian in America" award? We can use it for the stadium as well though. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The Washington Times article as a source for the Influential Preacher Award- Yes, sorry, I didn't catch that, that makes sense. I was just about to withdraw my objections, but decided to look up the magazine to find a little more background. After reading this article from Christianity Today, which mentions the 50 Most Influential Christians list as being possibly fraudulent, I'm concerned that Church Report Magazine is not something we should be mentioning at all. If there are plausible, serious accusations that the list is a fraud, then lacking better sources, I don't think we should include it at all. Its website is dead, and investigating further I've found a couple of press-releases that have been removed for non-payment, which only underscores that this is not a meaningful accolade.

As for Longenecker, he does seem like a legit expert. Per WP:SPS and WP:BLP extreme caution is called for. What exactly did you want to include from the blog? Grayfell (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I was about ten seconds away from agreeing to remove it before I found the Washington article. And it seems like the journalist most likely just copied it from Wikipedia.

I was thinking putting a sentence about Osteen's influence being compared to that of a pope right after he calls the pope groovy. Would that be enough to keep the pope part in Politics? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

On second thought I decided to just remove the Pope part. So I've made the changes you've mentioned and combined it with the changes made since. Is there anything you still disagree with? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I still have a lot of problems with pretty much everything that's supported by the "facts" source. I think it's puff journalism which was almost certainly derived from Osteen's own website, or possibly Wikipedia. If that's the only source you can find for the attached info, it doesn't belong in the article at all. I still think most of the added content was too far on the side of making him seem appealing, and not enough about encyclopedic info. There was also a lot of redundancy, as well. The reason that IP removed the bit about his preaching style is because it WAS redundant, it said the same exact thing as a previous paragraph. We don't need to mention that he's a NYT bestselling author more than twice (once in the lead, once in the body). Why did we need to mention Barbara Walters three times in the article? Also, where does it say he studied communication in college? That was not in the attached source. There were several grammatical errors, some of which I had already corrected but you put back, suggesting that you just copy-pasted what you had already written. So why are we even having this discussion? Grayfell (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, please pick the specific parts you want me to find another source for then. Sorry about mentioning the NYT thing twice in the header, that was a mistake from having to keep track of too many changes. I think your Jimi Hendrix comparison is not the same thing. Osteen came from a background of preaching, Hendrix was the first in his family to become a musician. It's obvious Hendrix would take awhile to learn to play the guitar, but for Osteen one would think he'd already know how to preach, so it's worth mentioning he didn't. The link to his official website says he studied communication. And like I said I had to mix a lot of changes that happened in the meantime with my edits, so if the result wasn't perfect, that's why. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Your point about Hendrix is a valid one. Right now I think it explains his first sermon pretty well, but you make a good case that it could be expanded a bit. However, it's a fairly minor point, and I personally don't think it should be made too much longer. The Houston Press source supporting that point spends nine mostly-short paragraphs discussing his first sermon, while it spends dozens discussing his marketing acumen and political influence. It seems inappropriate to focus on a relatively minor point when the larger thrust of the source is still absent from the article. It's about weight.

I removed the "facts" source from the article a while ago. As I said, I don't feel that any of the points it supported are worth mentioning. If a fact was only supported by that source, I removed it as well. Since I don't think they're important points, I think the burden is on you to find replacement sources. I guess one exception would be the Nelson Media thing. I'm not sure that it's the best way to say what it's implying. It's a useful thing to mention, but I can't find any sources suggesting the details. Who else qualifies as an 'inspirational figure'? Who came in second? When was this determination made, and how often is it made? I'm reluctant to include it, because it seems like something that was mentioned on his website, and has been repeated without any additional commentary or verification. It would be a lot clearer, and a maybe lot easier to verify, to say that he's the highest rated televangelist or something. I'll poke around for sources on that one.

As for him filling or selling-out stadiums, well, no, sorry, I don't see it belonging here. Without a lot more context, it's too much of a promotionalism. To make another comparison, the article on Led Zeppelin (I don't know why I keep referencing old rock music) mentions that they sold out a lot of stadiums, but it puts it in the context of why that was significant, and why that was a meaningful reflection of their popularity, and of their influence on popular music. It doesn't just list every place they sold out a stadium. Likewise, the Billy Graham article mentions filling Yankee Stadium, but explains why it was significant. Simply listing-off large venues that Osteen has filled without any of that context is flattering, but not especially informative. It's similar with the having been hosted by the Obama White House. Grayfell (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I made several more changes to my reversion. Replaced bad references and changed text you considered promotional.

The part comparing his preaching to his father's takes up two short sentences, and neither of them sounds promotional. It is a minor note, but the article doesn't treat it otherwise and it takes up little weight.

I found separate sources for everything that was cited to the "facts" link. As for the ones you didn't think were worth mentioning, I hope you can give me specifics. Raising attendance by 860% and meeting both presidential candidates, for example, seem at the very least worth mentioning.

I assumed filling out the second-most expensive stadium was significant on its own. Or at least more significant than John Bonham riding a motorcycle through a hotel floor. Speaking of your comparisons, those articles are incredibly promotional and were obviously written by people who wanted the reader to think they are the best band of all time. A lot of good articles have this problem actually. Anyway, if you still disagree about the stadium's significance after I explained why I thought it was, I'm fine taking it out. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the article explains the story of his first sermon pretty well.

As for the 'facts' tidbits, clearly I don't agree that they are worth mentioning. Regarding meeting the president, saying that he was 'hosted' by the Obama White House is technically true, but unnecessarily broad in the way it's worded. It's susceptible to misinterpretation. Saying that he attended to the annual Easter Breakfast, on the other hand, explains what happened, and also makes it clear that Osteen was one of many in attendance. This is more neutral. This is what I'm talking about with context.

Regarding the stadiums: My point about Led Zeppelin was not that it was a great article (for what it's worth, I am not a fan). My point was that it offered context when it discussed their success in selling out stadiums. Nothing more. I don't have a problem explaining how popular he is, I have a problem saying that he sold out X, Y, and Z stadiums without any additional information or context.

I moved the bits about his books to a separate section because it seems very likely that it will be expanded. He's written more than just the two best-sellers. If they are indeed significant, they should be mentioned as well. When that happens, it will be a lot more logical to have them in their own section. Additionally, it seems to me that readers might look at this article expressly to find out info about his books, in which case a separate section would be a lot more convenient. Grayfell (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I like a lot of the changes you made and am fine with the neutral tone, so I think we are pretty much done here. I think the only thing left to discuss is the Nielsen part. You did say it can be a one exception. I wish there were more details, but I couldn't find anything. A lot of websites say it, but they seem to have taken it from Osteen's website. I think that can be considered a reliable source because it is an official website of the person in question WP:RELIABLE. Even if the website is sugarcoating it, sources are not required to not be WP:BIASED. If you really think televangelist would be an appropriate change, then by WP:INTEXT the change can be made.

Also, about the line "When asked if he thought God approves of homosexuality, Osteen stated absolutely and that gay people should be accepted" and you wanting to remove "absolutely", I think it's important to keep that word, otherwise it sounds like Joel avoided the question.

Good point about acceptance. It's true that he was named 'most watched' (we can assume), but without a better source, it just seems too vague. I'm still uncertain when this was declared. I've found sources repeating the statement, often verbatim, from 2004.[5] That's pretty dang old, by media research standards. The only meaty commentary that's even close that I could find was from a 2005 Boston Globe profile: "Although Nielsen Media Research could not provide viewership numbers for Lakewood, whose shows are considered "paid programming," the church says it believes an average of about 7 million people watch every week on all of the networks combined."[6] It just seems very odd to me that there's not any more substantial sources. I don't think it's anything deliberately deceptive, but it seems like a plausible case of an echo chamber. Grayfell (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If it's at least ten years old then it's probably outdated. I guess that's it then. Glad we could both benefit the article together. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hoax section

I have removed the blog reference link http://christianitynewstexas.blogspot.com. I am concerned this section is WP:WEIGHT and can be condensed. While legitimately sourced, should it even be in the article? Basileias (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It did seem too long for the relatively small amount of content. I don't think it should be removed entirely, so I cut down to a quarter of its current size. If that seems too drastic, don't hesitate to revert. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I was going to perform slow surgery, in case there was opposition. But, your guillotine is...well...to the point, quite nice...LoL. Basileias (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of Osteen's message

A recent edit citing a source criticizing Osteen's message was reverted with the edit summary "Why is the opinion of an author from a muckraking journal important enough to include here? Is he widely known as a religious critic?"

