Talk:T. B. Joshua
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Edited it to have a more neutral point of view.
I'm sensing some issues with neutrality for this page, so I'd like to point out to any editors who follow this page that wikipedia has rules regarding article neutrality, and somebody should really take a look. DreamHaze (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
With the neutrality mark I want to stop the silent edit war at this point. Some seem not to have understood what the purpose of an encyclopedia is. This is not the website of the T.B. Joshua Fanclub. -- JohSt 18:27, 25 September 2008 (CEST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohSt (talk • contribs)
I have noticed your neutrality mark. We clearly recognize and understand the purpose of Wikipedia in presenting neutral information on people, places and events. It is an encyclopedia. Regarding the controversies section, however, the allegations and accusations made in the past from the mentioned organization and persons, while referenced, may not reflect the views of the said individuals, organization or majority of the organization in this present day. We must be careful not to defame present day organizations or individuals based on past views. This is the reason for removal of this section. Wellington 384 (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- First of all: if the neutrality of an article is disputed it is customary, first to discuss bevor deleting any contribution.
- On the relevance of the section 'Controversies':
- It would be absurd to deny or to conceal from the public that T.B. Joshua is a very controversial- if not the most controversial pastor in Nigeria, even Africa today. A quick peek on Google proves that the Internet is full of critical reports. To present this controversy is a component of the biography and not a defamation of anyone or anything. In regard to this it is of no importance if the presented allegations reflect the sight of the mentioned individuals or organisations of today or not (as a matter of fact the SCOAN is not member of the PFN up to now). For an encyclopedia it is only relevant that it happened. Btw I would not be surprised if some organisations change their view over the years as T.B. Joshua is a relatively young phenomenon. Time will tell if T.B. Joshua will be forgotten or established as a prophet in the public view. --JohSt(talk • contribs)
It would be exciting to document this man's reputation as a prophet. His church's website has a section on "prophecy" but the only claims of prophecy that I found there are for events that have already occurred. Does he publish his yet-unproven prophecies? Where? If he is a real prophet, the world should take notice of him; if not, perhaps the article should refer to him as a "self-styled" prophet. Snezzy (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
State of the article: my cleanup efforts - some POV material still remains
Well. I have begun efforts to try and bring this article into some semblance of meeting Wikipedia's style and NPOV efforts, though I have to say the task is a most thankless one. I have to wonder if this article wasn't constructed with a certain care to appear more sourced than it actually was, and yet consist solely of what seemed like media promotional material. On following up many of the references, they appear to have the depth of an empty bath; most had nothing to do with the sentences they were allegedly sourcing. For example, the news links next to the claims of prophecies (to reputable cites such as BBC News Online and CNN) had no mention of Joshua whatsoever in them, and there is no record online of any third-party verification of them. The Controversies section also seems an interesting effort of misdirection, as far from containing external sources' concerns over Joshua's claimed powers, it is simply a sort of watered-down mention of unorthodoxy. have removed the worst, and left the claims to stand by themselves where appropriate; furthermore, I have also excised some of the material which seemed to be overly "granular" out of proportion to notability. What needs to happen is 1) external sources need to be found and added for the various claims; 2) external criticisms need to be added and sourced; 3) remaining POV promotional text needs to be reworded into bare claims only with the sources from steps 1) and 2). I shall continue with the efforts as time permits. To supporters of Joshua I would urge you to allow claims to speak for themselves, and remind you of Wikipedia's policies on neutra l point of view (WP:NPOV) and notability (Wikipedia:Notability). --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear Sir, I'm very much interesting on your live ministry every sunday at SCOAN, how you are delivery people from the claws of satan the devil.How can one arrange to travel to SCOAN from cameroon. please for directives.Tohsium (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
How is Africa ever going to move forward when this kind of charlatan is held in awe by people who ought to spend their time educating themselves and working their way out of poverty, rather than rely on miracles from a man who clearly is nothing but a con artist. I despair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with your sentiment. But Wikipedia is one place where you're empowered to actually do something about it. If you want to help debunk T. B. Joshua's mythology, rather than vandalize the page, help improve it! The current presentation is extremely one-sided and it needs knowledgeable people to add reliable sources that tell the other side of the story. AtticusX (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Apologies. I was just trying to see how long it would take to get reverted. I have to say you guys are amazingly prompt. What shall I vandalise next? I was thinking something relating to twilight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed that the link which has been attached to the claim that the genuineness of T.B. Joshua's miracles have been questioned does not match the claim. The editor who made that edit should either provide a better link or remove it. Without a proper link his/her claim is misleading.
