Jump to content

Talk:Eddie Long

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Senate probe and civil lawsuits

[edit]

Seeing how Bishop Long is under 3 civil lawsuits perhaps it would be of interest to add to his article that he is under a senate probe also?

Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Committee on Finance, has asked Bishop Eddie Long and five other media-based ministries for information regarding expenses, executive compensation, and amenities given to executives. http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=12011

Bobmutch 6:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I read the letter sent by Senator Grassley and it seems like his office has done quite a bit of research and, or, acquired some specific inside information. A quick news search through Google shows a large number of articles relating to Long and Grassley. It appears from a scan of some articles from 2008 that Long was one of three ministers refusing to cooperate. I think someone with more knowledge of the subject matter and more familiar with all these Christian news organizations needs to sort through them and build a coherent section. Perhaps there are some religious leader type categories the article can be assigned to so qualified editors can help. Noticed later that it is assigned to many categories but is still a very incomplete article. Veriss (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request photo

[edit]

98.88.130.107 (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you use the photo of him in his underwear, that he sent one of the young men? Codenamemary (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the one's in which he's taking his own picture in the mirror with a cell phone cam 1. they're copyrighted, which means we can't use them and 2. I'm pretty sure it's workout gear, not underwear. I imagine someone out there has met him in person, and taken a photograph. If the release it under the appropriate license, we should be able to use it. Until then, no pics :( Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Career section riddled with controversies

[edit]

On a related note, Mr. Long's career section is riddled with controversial type statements. Perhaps they should be moved into a separate section like in other biographies. Veriss (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Veriss (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of the style of "Bishop"

[edit]

The usages of his style "Bishop" in his info box. There is no indication that this rank, position, title or style was granted to Mr. Long by some organization with any standing. Is it correct to use this "style" in Long's info box without a source indicating it's more then a self-awarded title? Should it be removed if there is no discussion of how he got it? Veriss (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title is assigned by the church he is employed by. The church does have numerous other pastors and ministers according to the web site and does have elders so I would guess it was assigned by the elders. He is also referred to as the senior pastor, but since various media outlets refer to him as Bishop also it is not wrong to use that title. Kilowattradio (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I find the use of the title Bishop used by one outside of Apostolic Succession distasteful in the same way one using Doctor when holding a PhD from a bible diploma mill of no accreditation or report is, it is still within precedent of this style of church as seen in this article on Bishops. Still, it does feel like WP:NFT. --CompRhetoric (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seemed a bit affected to me but I'll leave it alone since all the major media are using the title even though I suspect they use now just to increase the salacious-at-a-glance value of their headlines and sell more papers. I like that the apparently self-awarded title isn't used in conjunction with Long's name in the text of the article and think we should continue that precedent as the article develops. I think the article does deserve a sourced mention of how Long acquired the title somewhere in the career section. Veriss (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Snipes98, 27 September 2010

[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Eddie long is Not a member of Kappa Alpha Psi

Snipes98 (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. According to this source, he is. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Uncle Dick (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SpigotMap 20:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article

[edit]

I removed the collapsed section below (click the "show" link) about a graduation boycott in 2006 from the article. Given the passage of time, I just don't see the lasting importance of a speaker cancelling an appearance, or students "discussing a boycott" to a proper biography of this man. Particularly given the recent expansion of (properly sourced) negative information, this indicent violates WP:UNDUE. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Click "show" to the right to see paragraph

Graduation boycott

In 2006, Long's appearance at Atlanta's Interdenominational Theological Center's graduation stirred up controversy, and led to some students discussing a boycott. Long's invitation prompted Black liberation theologian James Cone—who was scheduled to receive an honorary degree—to boycott the ceremony. Thirty-three graduating seniors sent a letter to the seminary's president "questioning Long's theological and ethical integrity to be their commencement speaker." Many students did not agree with Long's beliefs that God can "deliver" homosexuals and his teachings on prosperity.[1]
When I first read that section it didn't really pass the "so what" test and seemed like a bit of "piling on". Might as well make room for probably plenty more negative stuff to appear before this lawsuit or the congressional inquiry into Long's financial affairs are done. Veriss (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Bishop Eddie Long tackles controversy". New Pittsburgh Courier. highbeam.com. 2006-05-17. Retrieved 22 September 2010.

New Sources

[edit]

I found three new sources that discuss several key points that the article doesn't cover very well yet. They provide important information concerning:

  • source of the title of "Bishop"
  • detailed timeline of Long's career and the development of the church
  • affiliation and breaking of affiliation with a larger denomination in the '90s
  • how independent baptist churches are
  • Long's church deacons granting full and complete autonomy to their senior pastor
  • discussion of funding the growth of the ministry, acquisition of properties, etc.
  • personal life
  • etc.

http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2010/09/bishop-eddie-long-the-baptist.html

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/3429/eddie_long%3A_the_real_scandal_is_even_bigger

http://198.106.21.96/download/ECCLESIA%20ebook%20no%20ads.pdf

They may not all meet the criteria for notability and reliability but could help editors fill in some gaps and develop leads to appropriately notable and reliable sources. The article does merit more weight in the career and ministry sections compared to all the large and growing controversy sections. I'm not sure I'm qualified to wade through all this info but I present the links in hopes more qualified folks can use it.