Can the reverting editor (or anyone else) please point me to the Wikipedia policy that says that only widely known religious critics can be cited in criticizing the message (including books) of a preacher/televangelist/book author/Pastor? Thanks and regards, Ijon Tichy x2 (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this is an issue of WP:WEIGHT as much as anything; not simply because it's arguably a minority opinion, but because it's giving too much prominence to Doolittle as a pundit. It is supported by a WP:PRIMARY source, but it doesn't indicate why Doolittle's opinion is significant to understanding Osteen. Many people have written interesting, articulate opinions about Osteen, but Wikipedia isn't about collecting them all in one place. If there was reliable secondary commentary on this article, or if Doolittle was a recognized authority that might be different. Grayfell (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

A muckraking\activist journalist or website dances around being a legitimate source. I was concerned about the source as soon as I saw it. In order to use a source like this, it would need further support. It would also need consensus here on the talk page. While it may look like everyone is ganging up on you, we are not. Basileias (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

As the one who reverted with that comment, I'll just say that Grafell is exactly correct--WP:WEIGHT, which is a part of WP:NPOV, requires that we include information and opinions only that are of due importance in the real world. The question is, why is Doolittle's information important? Have others commented about it? Has it been repeated in other reliable sources? Is Doolittle considered to be an expert in the field of religion, modern Christianity, media, or anything else related to Osteen? If none of these conditions are met, I don't see how we can include the opinion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems it may be a good idea to avoid citing from Doolittle's work at this time, perhaps unless and until other reliable sources cite him (or strongly support or back-up his views).

Completely unrelated to Doolittle's views, Virginia Heffernan has criticized Osteen's message in the New York Times. Ijon Tichy x2 (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I enjoyed that article. Not flattering to self-help as a genre, but pretty mild on Osteen. If it's criticism, it's so tongue-in-cheek we could spend months on the talk page debating whether she liked the book or hated it. Grayfell (talk) 07:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Ijon Tichy x2 (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

(Unrelated to the Doolittle article) I've added a citation which I feel adheres to the criteria we discussed above. In my view, the criticism of preaching the prosperity gospel is supported by the other references in the criticism section (the BusinessWeek and 60 Min pieces), and the author is obviously an expert in Christianity. Ijon Tichy x2 (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography

Kinda a minor quibble, but the bibliography needs some attention. The reference was a search result at Amazon.com, which is not very helpful. Many of the publication dates are wrong, for one thing. I'm not really sure exactly what the criteria for inclusion is, but one of the entries was a 'miniature' edition of a book that was published several years previously. I don't think this is the kind of thing we should bother including. Likewise, I suspect, but haven't verified, that some of the books listed are of more interest commercially than they are encyclopedically. some of his books appear to be either minor booklets, or compilations of old stuff, or 'readers' or 'activity books' or such. This is exactly the kind of info an article should have, but I'm not sure how to go about finding it. Grayfell (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Prosperity theologians

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Category is well sourced and no compelling policy-based reasons are offered for excluding it. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Delete category

• Since Osteen has specifically denied being a prosperity theologian, which is explained in the article, he should not be placed in Category:Prosperity theologians. We already include a mention of this controversy, with plenty of wikilinks. This is a policy issue. WP:CAT/R. We should not expect people to file an OTRS just to have something like that addressed, that is an unrealistic and bureaucratic expectation. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Restore category

• I added him. He doesn't like the term "prosperity theology" but there are half a dozen references using the term to describe his writings. We have to decide whether we are his biographers or his press agents. This is not an autobiography and the term is not a pejorative or libelous. It exactly describes his writing and preachings even if the term is not one he would use to describe himself. Here is his quote from a cover story in Time magazine: "'Does God want us to be rich?' [Osteen] asks. 'When I hear that word rich, I think people say, 'Well, he's preaching that everybody's going to be a millionaire.' I don't think that's it.' Rather, [Osteen] explains, 'I preach that anybody can improve their lives. I think God wants us to be prosperous. I think he wants us to be happy. To me, you need to have money to pay your bills. I think God wants us to send our kids to college. I think he wants us to be a blessing to other people. But I don't think I'd say God wants us to be rich. It's all relative, isn't it?' ..." WP:CAT/R says that categories regarding religious beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified" which he does here "I get grouped into the prosperity gospel and I never think it's fair, but it's just what it is." He is after all an ordained minister, we are not outing him. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Look, I'm not defending Osteen, but I really disagree that it's not pejorative. I think it has some very serious negative connotations, which is exactly why he has spent so much time denying it. Regardless, it's a religious issue, and he's said he isn't one, I think that's a BLP issue. Categories just don't have any room for context or nuance, so adding him to one is making a value judgment about his religious position that he himself denies. Explain it, expand it, whatever, but blanket categorization seems like a mistake. Grayfell (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd agree that he has denied it. As it says in the article: "Osteen responded that if prosperity means God wants people to be blessed and healthy and have good relationships, then yes, he considers himself a prosperity teacher, but if it’s about money, he does not." That's not a denial at all (and in fact the prosperity gospel can focus on health and other forms of material benefit without focusing explicitly on cash.) I don't feel that "if by prosperity gospel you mean..." is enough to remove it when it's how he's so frequently described. In fact, I'd argue just the opposite -- he clearly identifies himself as a prosperity theologian in that quote, and in both that one and the one we have below it, what he's saying reads more to me as him objecting to the way the prosperity gospel is usually described than denying the label himself. He's saying, basically, "yes, I teach prosperity theology; but it's not all about money the way some people make it out to be, it's about this holistic benefit across every part of your life" etc etc. --Aquillion (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• It appears to be rather well sourced that he is one of the "prosperity theology" preachers. While he may not like to be referred to as one, that is besides the point. AlbinoFerret 23:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd have to disagree with him being what would considered a prosperity theologian because in the Christian belief prosperity is apart of the Christian faith in essence this life is not focused on you but on Jesus and supporting the kingdom and prosperity is a component. I've looked into the category and it seems confusing because what I'm picking up is the category is for preachers who say follow these 7 steps and you'll get rich "the usual stigma with true prosperity gospel preaching". A number of the preachers in the category have preached about prospering but haven't made that their entire focus of preaching while some preachers have never/rarely preach on other issues that are foundation in Christianity e.g. trusting God's timing, accepting when God says no, going through suffering, the resurrection of Jesus, etc. From an unbiased few point I don't think Joel Osteen falls into the category because over the years he has changed his preaching style and has focused on other issues such as trusting God's timing, resisting temptation, and not solely focusing on prospering.Mcelite (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

A preacher can preach and write on other topics and still be included. That they hold to that dogma is really all that is necessary. That will be reflected in some of the sermons and things they write, and it is sourced that it is. AlbinoFerret 12:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd say then the category needs to be specified because there is currently no description of what preachers go into the category. The way it is now every notable preacher could be put into category just by doing a couple of sermons a year on prosperity Biblically or just from writing 1 book on the topic whether it be based on scripture or not.Mcelite (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Restore category — summoned by bot. Agree with previous comments; if he meets the definition as stated by RS, it doesn't matter whether or not he agrees. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Since I see this as a religious issue I will have to side with what Osteen calls himself. Now if this is some sort of "preaching style" I would change my mind on the issue. Fraulein451 (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Joel Osteen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120625224321/http://www.christnotes.org:80/_joel-osteen.asp to http://www.christnotes.org/_joel-osteen.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140829164844/http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/22/lkl.01.html to http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/22/lkl.01.html

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Book Sales & Revenue

I have added total sales of "Your Best Life Now" as of 2015 data. Also removed the quote about his book sales having totalled $55 million. As his first book has sold over 8 million, and his 2nd had initial orders of 4 million, it would be far higher just on these two books alone. According to the Bibliography Osteen has written ten other books too CliffordJones (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggested Edits

@Grayfell:

I suggest adding a heading for Television, given his television program and history. Below is what I had written up:

Television[edit]

In 1983 as a Radio and Television student at Oral Roberts University, Joel Osteen called his father to tell him that he wanted to go back to Houston and put Lakewood Church on television. John Osteen agreed on one stipulation: Lakewood Church would never use the broadcast to ask for money. They then began their television ministry and by the mid 1980's, Lakewood was broadcasting locally on KHOU-Channel 11, Houston’s CBS affiliate, to sixteen cities across the United States, as well as to Brazil and the Philippines, and on the Christian Broadcasting Network, a national cable network.