- You're quite right, it doesn't. This was the reference that was formerly attached to the claim in the previous version of the article. Almost none of the article's references, in fact, matched its statements before I stripped it, and many still do not. I am currently researching better sources. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Synagogue Church of All Nations should get a separate article. And the stuff regarding the recently reported deaths should be added there: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14406818
Possible Conflict of Interest
I made some edits yesterday and it was put forward by Famousdog that I may have a conflict of interest in editing the T.B. Joshua article, so to anyone concerned I just wanted to be open and public about my interest in T.B. Joshua and the SCOAN. I recently had an opportunity to travel to the church and was very impressed by what I saw. The edits I have made to the T.B. Joshua article reflect this impression. I am still learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia editing and I apologize for linking to YouTube videos from the Official SCOAN YouTube Channel. That demonstrated poor judgment and I just wanted to be up front and apologize for it. Rolandwilliamson (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
No edit war
I recently added some new information (including references) and deleted many claims that were not supported by any references. Furthermore, I removed refernces, which are simply not online any more. If you believe that I removed something while there is still a source out there, please provide it and do not simply add information without references. Let us please try to keep this article as neutral as possible without starting edit wars. If something is unclear, let us discuss it here on the discussion page. - Thank you very much. Gromobir (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Moving this here in order to avoid an edit war. The following references (and its respective statements) have been deleted by me because of the following reasons:
- 1.) http://weeklytrust.com.ng/index.php/health-extra/19-weekend-magazine/travel-and-leisure/3927-tourism-has-spiritual-face-too - Not reachable anymore for me
- 2.) http://www.nationaldailyngr.com/main/religious-tourism-scoan-a-trail-blazer? - Not reachable anymore for me
- Please DO NOT restore statements refering to those references anymore unless they become accessible again or you find a better source. Another thing: I'm not in any way affiliated with the referenced watchblog, however I would like to state that I reckon this article would not suffer from some more neutrality. In its previous state it really has been biased to a high decree and all I try to do is to adhere to the standards of an encyclopedia. Thank you very much for your understanding. Gromobir (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Gromobir- that there exists a critical blog is not an encyclopedia worthy entry. Are we to include such an entry to every single public figure now?
Further, you made a serious and completely fallacious slander when you said that 3 people died due to advice received from their SCOAN pastors- no such evidence exists. The three mentioned in the report were not from SCOAN nor ever had any connection to SCOAN. Provide any evidence at all that they were and you can keep that text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandernathan (talk • contribs) 21:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- T.B.Joshua is a highly controversial figure and this justifies the quoting of critical sources in my opinion. In its previous state this article contained nothing but praises for him and his work. This is not neutral as people might get the impression that there is only light without shadows with him. And yes: Many public figures are being critisised in Wikipeda for whatever reasons. Even Mandela and Gandhi for example.
- My "serious and completely fallacious slander" refers to a source which was given in this very same article but was misused to justify a completely different statement which didn't have anything today with the source. Concerning your remarks, let me quote the source for you: "At least three people in London with HIV have died after they stopped taking life saving drugs on the advice of their Evangelical Christian pastors. [...] The women died after attending churches in London where they were encouraged to stop taking the antiretroviral drugs in the belief that God would heal them, their friends and a leading HIV doctor said. [...] HIV prevention charity African Health Policy Network (AHPN) says a growing number of London churches have been telling people the power of prayer will "cure" their infections. [...] AHPN said it believed the Synagogue Church Of All Nations (SCOAN), which has UK headquarters in Southwark, south London, may be one of those involved in such practices. The church is headed by Pastor T B Joshua, Nigeria's third richest clergyman, according to a recent Forbes richlist."
- Last but not least: I have stated multiply times before that I don't want to involve myself in any kind of edit war which is the reason I'm definitely going to contact an admin on this issue if you revert my changes one more time. Best regards, Gromobir (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Two more things I forgot to mention above: Please stop including references which are not accessible any more. Do these links really still work for you? In that case something has to be wrong with my internet connection as the links are simply dead for me. Concerning the word "alleged", it has be said that no prophecy ever has been proven scientifically. This is also true for Joshua as none of his "prophecies" have ever been proven. Gromobir (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, I am busy updating defunct links, you can test the new references under HIV in healing.
Indeed many are controversial figures. Obama is a controversial figure, however a blog is not a worthy addition to an encyclopedia. You will not find blogs listed under Criticism on any public figure. A blog does not constitute respected journalism or evidence. You would not tolerate me linking positive blogs under evidence for TB Joshua so why do you expect it to be accepted in this instance?
By the admission of your own evidence, the deaths are attributed to churches across London. Again, there is no evidence at all these people were linked to SCOAN, the most incriminating remark you found is that the church "MAY be one of those involved in such practices." This is not evidence. An allegation without substantial evidence is called slander. Meanwhile, let me quote the BBC news report:
"We don't ask people to stop taking medication," the church added.
