Talk:Joyce Meyer/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Joyce Meyer. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Current work on article

I've taken the "clean up" tag off, but there is still a lot of work to do to really clean it up. I am in the process of researching and filling in the blanks. Please feel free to jump in and add or correct any info here. Nightngle 20:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Further edits to this article

The controversies and critisizms section of this article is longer than any other section. It's my opinion that there should be a moratorium on any further information being added to that section until the rest of the article is fleshed out better. It can be difficult to find independent information about the history of a public person like Mrs. Meyer, but unless more information about her as a person, her ministry, her teachings, published work, etc. is forthcoming, I would wonder if this article is notable enough to keep. Because this is an article about a living person, I worry that it's too heavily weighted on the negative side and might be close to violating the spirit of the rules. I would guess that she is notable enough to have her own article, but would like to see folks focus on the encyclopedia article, not the controversies first. Nightngle 20:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed source

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/special/joycemeyer.nsf/0/C5099399D2FCC5FA86256DDF St. Louis Post-Dispatch The whole section is riddled with corrections and only supports a vague comment. Would like to see an independent source about donation figures. Dmanning 00:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits by Jokerst44

Jokerst44 has been systematically casting doubt on Meyer's biography by adding "claims" (a word we are supposed to avoid) and "allegedly". I do not think this improves the article at all. Rather, it gives the impression that Wikipedia does not believe what Meyer has said.

I would much rather that we simply and clearly state the source for each claim and leave it at that. No sense in saying "allegedly" she spoke in tongues. Just say that she (or whoever) says she spoke in tongues, was persuaded to embezzle, repaid the money, etc. and leave it at that.

Unfortunately, I do not know where these claims come from. If someone else can provide clearer reference and remove the edits from Jokerst44, I'd appreciate it. Phiwum 14:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"Ghost writers"

Recent edits by IP 75.132.95.79, who appears to wage a war on everything (neo)Pentecostal and Charismatic, are mainly arguments and accusations. I removed the claim stating "During an IRS investigation of Joyce Meyer Ministries financials it was revealed that Joyce Meyer does not write her own books or material but has a staff of 35 writers." An explanation for the fiery warrior 75.132.95.79: Joyce Meyer Ministries publishes a lot of material, for which staff writers are indispensable. These writers are mentioned in the magazine impressum page. When a book was significantly co-worked on by another person, the book cover reflects this, see here: http://www.joycemeyer.org/booktour/ThePenny/. The book is co-written by Debora Bedford, clearly because Meyer is probably better at motivational texts than fine literature. She is a natural speaker, and there is no need for her to have somebody do the books for her. You just need to put together her sermons, that's all. So called "staff writers" are normally used, as with MANY other books, to brush up the text. They are editing and correcting, and are being thanked for it in the foreword, with names mentioned and staff. A position described as "staff writer" is found in many companies that are simply putting out booklets, because even half a page of a product description needs to be done by a person who knows how to write. You, Mr. 75.132.95.79, are showing blatant ignorance of how the writing-publishing industry works. "A staff of 35 writers" is not equal to "she doesn't write her own books". Please provide a link to a publication where it is clearly stated that she is not writing her own books. You will not find such a publication, because papers or sites would be rightly afraid of being sued. Joyce Meyer can dictate you a book in just several nights, if you ever heard how she speaks. Latreia 16:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

obviously latreia you are one of her disciples. Therefore, I certainly would not expect an unbiased addition to joyce meyer and her ministry from you. It is a pity when I see someone whose faith is in a man and not in christ. Your faith stands or falls on her teaching. I am of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Joyce Meyer. It is a shame :-( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 17:46, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a disciple of Joyce Meyer, I'm a disciple of Christ. This: //obviously latreia you are one of her disciples. Therefore, I certainly would not expect an unbiased addition to joyce meyer and her ministry from you.\\ is circular reasoning, while I did take the effort to explain the reasons for the deletion I made. Have you ever heard of presumption of innocence? I'm a law student, and I repeat once again that having staff writers at a ministry which publishes magazines and other materials has a website is not equal to "not writing her books herself". Your accusation would havebeen a reason for a lawsuit had it been published in an established media and signed by an identifiable name. Latreia 18:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Law suit ? You mean that your of the opinion that our beloved sister Joyce Meyer would take another brother to court and that before unbelievers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 21:19, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