Osteen continues to edit his own sermons for broadcast, and the television ministry has reached over 100 million households throughout the United States and 100 countries worldwide to over 200 million viewers.

I also suggest a heading for Night of Hope, which is his touring event as these are large, monthly events that thousands attend and is a huge part of his career. Below is what I had written up:

Night of Hope[edit]

A Night of Hope is a 2 1/2 hour event that is filled with praise and worship music, a small message from Victoria Osteen, a testimony from Dodie Osteen, a prayer time, and a sermon from Joel Osteen. There is no intermission.

The Night of Hope events began back in 2004 at the Phillips Arena in Atlanta. Since then, Osteen and his team have done Night of Hopes monthly. There has now been a total of more than 160 Night of Hope events which have been held in more than 60 U.S. cities as well as in cities on the continents of Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia, and in Jerusalem, Israel.

Each year they do a large Night of Hope called America's Night of Hope, which is held at baseball stadiums. The inaugural America's Night of Hope was on April 25, 2009 at Yankee Stadium - just nine days after the ballpark opened. The event held a crowd of over 50,000 people. This first America's Night of Hope was called a "Historic Night of Hope" and was the first non-baseball event to be held at the new stadium. These annual stadium events have been held at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, U.S. Cellular Field in Chicago, Nationals Park in Washington D.C., Marlins Park in Miami, and AT&T Park in San Francisco. Their 8th Annual America's Night of Hope will be held at Comerica Park in Detroit on Saturday, July 23, 2016.

Please let me know what part of these in unsuitable for the entry and why and I will change it accordingly. Thanks, RobertMWorsham (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Thanks, I really do appreciate it. Please include the actual sources. also. I've added a ref template, so you can include them as if this were a normal page. Grayfell (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Just finished doing so, thanks again for clearing things up for me. RobertMWorsham (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay. So first thing that jumped out at me was the Nielsen thing, which is already discussed above. If you can find a secondary source, I.E. something better than press releases or churnalism, than we can discuss it, but otherwise it's way too vague and appears to be derived from Osteen's press packet, which isn't a reliable source for such promotional material. Another editor and I looked for better sources, and what we found was pathetically thin, but take a look it you want. Apparently Nielsen doesn't actually track Osteen's program, as they categorize it as paid programming. That's unintuitive, which is why we need better sources and context. Where this factoid came from is unknown, but it's been repeated for long enough that it's now also out-dated.

That should help demonstrate the larger problem here. Many of these sources are fairly routine event listings and similar. Again, this has already been discussed above. They may or may not be WP:RS, but they do a very poor job of establishing due weight for minor, mostly promotional details. The writing also has tone problems, which are related in that they create a non-neutral impression of Osteen. Articles should use last names in most cases, per MOS:SURNAME. "Today" and "Recent" fail WP:PRECISELANG, as another example.

If the only sources you can find for a point are promotional bios on affiliated sites, than it's a safe bet that the info isn't significant enough to bother including. The WorldVision link is not a reliable source. Neither is the Target Center event listing, which may be usable for filling in details, but you first need to find independent sources establishing why those details are worth filling in. I would suggest, as a first step, condensing the Night of Hope content to a single paragraph which avoids event listings and pre-event news blurbs (typically short articles which give event times and ticket info). These could be used for fleshing out content, but are not ideal for building the skeleton.

You might want to be aware of edit conflicts. It's hard for me to respond to comments if you keep changing them. Grayfell (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Awesome, I'll be getting to work on proper citations and verifying these factoids that I have found. Sincerely, I thank you for being patient with me on all of this and am now grasping how it all works. Thanks, RobertMWorsham (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

One thing that might be helpful is the concept of Wikipedia:CITOGENESIS. One of the reasons event listings and similar are so weak is that they are a low priority among journalists. For a non-controversial, low-priority content, it's understandable for a writer to get info from Wikipedia without verifying it. When this source is then used on Wikipedia, it can cause a lot of problems. Even if it's usually not a big deal, it's a lot sloppier than it might appear at first, and it's unethical. This is why the Nielsen thing is such a problem: It's unverified but interesting enough to be repeated, so if it's in the article, that's only going to make it harder to verify in the future. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I read the link and have updated the references and removed the ratings factoid. Is there anything that still looks iffy to you? (Also just changed the wording to use his last name as you suggested) Thanks, RobertMWorsham (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is a lot that still looks iffy to me. Here's what it looks like you're doing, and you can let me know if I'm wrong: It looks like you had some bullet-points that you were supposed to add to the article, and you looked for sources after the fact. That's a messy, messy way to write an article. The Click2Houston source doesn't say anything about the lack of an intermission. Worse, it's very poor at explaining why this event series gets multiple paragraphs filled with routine details. The problem is that any large event series is going to get some amount of coverage, but it needs to be weighed against the significance indicated by sources and common sense.

The NY Post article has that problem and more: It calls Osteen "the nation's most popular pitchman for prosperity theology" and later says "The real problem is that Osteen's metaphysics can sound a lot like the kind of magical thinking that helped bring on the economic meltdown in the first place." When you use that source for pleasant but very trivial details you are ignoring its underlying substance. That looks like cherry-picking to me.

Earlier I suggested trimming the Night of Hope section down to a single paragraph. I still think that's your best option. The TV content is mostly redundant with what's already in the article. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree. NoH should be a one/two line entry that doesn't sound like a sales pitch. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfell: @Niteshift36: Part of the reason it looks that way is because I had other citations for a lot of this information but the citations weren't up to par (ie event listings) so I tried to find more reputable sources, the NYMag source being one of them, and adding these in their place. The thing about the intermission I got from the Lakewood website under "about" for NOH and replaced the source with a news article. I can definitely get rid of the intermission part. As for the cherry picking, the rest of that article doesn't mention anything about the NOH but goes in to critiques of Joel himself (which I can certainly add to the "Prosperity Gospel Criticism" section). As far as the significance, it's his monthly touring which has spanned 5 continents and hosted over 1,000,000 people so I feel like that's a big part of his career and should be mentioned in his entry. Same with the TV segment, although you're definitely right that a lot of it has been mentioned throughout the entry, but I feel like it should all be put together since that's the largest part of his career/ministry and people would want to quickly be able to check that out when glancing at his wikipedia page (especially when the opening sentence to the entry says he is a televangelist). But I will continue to work on your suggestions. Thanks, RobertMWorsham (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest something more like this: A Night of Hope is a monthly event that began in 2004 in Atlanta. Since then it has been broadcast to numerous US cities, as well as Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia. On an annual basis, one night is designated as "America's Night of Hope". The first of these was held in 2009 at Yankee Stadium. That's pretty much it. All the talk about programming, "just nine days after", "first non-baseball event", listing each stadium, etc is fluff that comes off as a sales pitch. Remember, this is a biography for Joel Osteen, the man. It's not here to promote his ministry/business ventures. If this event is truly that notable, it should probably be its own article. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: How does this work? I removed the fluff, but some of the things like where they were held and how many I left in there because it has had a large cultural impact and I feel like that should be mentioned. These are all straight facts and are written as objectively as I could. Entries for nearly every other person will list accomplishments, tour attendance, locations of the tour, etc. For instance Taylor Swift's 1989 tour has it's own entry and mentions shows being sold out 6 separate times and lists every city the tour stopped at (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1989_World_Tour). I feel like listing the cultural significance of an event and when/where it took place is not a sales pitch, as exemplified with the Taylor Swift entry.

Night of Hope[edit]

A Night of Hope, Osteen’s touring event, lasts for 2 1/2 hours and consists of praise and worship music, a small message from Victoria Osteen, a testimony from Dodie Osteen, a prayer time, and a sermon from Joel Osteen.

The Night of Hope events began back in 2004 at the Phillips Arena in Atlanta. Since then, Osteen and his team have done Night of Hopes monthly. There has now been a total of more than 160 Night of Hope events which have been held in more than 60 U.S. cities as well as in cities on the continents of Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia, and in Jerusalem, Israel.

Each year Osteen does a large Night of Hope called America's Night of Hope, which is held at baseball stadiums. The inaugural America's Night of Hope was on April 25, 2009 at Yankee Stadium, holding a crowd of over 50,000 people. These annual stadium events have been held at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, U.S. Cellular Field in Chicago, Nationals Park in Washington D.C., Marlins Park in Miami, and AT&T Park in San Francisco.