Until you can offer any evidence linking SCOAN to these deaths or the deaths of any in this case, your addition has no place on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandernathan (talk • contribs) 13:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- All you did is to add three new references which indeed are working. Thank you for that but this does not justify reverting all my previous edits including references already proven to be defunct. I will revert your edits one last time. After doing that you can add new information including valid references and you can also choose to change sentences if you think they don't portray the situation properly. You can do this step by step without reverting ALL my changes again and again. If you, however, choose to revert my changes again I will file a complaint here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring). I have warned you here and officially on your talk page.
- Concerning the watchblog, there is so much material which has been published there. I reckon this justifies linking to it. It doesn't matter if the critics are presenting their work in the form of a blog or an official magazine. The important fact is that critics exists and this should be noted somewhere. Thank you. Gromobir (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
You believe a blog is a worthy entry then, despite it not being considered for any other public figure's page in history? How can your opinion be anything other than personal bias?
Let me ask you then- are you happy then for me and others to begin referencing the many pro-TB Joshua blogs out there as evidence? Since to paraphrase you - I feel they present interesting information and are worthy of inclusion.
Lastly I'm editing your baseless lie that three people died as result from advice given by "their SCOAN evangelical pastors"- this is pure fiction. Please demonstrate from any media report that the three concerned had any connection to SCOAN, much less that they died because of advice given by them. Do you have no concept of how serious an accusation this is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandernathan (talk • contribs) 08:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, finally we are getting somewhere... Thank you very much for not deleting all of my contributions at once and only making one change at a time. I'm going to rewrite this part again so that we both (hopefully) can be happy with it. Concerning the blog: If we don't include it, there will be none, zero, nada critical statements in the article and it will all be only praise for Joshua. Is that really what we want? Please think about it. Gromobir (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm now happy enough with that edit. It's still my opinion that it has no place on this page since the SCOAN is not responsible for any deaths, this story belongs on those pages of churches who are responsible. However now that it states the truth it is ok.
Regarding the presence of criticism- that's not the issue. The issue is whether we allow blogs to be used as references, which is unprecedented. A blog is simply not a respected source of journalism. If you are to quote a blog then you must be content with myself and others writing whole sections quoting positive blogs as evidence- we have not done this. (Note also that there are various blogs countering that particular one you reference, including one that presents information allegedly unmasking the identities of those behind said blog- which does not shed a positive light on them and does not show them to be trustworthy in the least. But again, this is all not the point.)
Regarding the Healing section- your reasoning that the remaining one defunct reference is just cause to delete the entire section is completely unreasonable. Please explain your reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandernathan (talk • contribs) 09:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I'm ok with you linking to positive blogs as long as statements contain parts like "Blog X states that Joshua allegedly did Y." If you want, we can also include the watchblog and provide a link to the counter-watchblog at the same time. All fine for me as long as there is a balance between criticism and praise.
- @Healing section: There were more than only one defunct references. All I did was to delete statements refering to defunct sources, nothing else. Feel free to double check that. If you want to add some other information please do so as long as you can provide a working link. Gromobir (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Check again- at the last edit I made there was only one defunct link.
On the blogs- no we shouldn't, because it's not about what we want on this page, but what is right. What I was trying to get you to realise is if we begin permitting blogs this page is going to become so saturated with pro TB Joshua information that whatever criticism you put up will be completely buried- there are multiple more positive blogs than negative ones. People will take issue with the use of positive blogs as pro TB Joshua evidence. The issue stands that blogs are not acceptable here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandernathan (talk • contribs) 10:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Outside comment I have no opinion personally about this article or its referencing, but your disagreement seems to be for a large part due to the inclusion or not of a reference to a blog. Please note that most blogs are not considered to be reliable sources and cannot be used as such. However, the important word here is "most": some blogs are reliable sources. If you are uncertain, I would recommend that you ask for an opinion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Randykitty (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Randykitty: Thank you for your comment. I asked for opinions here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#http:.2F.2Ftbjoshuawatch.wordpress.com.2F) Gromobir (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Randykitty. Gromobir, if this blog is accepted (for reasons beyond me) then you should be ready to accept the influx of paragraphs citing the pro TB Joshua blogs, detailing masses of pro evidence regarding healings, miracles etc which are not yet presented (since they are not from news articles but blogs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandernathan (talk • contribs) 13:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
http://www.charismamag.com/spirit/devotionals/loving-god?view=article&id=1086:nigerian-healer-tb-joshua-still-attracts-followers-from-abroad&catid=154 --126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Opinions vs reliable sources
User:Skaeth has raised a concern that recently added material represents opinions, but the user has removed material from the BBC and other sources with that rationale. I'm starting this to encourage discussion from the user. Thanks. EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Reading more closely, I can understand why Skaeth might have been upset about some of the language (like "manhandling" and Joshua being unable to save the collapse victims). At least I think that might be the cause of the upset. We haven't had any discussion here yet. Instead, there was just more reverting. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I recommend the author to visit the SCOAN so that he/she can write verified information. its either unprofessional or biased to use term like "apparently" "claiming"and so on.. we want facts we don't want opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)