I left out the google search about his alleged toupee...humorous but not encyclopedic I don't think.  :) Veriss (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can go you one better. The book "Watch this!: the ethics and aesthetics of black televangelism" By Jonathan L. Walton, published by NYU Press and unquestionably a reliable source has lengthy coverage on everything you mention above and more. It will also help to develop a section the man's theology, which would seem to be highly relevant here. Best of all, most of it shows up in Google Books. I'm swamped IRL and don't have the time ATM, I hope someone takes up the challenge. I am disheartened at the WP:BLP violations occurring, this article doesn't remotely meet WP:NPOV at present. Folks, this is an encyclopedia article, not a tabloid. Newspapers only have to worry about whether something libel. Our BLP and NPOV policies are much stronger. That mini rant wasn't addressed at you Veriss, I just needed to vent a bit. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Roland Martin?

[edit]

I can answer that question but the article fails to answer it so if you want to include it you need to explain WTH Martin is. We need to justify why he deserves a quote. Fix it by explaining who he is in the text of the article or it needs to go IMO. Veriss (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can you provide some constructive assistance and update the article, that way you'll be satisfied–this is a wiki (collaborative effort)?98.88.162.90 (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I added that Roland Martin is a commentator for TV One.--Ccson (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Ccson, the change must've been lost in the history because it's not there now. I would change it myself but I don't have the personal conviction that his comments rate inclusion. I don't have the background to make that call about Martin's expertise on the subject, though I am sure he is important, so can only point out that inclusion requires telling the reader why his comments rate inclusion. Veriss (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph has evolved since I raised my initial concern that arose from quotes of Martin advocating that Long step down. This is no longer the case so is no longer an issue. Thanks Ccson. Veriss (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reverted for the wrong reason

[edit]

here i reverted because i thought there was unsourced material added. but a formatted reference with a citation template was reduced to a url at the end with lots of the article included. i think the revert is still appropriate, although because the addition was WP:UNDUE and it appeared to not be WP:NPOV. -Shootbamboo (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction Section ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

In introductions it states: During this time, Long has become the focus of Senate investigations concerning whether he has personally profited from his church's tax exempt status and lawsuits alleging homosexual misconduct with underage male members of his parish. Long has denied wrong doing through his attorneys and has settled the lawsuits out of court.

While this maybe true, it is also mentioned in the controversies section. Furthermore, placement here disparages the individual without citations. I see no reason to mar this individual in the introduction with a senate investigation that may reveal no wrong doing. It is relevant to include this in the controversy section. I am unsure if investigation is concluded with results? If so, it would be great to relay this information. Also, the "alleging homosexual misconduct" is ambivalent in the introduction. Later it is explained in greater detail, but has little purpose here. Furthermore, care should be taken with the language and nuance used to describe these allegations. This individual has anti-homosexual writings and statement. Yet he is embattled with allegations of homosexual relationships. Meaning, he may be very defensive about statements that brand him homosexual and damage his book sales and ministry. The uncited placement in the introduction indicts this individual and can be interpreted as liable. Particularly, considering the lawsuits were settled out-of-court and the terms were undisclosed.

For this reason I removed this small intro section.

Newtonsghost (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at WP:LEAD. The lead should summarize the article, and assuming that the expanded section further down is properly cited, there's no need to repeat the citations in the lead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eddie Long. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious cause of death

[edit]

Can any sources elaborate on the cause of death? Is "aggressive form of cancer" perhaps a euphemism for AIDS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.40.9 (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources all over the internet speculating aids, and his alleged sexual history alludes to a possibility. What is interesting is that he became reclusive and choose to stay away from his church and hide his illness from them. If it was a cancer, then he could have spoken openly and asked for their prayers, and talked about doctor's appointments. He had rapid weight loss at the end which could be indicative of any serious disease. But AIDS is related to a variety of cancers and can indicate the final stages of that disease. It's fairly common to list pneumonia or cancer on death certificates rather than the underlying illness such as aids or alz.

What is also interesting is: http://www.christianpost.com/news/eddie-long-tells-church-hes-ignoring-their-calls-because-people-are-asking-too-many-questions-172601/. Here he states the reason that he does not want to return calls from his followers is that he is getting too many questions, questions which could have been answered by family or email or other church elder. From a linguistic point of view, he said he "didn't want to rehearse facts." Perhaps he meant he didn't want to recite them by repeating them over and over. The word rehears would indicate that he didn't want to make up a convincing lie. This however is speculation due to his own secrecy. At this moment, there does not appear to be clarity from the press, or coroner.2601:14B:4401:D5C0:E969:71C9:F2D2:472E (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eddie Long. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eddie_Long&oldid=1196403975"