Thanks, RobertMWorsham (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Comparing this to the 1989 Tour is flawed thinking. As I said, if this is that notable, you should explore writing a separate article for it. Trying to shoehorn it into the BLP because a separate article about a tour lists it is apples and oranges. Your suggestion still contains plenty of unnecessary detail about programming. We shouldn't be doing a "there is now X number" since it's a monthly event. The number if US cities is more sales than actual importance. Why are we listing Israel? Israel is in Asia and Asia is listed. Listing multiple baseball stadiums is not needed. It just sounds promotional. Again, this much detail is for an article about the topic of the NoH, if one is needed. It's not for the article on Osteen himself. This is a biography. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: I would contend that it's not promotional to state where an annual event has been held in years past, but I removed that from the entry nonetheless. How does this seem to you now? Also I wouldn't say it's apple and oranges when I'm specifically pointing out that it lists attendances, locations, and the like since the reasoning for not having it here is it sounds promotional which would apply to all wikipedia entries.

Night of Hope[edit]

A Night of Hope, Osteen’s touring event, lasts for 2 1/2 hours and consists of praise and worship music, a small message from Victoria Osteen, a testimony from Dodie Osteen, a prayer time, and a sermon from Joel Osteen.

The Night of Hope events began back in 2004 at the Phillips Arena in Atlanta. Since then, Osteen and his team have done Night of Hopes monthly. As of 2016, there has been a total of more than 160 Night of Hope events which have been held on the continents of North America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia.

Each year Osteen does a large Night of Hope called America's Night of Hope, which is held at baseball stadiums. The inaugural America's Night of Hope was on April 25, 2009 at Yankee Stadium, holding a crowd of over 50,000 people.

Thanks, RobertMWorsham (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me try to make this more clear. In Taylor Swit's BLP, the article about HER, the 1989 Tour has basically 2 sentences. It doesn't mention the number of stops (85 in 7 months compared to 160 in 12 years) There is a separate article about the 1989 Tour that contains the kinds details you're talking about. So yes, comparing this BLP, the article about Osteen, to the article about the 1989 Tour is absolutely apples and oranges. To illustrate it a different way: The Model T was undoubtedly a major part of Henry Ford's success and his business. But the biography article on Ford doesn't included details about what the front axle was made of. That information is contained in the article about the Model T. I'm not telling you that some of that info doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. I'm saying not in the biography of Osteen. Does that make sense to you? Also, the "as of 2016..." stuff is a nuisance. It makes it sound like we're trying to keep up with the news and we're not the news. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: That makes a lot of sense, thanks for the clarification. I've shortened it down to a paragraph, how does this look now?

Night of Hope[edit]

A Night of Hope, Osteen’s touring event, lasts for 2 1/2 hours and consists of praise and worship music, a small message from Victoria Osteen, a testimony from Dodie Osteen, a prayer time, and a sermon from Joel Osteen. The Night of Hope events began back in 2004 at the Phillips Arena in Atlanta. Since then, Osteen and his team have done Night of Hopes monthly and have been held on the continents of North America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia. Each year Osteen does a large Night of Hope called America's Night of Hope, which is held at baseball stadiums. The inaugural America's Night of Hope was on April 25, 2009 at Yankee Stadium, holding a crowd of over 50,000 people.

Thanks, RobertMWorsham (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd eliminate the first sentence about programming. I truly don't think it belongs. Let's see if others have an opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: Is there any way to change that first sentence more to your liking? I think that it's important for people to know what it is. If not detail the lay out of it, maybe at least say it's his touring event or that it's basically a church service, something along those lines? Thanks, RobertMWorsham (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Removing "a small message from Victoria Osteen, a testimony from Dodie Osteen, a prayer time, and a sermon from Joel Osteen." would be a good start to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: Is this better at all or still needs changing?

Night of Hope[edit]

A Night of Hope, Osteen’s touring event, lasts for 2 1/2 hours and consists of praise and worship music plus a sermon from Osteen, amongst other things. The Night of Hope events began back in 2004 at the Phillips Arena in Atlanta. Since then, Osteen and his team have done Night of Hopes monthly and have been held on the continents of North America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia. Each year Osteen does a large Night of Hope called America's Night of Hope, which is held at baseball stadiums. The inaugural America's Night of Hope was on April 25, 2009 at Yankee Stadium, holding a crowd of over 50,000 people. Thanks, RobertMWorsham (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It's better than where we started. Let's see what others have to say. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Information about his televangelism should be about him, otherwise it belongs at Lakewood Church, and most of these details are... folksy, but not particularly informative. Most of these facts and figures are derived from PR, and should be supported by more solid sources. How about this for the Night of Hope content:

Osteen and Lakewood Church have held a monthly tour, holding longer sermons in other cities. First held in 2004, the events are known as "A Night of Hope". A larger, annual event called "America's Night of Hope" has been held since 2009.

I think the TV content should be about the same length as that. don't see much reason, based on the sources provided, to give more detail. If you want to include more detail, you should be able to explain why it's encyclopedic coverage of Osteen, instead of merely promotional. Grayfell (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

This link doesn't work: "Obituary: Pastor John H. Osteen". Houston Chronicle. 1999-01-26. Retrieved 2007-11-12.66.87.80.155 (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggested removal of "prosperity gospel preacher"

I read the comments above that says not to edit so I had to post a new section regarding this issue. But Osteen himself has denied being a prosperity preacher, an argument overturned by saying his theology matches the description. Though the definition given by the "prosperity theology" wiki says "a religious belief among some Christians, who hold that financial blessing and physical well-being are always the will of God for them, and that faith, positive speech, and donations to religious causes will increase one's material wealth." . This definition has been clearly refuted by Osteen in an interview where he says - "Responding to Hill's question, "Does God want us to be rich, though?" Osteen replied, "I think he wants you to be rich in spirit". "I mean with money," Hill pushed. "Well I don't think there's anything wrong with that," Osteen continued. "You look at the Old Testament; Christianity was started with Abraham and it says he was the wealthiest man there. So I don't think there's anything wrong with that – I think God wants you to succeed and excel, but I don't think you can say 'Money is my goal, if I'm a Christian well God's going to make me rich,' I think that's the wrong thing. "You're wealthy when you have your health; you're wealthy when you have people to love. That's real wealth."

For these reasons, any mention of Osteen as a prosperity preacher are unfounded as he directly has said he is not one and what he preaches does not fit the prosperity gospel definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertMWorsham (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Hurricane Harvey and response

Critscm of Osteen needs to be well sourced and in context. So far I've seen few attempts at keeping Osteen's response in context. While scorn has been lobbed his way, there have been reasonable responses that while the church has not been flooded, the surrounding area was inaccessible. NOTNEWS means there is no rush to add potentially negative info, much less anything.That man from Nantucket (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

For now, I have added an {{unbalanced}} tag to the section because it includes only the criticism and not a response from Osteen or Lakewood Church. Peacock (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This whole thing is contrary to NOTNEWS. If this is still getting coverage a few weeks from now, it might be relevant. But right now, you're placing the perceived (in)actions of a church (which is a corporation) in the BLP of an individual and I see that as an UNDUE issue. In 24 hours, we saw much of the narrative change. That's exactly why we shouldn't try to act like a newspaper. This is an encyclopedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This is well notable and well referenced. I added it back as it meets all rules for inclusion. If anything it could be expanded. ContentEditman (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a fair characterization. It seems to have been mainly a social media frenzy that initially got many of the facts wrong. The list of references initially used to support the content seem to have been cherry picked to find ones least neutral on the issue (going as far as the Hindustan Times!) rather than sticking with more reputable or US-based news organizations. Alex Lin (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a fair characterization by whom exactly? The press or WP? Whether or not there was a social media frenzy is moot. The point is that Osteen was widely criticized and the criticism was widely covered in the international press. With respect to the latter aspect, I would guess that's why foreign media sources were cited -- to indicate that the coverage was in fact widespread (i.e., international). There is no policy that would favor US-based media sources over the Hindustan Times nor any reason to suggest that the source is in any way disreputable. It is a WP:RS and is an English-language source. As such, it is perfectly acceptable. And as of now, the story has been covered by pretty much every major media outlet in the US and many worldwide. Lastly, I see no evidence that the sources were "cherry-picked" to be the "least neutral". That is not WP:AGF, so better to focus only on the editorial details -- speculating about ulterior motives is counterproductive and undiplomatic. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