P.S. //It is a pity when I see someone whose faith is in a man and not in christ. Your faith stands or falls on her teaching.\\ I strongly suggest you refrain from passing judgment on people you don't know. My faith (which is based purely on the Bible, which I read for myself, occasionally disagreeing with all people whom I otherwise find not that stupid) was not a basis for the deletion of your text. Purely consideration of conforming to Wikipedia principles, and also such a minor thing as justice. The information that I have (a magazine and a website for which texts are written by somebody, a quite obvious example of putting another person on the cover of her book which proves that Meyer doesn't have problems with attributing stuff to people who did that stuff, having seen her speak which is at least one reason to believe she does not NEED to have her teaching/motivational books written by anybody else) LOGICALLY moves me to a conclusion that there is something wrong with an equation "35 staff writers = she doesn't write her books". So please refrain from personal attacks, for you will be one day judged for every idle word you speak. Remember that. Latreia 18:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Financial criticism

I have added more to what she can often be heard saying in response to the opulent lifestyle that she lives. It is appropriate that her own response to the criticisms is heard so that people can decide for themselves what to think about the issue after hearing what the person has to say for themselves. Wikipedia is not the place to judge people from only one POV. DavidPesta 14:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding her responses are fine, but could you please provide citations? (Especially the quoted material needs citations, but that predates your edit.) Thanks. Phiwum 15:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have plenty of resource material. Are you wanting me to convert the soundbytes from tapes into MP3 and stick them on the internet for you? DavidPesta 15:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's necessary. Is there a verifiable resource for these claims? It does not have to be available on the web, but if it is a sermon she has made available for purchase, that would do. If it was a broadcast that you recorded but is not otherwise verifiable, there might be some issues. Phiwum 17:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That is perfectly fair, I will contribute these sources and references over time as I come across them. Thank you for your guidance on the matter. DavidPesta 18:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you already have an external link at the bottom of the article that works as a citation for this response (at least to supplement what she plainly says during conferences and on her tapes): http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2004/januaryweb-only/1-19-13.0.html

Please note the following paragraph from this article:

"Until January 2004, Meyer received a salary from her organization and donated all her book royalties back to Joyce Meyer Ministries. She now will retain royalties on books sold outside the ministry through retail outlets such as Wal-Mart, amazon.com, and Christian bookstores, while continuing to donate to her ministry royalties from books sold through her conferences, catalogs, website, and television program."

It definitely shows that she is taking bold steps of good faith to satisfy the criticisms about this. These are the kinds of facts that help make this section of the article fair. DavidPesta 15:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If I might give a little bit of a subjective response here in the discussion. In all honesty, when a ministry is projected to receive almost a billion dollars in the next ten years and much of it is from personal book sales royalties from places outside of the ministry, and the person has worked through many hardships with their family during a long life of benefiting others during tough times of being much more needy, a time finally comes when the person is entitled to 0.1% of it to buy good homes for the families of their children and own some relatively expensive things. People shouldn't assume that all Christian ministers have taken some kind of vow of poverty--some of them actually believe that God wants to bless them. The article needs to NOT be written in such a way that makes her out to be a televangelical money swindler, especially when we get all the facts straight and find her in the clear. It should be reasonable to any sane person that when the overwhelming majority of the money is going toward helping people for ministry purposes (as one could expect out of any successful Christian business person who is NOT personally in ministry themselves), that it is good and proper for them to enjoy something of the fruits of their labor if they believe they are entitled to do so. When I buy a Joyce Meyer book from Wal-Mart, I could only wish that more than $2 of it goes straight into her pocket. She deserves it. DavidPesta 16:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This "subjective response" does not seem so relevant to the article. We would need to cite a published defense along these lines. Our own opinions about propriety aren't really worth mentioning. Phiwum

