Talk:Joel Osteen/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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

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)

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)

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). [2]. Rklawton (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

See WP:DAILYMAIL1. 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)

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[3] – 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[4] 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;[5] then it was an issue of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BALANCE;[6][7] and then WP:RECENTISM and lastly relevance.[8] 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)

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)

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 [9] (we received shelter victims just the first day or two)
• Here's Osteen again on August 30th [10] (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 [11] (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)

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.[12] 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.[13][14] 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)

remove references to Evangelicalism

Joel Osteen does not identify with evangelicalism. He is not known as an evangelical. In fact, most evangelicals consider him to be a heretic or false teacher. I would propose to remove references in this article such as the "religion" in the infobox, the portal in the "see also" section, and the category of "American evangelicals". There is no other mention in the article, which should have been a clue that evangelicalism is a dubious label for him. Ἀλήθεια 05:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

After 2 weeks and no objections, I will remove references to Osteen identifying with evangelicalism. Ἀλήθεια 12:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)