First off, this notion that "it got coverage" isn't what decides what gets included. Many newsworthy items aren't notable enough to be included. Second, as an encyclopedia, we should be taking a long term view, especially in a BLP, instead of trying to keep up with the news cycle. The number of changes and facts that have come to light in 48 hours are evidence that we are rushing in faster than we should. This is a BLP, not a newspaper. Forcing contentious material back into a BLP and claiming it has to stay while it's being discussed is also wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

This is well sourced, relevant, and meets all rules for inclusion. There is conscious for adding it as well. Let alone this has blown up even larger than when you first removed it and has been on all major news networks, US and foreign. Please do not edit war against thew conscious and rules of Wikipedia. ContentEditman (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Number of sources does not decide what is included. If Justin Bieber gets a tattoo, 1000 sources will cover it, but that doesn't make it notable. Second, there is no "conscious" or consensus for adding it. There is a discussion. 3 editors have expressed concern and a third expressed concern about balance. Don't lecture me about edit warring my friend when you're doing exactly that. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

No one is saying merely that "it got coverage" or simply tallying the number of sources that reported it. The fact is that this event did receive very widespread and sustained coverage in US and international media over the span of several days and with multiple follow-up reports, which clearly establishes it as notable and meets the basic requirements for inclusion. Current events of such magnitude (i.e., depth of coverage) are routinely included in WP bios. WP policy WP:PUBLICFIGURE makes it very clear that the material should be included:

“If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.”

I have yet to see a relevant policy cited that would support expunging it. The strained metaphor about Bieber certainly doesn't suffice. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the bulk of the argument has been "look at all the sources". You are taking a very short term view, not an encyclopedic one. As mentioned in WP:RECENTISM "editors should consider whether they are simply regurgitating media coverage of an issue or actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time." The number of revisions and speed of them in under a week is a strong indicator that we are just following the coverage and not looking long term. Quoting PUBLICFIGURE is great, but the crux of it is based on the notion that something is relevant. Again, we need to look long term, not 3 days. Lastly, the Beiber example if far from strained. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, not one person here has ever said "look at all the sources", so what you are quoting is fallacious. Secondly, WP policy establishes the basis for inclusion:

WP:PUBLICFIGURE: “If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.”

WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

Arguments such as “Justin Bieber”…(blah blah)…and but but “recentism” didn’t cut it; nor does the sudden adoption of the even weaker argument that it’s somehow not relevant. It’s inarguably relevant. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

While you search for the phrase "look at all the sources", you completely ignore the fact that most of those supporting this have cited the number of sources in their support if it. Stop being so literal. My argument hasn't changed, nor has there been a "sudden adoption" of anything. Just because you aren't able to grasp the example, it doesn't become invalid. Misrepresenting policies and guidelines isn't convincing. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

"What has been Misrepresented in the policies and guidelines? The consensus is for inclusion, even the straw poll shows that as well. The only thing left for debate now is how much is added. All you have done is edit war, something you have been blocked for many times before. ContentEditman (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't tell me the only thing I've done..... check the edit history. I've been here long before you, making mundance edits. You came here with a sole issue in mind and that has been your only contribution to this article. For you to say "all you've done...." just demonstrates your inability to see past the immediate. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Niteshift36: “While you search for the phrase "look at all the sources", you completely ignore the fact that most of those supporting this have cited the number of sources in their support if it. Stop being so literal.”

You erroneously stated that "look at all the sources" was the main argument that had been used for including this material about the flood[7] – you used quotation marks, which indicates to the reader that it should be taken literally; i.e., that someone actually said "look at all the sources", but in fact no one did (nor was that the crux of the argument). The solution is simply to not erroneously use quotation marks when you don't want to be taken literally.

Misleading punctuation aside, if you are suggesting that sustained and widespread coverage of an event from multiple angles in a huge swath of the domestic and international press for multiple days with multiple follow-up stories is unimportant, then you are missing the point of WP:WEIGHT. The more sustained and widespread the coverage of an event is, the more its inclusion is warranted.

WP:WEIGHT: “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.”

The flood story is possibly on the verge of becoming the most widely covered media event in Osteen’s lifetime, if it isn’t already.

The Bieber metaphor (“If Justin Bieber gets a tattoo, 1000 sources will cover it, but that doesn't make it notable”) strains credulity. Thousands of sources never did cover Bieber getting a tattoo – at best TMZ or some gossip rag might have done so once -- and neither have any of his tattoo sessions received simultaneous multi-day coverage in top-tier media sources, and with multiple follow-ups, for the better part of a week. Obviously, if that did happen with Bieber, it would have to have been one hell of a notable tattoo and probably would end up being in his bio, as WP:WEIGHT would dictate.

Niteshift36: “My argument hasn't changed, nor has there been a "sudden adoption" of anything.”

Your arguments have in fact shifted several times. You just brought up a new argument about relevance[8] and I felt obliged to remark on it because it came out of the blue and seemed to make no sense. You were initially arguing WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE;[9] then it was an issue of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BALANCE;[10][11] and then WP:RECENTISM and lastly relevance.[12] It looks like throwing spaghetti at the wall. As for relevance, perhaps you can point me to the WP policy that defines “relevant” (and that would even faintly support the notion that the content about the flood is irrelevant) if you want your argument to be taken into consideration; otherwise red herring -- again.

Niteshift: “Misrepresenting policies and guidelines isn't convincing.”

I have not misrepresented any policies or GLs. The policies I’ve been quoting are explicit and unambiguous in this case; the key is to WP:LISTEN and be impartial (a tall ask apparently). Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

You seem to do this often. I never abondoned my original argument, I've simply added to it by expanding the reasons. I still, 100% maintain that this is just being a newspaper. Being a newspaper is essentially recentism. Similarly, the position that it's not notable in the long term is also in the same vein. Just because I didn't mention the essay in the first place doesn't mean it's a "new" argument. I didn't erroneously state anything. You can quibble about the use of quotation marks if you want. Fine, I should have used different punctuation. That does not change the fact that the number of sources being cited as a reason was put forth numerous times. Ignore the truth if you want, it's still there. At this point, you and enough people who never cared about this article before have come here with the sole purpose of adding this that keeping it out won't happen. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: I'm having trouble understanding your WP:RECENTISM argument. As it is the topic you mention exclusively in the straw poll, is it fair to assume it's your main argument and worth discussing? If not, what do you see as your most significant objection here? Regarding WP:RECENTISM I'm in complete agreement that it is important to avoid "being a newspaper," but I'm confused about your parameters for identifying such activity. Your language, "if there proves to be continuing coverage a few weeks from now" seems to suggest a post-hoc test, but you seem to be strongly motivated, so I'm assuming you're using an additional metric? Additionally, as much of Wikipedia includes edits that are arguably "current," yet not subsequently removed (as would be the case if your post-hoc metric was the only valid determinant), what is different in this case, in your position, to distinguish it from edits in other articles that include potential WP:RECENTISM? Thanks in advance for your response. Veritas Solum (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There are at least two youtube videos by individuals at the doors of Lakeway attempting to confirm whether the church was inaccessable and/or evacuees were welcome. Do they hold any use as references? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BALq_6CAmrs Veritas Solum (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Youtube videos generally fall under WP:USERG. These would also probably fall under WP:PRIMARY. Articles on reputable news sites would be good. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah okay, so they're not appropriate for the truth of the matter. What if they're offered to characterize the response to claims of flooding, inaccessibility, and/or "being open." Veritas Solum (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Straw Poll

I am this close to opening an RFC about whether a "Harvey" section should even be in this article. But I don't like wasting time on such surveys, so how about something less formal?