It is more than just a subjective response, but a call to reason among those who are editing this article. What I wrote is very appropriate for this discussion in order to get us to think properly about this issue so that we can proceed to make the article NPOV. I never intended to have all of that added to the article, but rather to provide some perspective as a part of the discussion, again, to keep our understanding of the issue balanced as we improve the article. I just want to make sure she gets a fair shake, that's all. ;) DavidPesta 17:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You and I may well disagree over whether she is getting a "fair shake". But this disagreement is by and large irrelevant to the article. For that, we simply report published criticisms and published responses. Thus, I won't argue whether she deserves the money she has received. Phiwum 18:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it looks like that makes Wikipedia a safe place for people who become the subject of an article, as long as everybody is contributing. I'll be sure to contribute sources and references for this and other issues about her from now on as I come across them. DavidPesta 23:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just inlined the citation you've given- that's the preferred way to do it. I also removed "which any successful author is entitled to enjoy", since that sounds like editorial POV. If she actually said something like that in the source (I can't read the whole thing), then feel free to add it back in, in language that makes clear it's her opinion and not ours. Staecker 17:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That is the clear position that she takes when she addresses massive audiences and brings up the issue. All I need to do is give you a quote (do you need a soundbyte?) to let her clear up her own position with some solid and basic reasoning. I strongly believe it is ethically wrong for this issue to damage her reputation among the readers of Wikipedia as per my defense of her above. In the end, a balanced NPOV needs to exist for the accusations of "spending one's own money" so that the readers can decide whether that is really such a bad thing. It is true that because of the abuses of past televangelists that all future televangelists come under an extremely high level of scrutiny, and rightly so, but we need to make sure that we end up reasonable about it. DavidPesta 17:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have edited it again from "book sales" to "book sale royalties" in order to increase the accuracy of the article. DavidPesta 17:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the statement as it exists now is fairly balanced. The idea that a successful author should be able to keep her own money is one which I think essentially all of our readers agree with, and we should leave it to them to draw that conclusion. That is, unless you'd like to source it, in which case I think it's fine being in there. You don't need a sound byte- offline sources are acceptable, as long as you give enough information so that they could be verified. So if you've got audio of her speaking somewhere, just cite the speech with a date and location. Thanks for your help, by the way- it's good to get some real references in there. Staecker 17:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, readers can understand this and make that judgement on their own. You can't fault me for being tempted to help the readers along. (Well, I guess you can fault me. ;D) I'll be sure to contribute her own responses to these criticisms as I come across them, referencing them from the audio materials she makes available through her ministry. DavidPesta 18:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rem text

However, many of her spending habits could constitute inurement under US federal laws and IRS regulations.

This seems weasely to me, and at the very least needs a citation to say whose opinion it is. But I think the article is just better off without it. Andrewa 18:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Is or isn't Word-of-Faith

re these diffs: [1] [2] [3]

The version that's been "stable" has been so for 11 days (although, this might be a long time on Wikipedia). There is a statement on the part of the ministry itself (here [4], items 13 and 14) which distance the teaching from the "Word of Faith".

"Word of Faith" has become largely a red rag, and many get labeled with it without much inquiry. While a Google search on "Meyer Word Faith" (without quotation marks) would yield a lot of results aligning her with "Word of Faith", one could only call someone a proponent [5] if the person argues in support of something, in this case a teaching which has a very concrete name, not content that someone would associate with this name, without going into details.

It is clear from the website of the ministry that they do not wish to associate themselves with this teaching and try to clarify the content of their beliefs, pointing out that:

"it can be damaging when people place their faith in faith alone instead of placing their faith in God. Misappropriation of God’s promises solely for personal gain is not scripturally supported"
"a “prosperity gospel” that solely equates blessing with financial gain is out of balance and could damage a person’s walk with God"

External sources critical of her can be found that say that she:

"may not be completely engulfed in word faith teaching but she is yoked with word faith teachers (in fellowship with Creflo Dollar, and Kenneth Copeland Copeland’s magazine, The Believer’s Voice of Victory, has carried some of her articles)" [6] - well, Pentecostal churches sometimes use materials by Baptist preachers/theologians, does this make them Baptist? vice-versa also happens.
"As Meyer's evangelical audience has broadened, she has distanced herself from Word of Faith leaders like Kenneth Copeland and Kenneth Hagin." [7] - while this source further says that it (the source) believes that the disassociation is due to savvy marketing, but anyway, JM is clearly not a proponent of this teaching. Describing someone as "masking as someone else" may be (and, I believe, is) highly subjective, but a person who does not openly advocate a movement cannot be called its proponent.

I am here limiting myself to analysis whether a certain wording (a "proponent" of something) can be used to describe someone who has distanced herself from a teaching, and this in the introductory, generalized description in an encyclopedia article. If one likes, one could point out, either in the "Criticism" or in the "Teaching" section, that her teaching is associated by critics with the "Word of Faith" movement (and there, one would only need to google, and there would be no need of a "cite" tag), but that she herself has distanced herself from it.