• Undue for now. This article is about Osteen, not his church. We should not be swayed by social media campaigns. So far the sources are not singling out Osteen for critscm. Content about "Harvey" should be moved to the "career" section.That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Not undue. Widely reported across international media for several days, with multiple followup reports, so seems inarguably notable. The sources cited make it clear that the criticism was of Osteen himself, not the church per se (an odd assertion). I don't see how WP:UNDUE applies. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Not undue Sources are very much singling out Osteen. He was making all the rounds this morning doing PR work trying to save himself and the church. What references are you reading? Plenty blame toward him and the church as well. This is not some small story that got some light reaction but a major one that is still on all the major networks right now days later. ContentEditman (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Not undue WP:WEIGHT "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Here are some reliable sources which published those viewpoints:

The Cheap Prosperity Gospel of Trump and Osteen Opinion New York Times

[BuzzFeed News] The Joel Osteen Fiasco Says A Lot About American Christianity

Joel Osteen faces criticism on social media for closing Houston megachurch's doors amid Harvey ABC News Aug 29, 2017

Joel Osteen says church has opened doors to flood victims CNN Aug 29, 2017

[CNN] Joel Osteen says church has opened doors to flood victims CNN Aug 29, 2017

Former NFL QB Sean Salisbury rips Lakewood Church in video Chron.com Aug 29, 2017

WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV, which is one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS of Wikipedia. "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." --Nbauman (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Undue. As I've said all along, if there proves to be continuing coverage a few weeks from now, I may support it. Right now, this is just being a newspaper and engaging in WP:RECENTISM. And bold printing a phrase doesn't make it apply. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM is a non-binding essay. WP:NPOV is a binding Wikipedia policy. Policies override essays. --Nbauman (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Policy does trump an essay, when the policy is being applied correctly. And there's a section for discussing this elsewhere. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Not undue though the word count needs to be in proportion with the article's subject. The man is a minister. He ministers. There have been long standing questions about the self-serving nature of his ministry. And here is a case where he failed to minister in a very public way (as far away as India). He has contradicted himself about his failure to minister (a less generous person would say he lied through his teeth about it). And he has resumed his ministry. The whole "not news" and "recent-ism" argument is weak. If the subject of a BLP article who espouses the sanctity of marriage has a public breakup with their spouse, we add it to their article immediately and without a second thought. It's significant to the subject, it's public, it belongs. We don't go citing "not news" and "recent-ism" and exclaim "let's wait to see how this turns out in a few weeks." This incident serves as an illustration of his critics' concerns. It belongs. It just doesn't need to take up more than a few sentences. Rklawton (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Not undue To borrow Rklawton's words "This incident serves as [a potential] illustration of his critics' concerns. It belongs." Veritas Solum (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2017

129.49.100.14 (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I ask that the following be put at the end of the subsection "August 2017 floods":

Following the backlash, Osteen and his Lakewood Church did eventually announce that they would open the doors once city-run shelters were at capacity.

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 14:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Who is the Idiot who used Osteen's own webpage as a "reliable source" for his achievements?

Fix it.217.248.45.170 (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2017

i I woould like to edit and source an investigation in to jole olesteen's organisations. Cersonix (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus Kryik: — What are you talking about? I'm autoconfirmed, but even I can't edit the page now, because some misguided administrator slapped a "gold" edit-protection on the article, which I've never seen in over ten years of contributing to Wikipedia. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 21:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

All that is is full page protection, which has been placed on many articles with edit warring. I was actually the one who requested it, so I don't agree with your "misguided" notion. I'm not sure why you are pinging me though; the user made no edit request and only wanted to edit the article. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus Kryik: — I'm pinging you so that you come here and learn something, not to annoy you. You are giving others incorrect information when you say that an article under Full Protection can be edited by autoconfirmed users. That is not true and the record should be corrected on behalf of everyone who visits this Talk page. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 14:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh really? I need to learn something? The gold lock pad means full protection. I have no idea what you are getting at that there is incorrect information. My message above was posted before the full page protection was placed. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

The following line contains an external link in the text body:

"This contradicted an earlier statement he had made stating that the church would open when other refugee centers were full.[1]"

This should be converted to a ref or removed. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where the source (that Rklawton added as an external link instead of as a reference) supports the the claim Osteen's statement that "the church has been open from the beginning" contradicts "an earlier statement he had made stating that the church would open when other refugee centers were full." It does not mention the claim that the church was "open from the beginning," nor the claim that "the church would open when other refugee centers were full." I see the word "contradict" (but not "contradicts" in there but referring to statements made by people who were not Osteen.

As such, the only action I can see available is to remove it under WP:BLP.

If a source supporting the statement is found and there's something like consensus (lol, like that'll happen given above discussion), I'll restore it. No comment on whether or not I think it belongs or not. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of other references. I believe many were removed earlier. So all those statements do have other references just some want to keep the passage small so adding them makes it even larger. "George R. Brown Convention Center, about five miles away, was open as a shelter and receiving flood victims, and wasn't yet full to capacity" https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/joel-osteens-giant-lakewood-church-shelters-harvey.html and he told The Washington Post. “The church has been open from the beginning, but it’s not designated as a shelter.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/08/29/we-were-never-closed-joel-osteens-houston-megachurch-disputes-claims-it-shut-its-doors/?tid=pm_local_pop&utm_term=.d1a3f3720100

I am not taking sides if it should be added back or not just that all of it can be supported if its believed the passage should be expanded or kept roughly what it is now. ContentEditman (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm about to leave the house but will look into those sources when I get back. I would like to see discussion from other users to get a sense of consensus instead of going by my own judgement, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

If there's ever reliability issues with Washington Post, it's the fault of one of our editors and not WaPo. The Inc. website scares my security software for some reason but should otherwise be reliable. What phrasing are you proposing to source with those statements? If I have to come up with the phrasing, it's just gonna be "On (date), Osteen told (source) blah blah. On (other date), Osteen told (other source) blah blah blah." Unless both of them make the same point explicitly, we can't combine them to reach a conclusion. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I am not proposing anything, at least right now. I just wanted to show support to the other editors who I believe are editing in goof faith and agree there are more references to support the statement. Rklawton below went over the contradictions as well and he is right, I have found all those statements also. It seems 1 editor is not editing in good faith and attacking others for what has gained consensus for adding. It seems the thing right now being discussed is hwo much to add and not to this page and the Lakewood Church. Thanks for your help. ContentEditman (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

He has contradicted himself once more. Now the church was closed (again). [13]. Rklawton (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

See WP:DAILYMAIL. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

How is he contradicting himself? Since the start, the facilities manager has been saying he had 8 workers there with instructions not to turn anyone away. They weren't actively inviting people in at that point, but they weren't turning people away either. That's not contradictory. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

First Osteen said they were not open due to flooding. Then he said they would open after other shelters were full. Later he said they'd always been open. Then he said that they hadn't opened because of *concerns* about flooding. I'd call that multiple contradictions. Rklawton (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think those 8 maint. guys were there? Because of their concerns about the flooding (which has happened in that building before). Pictures show flooding inside the building. You're confusing "open" with actively being a shelter. He has already said that since they weren't designated one, they didn't have people in place to do everything a shelter would need. It's not like you can just fling open the doors and say "do what you want". There needs to be adequate staff etc. He has explained this further. Are you seeing any media reports of a person saying that they were actually turned away? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place for an Osteen apologist. What we need here are neutral editors who can put together a proper article using the reliable sources available. Rklawton (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Guess you're done assuming any good faith. Well my friend, I'm not an Osteen apologist. I've been here for a while, making those mundane edits you haven't been doing. Cutting out puffery that sounded like a sales pitch for Osteen etc. I understand how you'd miss that, since your sole purpose in this article has been to come here about this issue. Much like your position on this issue, your long term view is clouded by the lather you've worked yourself into over this specific issue. Now you're resorting to allegations about my motives. Pretty telling. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note I'm closing the initial edit request as "no consensus" until further discussion can be completed. Please feel free to re-request edits once consensus has been gained. Thanks, Nakon 07:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

suggested change of picture

Hello, everybody, I believe this should be (hopefully) noncontroversial, as it does not pertain to anything Osteen has been in the news for recently. The picture on this page is one of Osteen preaching; while it is a good picture, it perhaps does not fit the usual model of infoboxes holding a headshot; I have cropped the infobox's picture to a headshot version and would like to use it in the infobox instead.

Cropped headshot of Osteen

Does this sound good? Editosaurus (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. And thank you! Rklawton (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, cool, thanks. Can we make the edit? (I can't) Editosaurus (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Added. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction or not?

The question now is did Osteen contradict himself on whether or not his church was open to Harvey victims during the hurricane? The evidence is overwhelming (see above), but we've got one editor who feels otherwise. Rklawton (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The heavy.com link needs to be removed, it's not supporting anything there.

The Chicago Tribune source being cited now does mention that Osteen said that the church is "prepared to shelter people once the cities and county shelters reach capacity." It does not provide any contrast between the statements, however. The statements could be listed in chronological order without violating WP:NOR.

Ian.thomson (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

A few useful links:

• Here's Osteen on August 30th [14] (we received shelter victims just the first day or two)
• Here's Osteen again on August 30th [15] (We’ve always been open … How this notion got started, that we’re not a shelter and we’re not taking people in is a false narrative)
• Here's Osteen on September 3rd [16] (we felt like it was safe to start taking people in on Tuesday)

Folks who would like to research this further need only search "Osteen, Harvey, Contradicts". You'll find some good reading there, though I like hearing it live from Osteen in his Tweets and videos myself. Rklawton (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You don't understand: unless a source calls it a contradiction or points to it as such or otherwise contrasts them, we cannot fill in that gap, per WP:SYNTH. If the statements are sourced, it is possible to just list the statements in chronological order and expect readers to figure things out on their own. If you want to say "contradiction," you don't need sources that show his statements (his Tweets would be useless for that), you need sources that present his statements, explicitly contrast them, and outright say "contradiction."

The Youtube video falls under WP:USERG and so is not a reliable source. News articles about that video would be, though.

Wikipedia isn't about "the Truth," it only summarizes professionally-published mainstream sources -- especially when making statements about living people who might sue for libel. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of references that point out and say...

"But photos and videos posted on social media appeared to contradict that." http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/30/joel-osteen-explains-why-he-didnt-open-his-megachurch-for-hurricane-harvey-victims-6891217/

"seeming to contradict a Lakewood Facebook post announcing that the church remained closed due to flooding conditions" https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2017/08/31/joel-osteens-response-to-hurricane-harvey-was-awful-and-trumpian

Those are just 2 random ones I grabbed, plenty others as well. ContentEditman (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Those sources state that the photos contradicted the claims of flooding. It doesn't support the part of the article that says his statement "the church has been open from the beginning" contradicts an earlier statement about waiting until other shelters were full.

For the record, I'm just trying to stay WP:UNINVOLVED as an admin and am only commenting on policy matters and potential wording based on sources. I'm not giving my personal opinion on article content or subject. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

"It would not accept refugees until other centers were at capacity, the statement said - but Osteen contradicted that on Twitter soon after. 'Victoria and I care deeply about our fellow Houstonians,' he tweeted. 'Lakewood's doors are open and we are receiving anyone who needs shelter.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4835348/Joel-Osteen-defends-not-opening-doors-church-earlier.html

Like that? ContentEditman (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not, has not been, and never will be a reliable source. We have an edit filter to stop people from citing it in articles for that reason.

We have a section that claims that Osteen made two statements (fine). That section also says that those statements contradict each other, without a source saying that those two statements contradict each other (problem per WP:SYNTH). Sources about other statements that contradict each other are not applicable to the problem being discussed here. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Wel it appears that it isn't just "an editor". As I said earlier "Since the start, the facilities manager has been saying he had 8 workers there with instructions not to turn anyone away. They weren't actively inviting people in at that point, but they weren't turning people away either. That's not contradictory." "Because of their concerns about the flooding (which has happened in that building before). Pictures show flooding inside the building. You're confusing "open" with actively being a shelter. He has already said that since they weren't designated one, they didn't have people in place to do everything a shelter would need. It's not like you can just fling open the doors and say "do what you want". There needs to be adequate staff etc. He has explained this further. Are you seeing any media reports of a person saying that they were actually turned away?" There really isn't a contradiction. Some who want to paint a specific narrative try to create a contradiction. And yes, I removed the Heavy.com source again. It hasn't fared well at RSN before. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: I've reverted your edit that completely removed the full "controversy" sentence. Three issues:

• Why are you removing the full sentence? Do you dispute the fact asserted (beyond the inclusion of the word "controversy")?
• Why are you editing an issue that is under active discussion in the first place? Is there a rule basis you can point me to? Or are you acting without adequate support and expect immediate revision?
• Generally, is there a point in which you would find consensus sufficient to accept an edit that you oppose? If not, what would satisfy you, short of having your position adopted? Veritas Solum (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: I'm not actually supporting your position, either. Also, the section you removed cited the Chicago Tribune, not just Heavy.com.

Like, geez, am I really gonna have to get WP:INVOLVED because people are only selectively reading stuff? I mean, I suppose it's fine since the page protection is over. Do y'all want that? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You seem to support it in a sense. Enough that calling this just a case of "an editor" isn't accurate. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

What part of "I'm trying to stay uninvolved" did you not catch? I've already suggested that Osteen's statements could be listed and let the reader arrive at their own conclusions, and I've shown no problem with including. I've just been commenting on policy, sourcing, and wording based on sourcing by ignoring who the subject is.

Taking off my admin cap, becoming involved, and ceasing to ignore who the article subject is, I'm just gonna say that I think pointing out Osteen's contradictions is a great idea but the folks doing so are going about it the wrong way. WP:BLP is in place to protect us from lawsuits as much as it is to protect innocent people. I'm totally fine with us pointing out where he contradicts himself, we just have to make sure we cite reliable sources and not synthesize sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There are other references that say the same...

It would not accept evacuees until other centers were at capacity, the statement said – but Osteen contradicted that on Twitter soon after. ‘Victoria and I care deeply about our fellow Houstonians,’ he tweeted. ‘Lakewood’s doors are open and we are receiving anyone who needs shelter.’ http://latestnewsnetwork.com/joel-osteen-defends-decision-not-to-open-houston-church/

That had been then contradicted in turn simply by Osteen himself, who tweeted: ‘Victoria and am care deeply about the fellow Houstonians. Lakewood’s doors are usually open and we are getting anyone who needs shelter. http://en.mogaznews.com/World-News/643536

Those are a couple that say the same as well. ContentEditman (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, random sources that discuss other contradictions have nothing to do with the contradiction that this section is discussing. The Latestnewsnetwork source cites the Daily Fail. The mogaznews.com article is just reposting a live24news.xyz article, and I can find no indication that live24news.xyz is a professional news agency (i.e. there's no sign of an editorial staff). You need to find professional sources that are specifically about "the church has been open from the beginning" contradicting his statement that they're waiting until "the cities and county shelters reach capacity." You can't just add a source for "open from the beginning," another source for "reach capacity," and another source for "contradicts." This really isn't that hard, it's actually less work than what you're trying to do. The Metro and Chicago Reader sources would be fine for sourcing new material about other contradictions, but not this one.

I'm going to a job interview, otherwise I'd start digging. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggesting article be protected.

I found this article with the word Christian in qoutes ("Christian") on the intro. Given the backlash of his response to Hurricane Harvey this article should be protected to prevent an edit war over the qoutes on Christian and other vandalism. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8000:37f0:e589:7ed:7a90:fc1b (talk) 14:46, September 5, 2017

Pending changes protection applied temporarily for vandalism due to media attention.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Addition of Tropical Storm Allison

It's not clear to me whether adding in previous sheltering by Lakewood is relevant. Churches make themselves available as shelters all the time and clearly wouldn't be noteworthy in a BLP. While there may be an argument for it serving as a contrast to Lakewood's response to Harvey, I think that may be a stretch. If accusations were that Lakewood *never* served the community, it would be important to address evidence to the contrary, however, the controversy expressed here is limited to this single instance. Past occurrences of an event aren't de-facto relevant to isolated incidents to the contrary.

To be clear, this instance also involves more than offering shelter, but includes several accusations of lying regarding the following: the reason for not offering shelter, when they were "open" to receive individuals requesting assistance, whether there was an existing plan to open as a shelter when other sites were at capacity, as well as whether some of these statements contradicted each other, providing evidence of dishonesty.