Anything above that would be name-calling and labeling. I mean, I could search where exactly in her audio materials she talks _disparagingly_ of people who just come to God with a "gimme" attitude, where she talks that sometimes people are better off with having nothing and groveling in the dirt... But that would be Original Research. Anyway, whether one would want to analyze her teachings or not, the word "proponent" means someone who is arguing in favor of a teaching. Joyce Meyer is not. Latreia 22:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope with this new senate investigation we can get some good dirt on her. I would like to see her ministry destroyed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.86.220 (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like her to continue because she has helped so many access God's love. It's good to see someone who is honest about their own difficulties and failures preach the Word.

Here is the title of her book dated 2004: "The Secret Power of Speaking God's Word" (2004), ISBN 0-446-57736-7 Well Latreia that certain blows your arguement. Anymore lies you want to tell us?...ROFL... :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.222.103 (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

prosperity gospel

There is no proof that she is a proponent of the prosperity gospel, especially when she does not agree with this (while prosperity preachers have no problem admitting this is part of their faith. She has no books, teachings or cds to confirm this. Therefore this allegation is based on someones subjective opinion and not a fact. The article is already biased enough. Start by correcting this opinion. Chinitapr (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the lead sentence to read 'Some say'. A better definition of prosperity gospel may be needed. peterl (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words should be avoided when at all possible. — C M B J 02:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Improvements made early April

I made changes because the way the article was previously written was both contradictory and misleading.

First, the original "Post Dispatch retraction and apology" section was particularly misleading. It refers only to articles written in 2005, but they were articles that referred back to a November 2003 article that is not even mentioned, nor is a link to it provided. Yet that 2003 article is the reason for the serious questions about Meyer’s lifestyle and income that are addressed in subsequent sections. The November 2003 article, not the later 2005 articles, is, for example, the source for the information about the “$23,000 commode” that is mentioned in the “Senate investigation” section. It is also the reason Ministry Watch called for an IRS investigation of Meyer’s finances.

The writing as it was left the misleading impression that all St Louis Post Dispatch writings about Meyer were "retracted" from St Louis Post Dispatch, yet the 2003 article was not retracted and is still availabe at the paper's website. On the other hand, the 2005 articles, the only articles that were cited on the page, no longer have any web presence except as reprints on rickross.com. My previous revisions were pulled because they contained a link to rickross.com so I’ve also removed the irrelevant mention of the “retraction” of later articles, which are no longer documented anywhere but on the rickross.com site and never contained any links to provide validation.

People on other sites are citing this misleading wikipedia statement as "proof" that the 2003 St Louis Dispatch article was retracted -it's impossible to argue otherwise since the actual article in question was not even mentioned, nor was a link provided –only the 2005 articles are mentioned.

Also, the mention of the name of an author of the SLPD articles is irrelevant to an article about Joyce Meyer, serves no purpose other than to cause her embarrassment for her “reprimand” and should therefore be removed.

Second, the information about Meyer’s income in the Salary and Finances section stated “In January 2004, Meyer announced plans to take a reduced salary in 2004.”[sic] Yet there is no indication anywhere in the page of what her previous income was, so as it is the statement has no context and is therefore meaningless. It is also misleading since it does not indicate that Meyer’s actual income will be increased, rather than cut, by the new arrangement, according to both Wall Watchers and Meyer’s own Public Relations Manager, as quoted by the St Louis Business Journal.

Since the reason cited for removing my changes was the inclusion of a rickross.com link, I’ve revised my changes by replacing the rickross link to a SLPD link. I’ve also shortened the citations from the original St Louis Dispatch article while still including enough information to point out why the article caused the concern about Meyer’s lifestyle and income that are mentioned later on the wikipedia page. Kenjacobsen (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion is where me and you talk about it, not where you comment and reinsert your desired edits, I will look it over later. Wall watchers are a bit POV and opinionated againt people like Mayer aren't they? Why have you added an in line link to them when there is no content to support needing the link? I will look later, the excessively long detailed list of purchases is also excessivly detailed and needs removing, irt only serves to give weight to opinion against her, there also was a retraction and a public apology for the St Lous paper, all your edit appear to portray the subject of this BLP more negatively? Off2riorob (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that there's something plumb wrong with the text as it is now. There is no hint of the contents of the two articles, which claims were disputed, and so on. It is perfectly natural (and not, as far as I can tell, a BLP violation) to include discussion of what the articles say about Meyer, and your refusal to entertain that possibility suggests either bias on your part or an exaggerated concern about WP:BLP.