In summation, I think the controversy may have initially been centered on Lakewood's decision to shelter or not, I think the vast majority of the noteworthy aspect is Lakewood's response (which included Olsteen directly) making previous sheltering nearly irrelevant in my estimation. Thoughts? Veritas Solum (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The only point to adding that is to push the narrative that Nightshift is trying to place on the article or to "balance" it out with something he is trying to remove. WP:BALANCE emphasizes prominence. Anything that is unconventional and receives adequate coverage should be included (i.e. Churches refusing storm refugees is normally unconventional; lying about it especially is). Anything that is conventional or expected and receives adequate coverage should not be included specifically (i.e. Churches accepting storm refugees is conventional). A general section for involvement in storm damage mitigation can possibly be included if it is prominent and happens continually (i.e. the church shows a pattern of helping out in storms). Nonetheless, a conventional occurrence in 2001 should not be included. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, part of the reason being used to include the Hurricane Harvey information was that it was covered by many reliable sources. I picked the sources I used for a reason. One is older, showing the coverage at the time it happened and the other 2 were current and showed that while the sources were covering the current issue, they made mention of the previous one. If the sources you want to use to add the Harvey incident felt it worth talking about, why do we oppose it? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there a rule or guideline you're basing this argument on? I'm unclear why facts reported, yet separated in time, is a reason to include the detail in a BLP. Your argument seems ill suited for this article. Am I missing an element of your argument perhaps?Veritas Solum (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

For the very reasons mentioned right above your comment. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your response. An event happened in 2001. It was reported on by reliable sources. (I can find more at from that time frame). It wasn't something that effected only a person or two, but 5000 were sheltered. It was still being talked about by reliable sources 16 years later (continuing coverage). Why does mentioning this suddenly become "pushing a narrative" (bad faith allegation noted)? While you call it "conventional coverage", I repeat that 16 years later, it's being talked about. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Churches helping people is not noteworthy. Churches lying, contradicting themselves, and acting outside their supposed mission is noteworthy. This was clearly explained above. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The reliable sources talking about it 16 years after the fact would dispute that. Your personal values assessment that there was "lying" and "contradicting" betray your personal agenda here and indicate an agenda to push. Perhaps you should examine your own motives for being at this article.Niteshift36 (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources making mention of an event is clearly not a sufficent argument for why that information belongs in *this* article. Why does it belong here?Veritas Solum (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed your formatting here as well. However, your comment further proves you have no interest in discussion or consensus, just POV pushing. I am only interested in the facts and have no time for your agenda accusations. Talk about AGF. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it's your response that shows a lack of interest in neutrality, just POV pushing. Your choice of inflammatory terms and allegations of narrative pushing illustrate your agenda. Funny how you have "no time" for agenda accusations...except when you are the one leveling them. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assessment. Using non-neutral language does not preclude neutral action. However, your previous actions to edit controversial sections actively in discussion in TALK, could be argued to be evidence of a lack of neutrality, particularly considering your edits seem to demonstrate disinterest in preserving aspects of statements that do have support and possibly consensus.Veritas Solum (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep telling yourself whatever makes you validate your disruptive behavior. I'm not having any of it. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Since Nitsehift365 argued strenuously that mentioning the Harvey response violated WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE (an argument which I felt was wholly inapplicable given the voluminous and steady coverage), it's difficult to see, when applying that logic, how mentioning Allison would be justified. Seems like it was added in attempt to whitewash the Harvey response, and since the number of sources that mention it is a tiny fraction (and only one contemporaneous to Allison) compared to those that covered the Harvey response, I would support its removal, as it would appear to be WP:UNDUE. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Since you dismissed the argument, you invalidate your own response here. Since I was forced to accept your interpretation of the policy, it should apply here. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion outside of this topic have absolutely no baring on the validity of arguments here. Or to put it another way, "That's not how any of this works."Veritas Solum (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

It bears pointing out that you aren’t being forced to do anything; and the suggestion creates tension. Being an editor means accepting that you won’t always get your preferred outcome in a consensus, but that’s just a part of the process that all participants willingly accept. You can still do as you wish. Real force (i.e., administrative action) would come into play when someone ignores consensus or is otherwise disruptive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I just did a Google search and found that there were a number of sources that covered Osteen's Harvey response that also mentioned Allison, but it appears that the latter detail was raised by church spokesman Don Iloff in attempt to diffuse the recent criticism.[17] So if it were to be included, it might not violate WP:UNDUE but the statement should be attributed to Iloff and it should be emphasized that the building was not the same one as the church currently occupies (i.e., the doors to the current church were not opened to Allison victims). Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Due to the relatively small amount of space devoted to Harvey, I think it would be a hard sell to include, even in the context of a response. Maybe we could pin this for now? I think there is room to clean up the Harvey response paragraph and identify originating sources (i.e. CNN's transcript of Osteen's Harvey Response interview). (It's what I originally came here for, but the back and forth editing made it clear such objectives were premature.)Veritas Solum (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there a source directly attributing the Allison response to Don Iloff? It mentions it in passing in the WaPo article, but nothing direct. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes.[18][19] Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I have been giving further thought to the issue of whether or not to include mention of Hurricane Alison and came to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate to include it. The reason that Harvey is mentioned is because Osteen received widespread criticism for his response, or lack thereof. It is the criticism (and high volumes of it), rather than his response, that makes this highly noteworthy. The same cannot be said of the response to Allison, which received almost no contemporaneous coverage. The Allison detail is the Church attempting to deflect criticism over the response to Harvey -- i.e., they are in effect saying "but but we opened the church during Hurricane Allison in 2001." However, this is really a red herring. Upon careful reflection, I do not consider this detail to be particularly noteworthy and including it in the Harvey section, which is fairly short, gives the detail undue weight. As such, it has been removed. Should a consensus emerge to support inclusion, it can be re-added, but that seems unlikely. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the fact that it hasn't been in the article up to this point is telling, as the only reason people are trying to include it now is to deflect the criticism the Church and Osteen received following Harvey. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree as well. It's a distraction at best. Veritas Solum (talk) 06:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Harvey Response Section Quality

Now that a couple days have passed and Harvey discussion has been a bit silent, I wanted to address the paragraph's quality. It's not bad as-is, but I think there could be improvement. I just finished implementing some changes that included restructuring some of the individual sentences (for readability), added dates, added citations, and adding details to some of the aspects that seem pertinent. Probably too much for one edit, so my apologies there.

Also, should the claims of flooding inside the building be addressed? This article seems to do a good job reporting on the perspectives of that aspect.

Thoughts? Veritas Solum (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's keep this section short, simple, and factual. Osteen has had a "big" life, and so far, this is just a small though illustrative part of it. I think we should focus on a Chronology of Osteen's own words (Tweets, interviews, YouTube videos). After all, this is his biography. This will help readers understand how criticisms arose. We should then include brief mentions of these criticisms themselves and defenses against criticisms by way of conclusion. E.g. Osteen said X on date, Y on date, and Z on date. He faced criticisms of ... by... In his defense, Osteen claimed ... Rklawton (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe what is posted looks well right now. Not to much just enough to cover it but not over shadow the full page. I also updated the Lakewood Church page with the same as its pretty good right now for both. ContentEditman (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Theology/Statement of Faith and Criticisms Categories

Rather than having categories such as Harvey Response and Lawsuits, these seem more fitting under an umbrella of Criticisms category. This proposed category could further hold other related issues and future ones as they arise as well. Furthermore, the Joel denies the label of preaching a Prosperity Gospel This category as it is deals almost entirely with responses to criticism and does nothing to mention his own statement of theology or even what Prosperity teaching is. For this reason i suggest a category of "Theology" or "Statement of Faith" that would share what Joel himself claims to believe and preach rather than simple criticisms and responses from other people. Obviously such criticisms and responses should be mentioned and addressed, but the current format of the page is ill-fitted for it and his views for the reasons mentioned above.

Thanks, RobertMWorsham (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The article has an organization problem, but this isn't really a new issue, and your proposal is not a good fix. While I can see that the Harvey section is arguably recentism and not necessarily due weight, criticisms section are usually considered poor practice on Wikipedia, per WP:CSECTION. It would be better to figure out a way to integrate this content into the article as part of a larger cohesive whole, rather than split it into good/bad. An entire section for two totally unrelated criticisms is trading one problem for another. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support It would be best if we worked this into the narrative of his ministry. Rklawton (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

References

I think this is one article that would be better organized with a criticism section. Osteen is controversial, and the controversy is lost by separating individual complaints among separate sections. His political and social views, the prosperity gospel, and the Hurricane Harvey response, are all part of the same idea, and they should be discussed together, since they all deal with the Christian responsibility to the community. Splitting it up makes it hard to make a coherent argument. Furthermore:

Wikipedia:Criticism is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline; it is merely an essay, and Wikipedia editors have no obligation to follow it, especially when it doesn't make good sense. The essay says: "A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location."

Wikipedia:Recentism is also not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, and editors have no obligation to follow it. Hurricane Harvey happened 3 months ago. Why should we wait any longer? --Nbauman (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Weird google search result

Hey editors,

Just thought you should be aware that this page shows up oddly in google searches. Instead of being listed as "Joel Osteen - Wikipedia" it appears as "Joel Osteen Preaching - Joel Osteen - Wikipedia", even though there's no page by that exact name. All I know about SEO is how to spell the acronym so don't know if anyone is just trying to manipulate wiki search results or something...?? Don't even know if this is something worth worrying about. Just thought it was odd and figured I'd let you know.

Cheers, 27.33.121.123 (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)