That said, Kenjacobsen's text was a bit too detailed for my tastes and I don't know why he deleted such information as the disciplinary measures taken by the paper. We should be balanced in presenting the issue. Both alternatives discussed so far seem to miss that mark, in mine humble opinion. Phiwum (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Note also that if Kenjacobsen's claim is correct — that the 2003 article was never retracted — then the current presentation is horribly misleading. The information from the 2003 article was, I think, in Wikipedia for quite some time and indeed is relevant to a discussion of Meyer. Phiwum (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I see now that the entire discussion of the retracted 2005 articles has been removed by Kenjacobsen. Now, this requires discussion! As it stands, claims that Ken is pushing a particular POV look much more plausible. Phiwum (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm going about this wrong, I'm new to this! As I mentioned at the start, there is no online presence of the 2005 articles any longer at all, except as reprints on the rickross.com site. Yet the original 2003 article, which prompted the 2005 articles that were retracted, and the mention of excessive expenditures in Grassley's report, was neither mentioned nor linked originally. In the retraction of the 2005 articles, which is available on the St Louis Post Dispatch website though the articles are not, it states "We stand by reporting done in a four-part series on the ministry published in November 2003." http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/special/joycemeyer.nsf/0/3230A355F7AB972B862570260050AE09?OpenDocument Kenjacobsen (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Ministry Watch is a very well-respected organization. It's call for an IRS investigation was mentioned in Time magazine's brief two-paragraph article on Joyce Meyer in 2005. "...the Christian watchdog group Wall Watchers [Ministry Watch's former monicker] has asked for an IRS investigation into the ministry's finances." http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050207/photoessay/18.html This was two years before Grassley announced his investigation. That brief article in Time also quotes from the 2003 St Louis Post Dispatch article, which I reinstated in my revision. Kenjacobsen (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

One more note; the 2005 retraction was itself highly controversial and many reporters supported the author Carolyn Tuft over the editor who made the retraction. Shannon Duffy, speaking for the St Louis Newspaper Guild, stated in 2006"They negotiated the apology to avoid litigation. We can prove with correspondence [between Joyce Meyer Ministries and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch] that this apology was negotiated on Carolyn's back." http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2006-08-30/news/hang-tuft/1 The articles and retraction may make sense on a page about either Tuft or the St Louis Post Dispatch, but it seems to me the story itself adds nothing to a brief biography about Meyer. I see now that originally the mention of the 2005 articles was an addendum to previous mention of the 2003 article and mentioned that the SLPD stood by the original 2003 article. Somewhere along the line all mention of the 2003 article was removed. I'm still trying to figure that out.Kenjacobsen (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

How is it going? Ministry watch is a very opinionated organization, isn't it? Please try to source any content especially controversial content from independent neutral high quality sources, please remember this is a living person and closely follow all WP:BLP and WP:NPOV guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that Ministry Watch is the website of Wall Watchers, not its former name. The organization is respected enough that, as I mentioned two paragraphs earlier, it was cited in the brief Time magazine article Jan 30 2005 and repeatedly in the St Louis Post Dispatch series on Meyer in 2003. It's call for an IRS investigation of Meyer is often mentioned as an impetus to Sen Grassley's investigation. --Kenjacobsen (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Claims of incest?

Not saying that it isn't true, but is there any evidence other than her word that it actually happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.169.141 (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

By questioning whether or not she was raped repeatedly by a male family member, you are questioning her honesty. It’s her word against her deceased father’s word, and since he’s no longer with us, can not confirm or deny the charge. I highly doubt someone would name a family member as someone who has raped them over 200 times, unless they were a complete lunatic. Your question is an example of why sexual assault victims are assaulted twice. Once by the monster and the second time by the doubter (s).

Can we get a source on one of the first sentences

Her television and radio programs air in 39 languages in 200 countries, and she has written over 90 books on Christianity.

Wow, 90 books? Where are these books listed? I see a fraction of that listed on her article. 200 countries? Does 200 internationally recognized countries even exist? The whole first paragraph is not neutral. 70.242.143.83 (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 April 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the occupation for Joyce Meyer from "Professional Christian" to "Bible Teacher" or "Evangelist" because those are her actual occupations. Her income comes from her teachings, conferences, book sales, etc., that all center around teaching the Bible and spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Sources: http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/joyce-meyer-transparent-evangelist/story?id=10355887#.T3whQ6tSSuk http://www.beliefnet.com/Inspiration/Joyce-Meyer-Talks-Power-Thoughts.aspx http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/authors_Joyce-Meyer-(1016328).htm

71.114.76.174 (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I really don't know what 'Professional Christian' is supposed to mean. It's not a linked topic. It implies that there are 'unprofessional christians' and that Christianity in and of itself is a profession, which is clearly silly. From the first (and most reputable) quote I'd go for 'Bible teacher'. Any other contributions?

peterl (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Done I included author and speaker, since that is how she is introduced in the lead. Celestra (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A new page for Joyce Meyer Ministries

I was wondering if we had enough information on her ministry to start it's own page. There is a difference between her life and her ministry. Her ministry is known worldwide and has many aspects to it. --Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allymaybiskuts (talk • contribs) 16:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There is little information about the Ministries, since it's basically her corporated persona. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You can take the WHOLE SECTION about how her ministry was audited and how there was an investiation and create a page for Joyce Meyer Ministries. There is a difference between her as a person and her ministry. Her ministry does not always reflect who she is. It does not define her as a person. Also there is a lot of information about her ministry you just have to search for it. This page should either be about her or about the ministry. There is enough information to do both. (Allymaybiskuts (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

Christopher Coleman

I think the entire paragraph about Christopher Coleman should be removed. This is supposed to be a page about Joyce Meyer - not about her employees' crimes. It has nothing to do with her and should be a separate page. Alanasings 10 July 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC).

I agree. Employers can't be responsible for what employees do outside there work place. This looks like someone added to make Meyers look bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlbarton (talk • contribs) 18:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it should be brought back. I think they type of people one employs says something about the employer. What about the supposed child molester that is talked about in previous part of the talk page? If you refuse to put it back in, then why not give Christopher Coleman a page of his own??? He must have some importance as he has a '48 hours mystery show' about him. Mylittlezach (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Coleman should have his own page. (Allymaybiskuts (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

Say it ain't so...

Does anyone know anything else about this?

Joyce Meyer Knowlingly hired a convicted child molestor named: Richard Leroy Jones to work as a pastor in her youth ministry known as "The Dream Center" Here is a link to the complete story from the St. Louis Post Dispatch. http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/special/joycemeyer.nsf/story/5141B539FCF5D95386256DF400714E9B?OpenDocument

Herein is a link to the Missouri State Highway Patrol sex offender registry detailing the charge and photograph of the convicted child molestor and subsequent youth pastor of Joyce Meyers ministry "The Dream Center" : http://www.mshp.dps.mo.gov/CJ38/Address?id=770133

If this is true, it makes one wonder why Meyer would knowingly hire someone with this track record, ESPECIALLY considering that she has said she was molested at a young age herself? WAVY 10 22:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

this is absolutley true, and the part that gets me. it was other peoples children who he was to "pastor" and I have had so many disciples of joyce meyer defend her for this but, when I say "would you let him babysit your children"? That pretty much shuts them up.

It would have been bad enough if this man was "unregenerate" and then came to Christ. But, this man was a youth pastor at a charismatic church when he did the molesting. So I suppose after 5 years prison he was born again and again???

other info I will post when I find the documentation for is; In the summer of 2006 5 black children drown in the meramec river at an outing with her youth group the dream center. Joyce meyer did not even attend the funeral of these children citing "prior engagements" I read the factual story but I need to find it to substantiate the post.

Furthermore, in what I believe was the phillipines (I will correct this if in error) Joyce meyer was holding a confernce at a hotel that caught fire and 60 + /- of her disciples perished. She is word faith charismatic but there was not one "prophet" who knew this would happen. Not one "prophet" !! but I bet there was all kinds of cancers being heald, heart disease, the type of unverifiable miracles of course. I am sure people were being "slane in the spirit" and other "miracles" But, not one "prophet" could foretell the hotel fire. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 03:06, August 23, 2007 (UTC) ]

Regarding the word "knowlingly" with regard to Joyce meyers hire of a convicted child molestor. sparrowswing deleted it stating "provide a citation for it else it is speculation" The citation is the post dispatch article. Peterl removed the word "knowingly" citing "The third-part report is not verified. Need original source (JMM)" Now, the original post dispatch article is right at the end on statement about the hire on the article page. The article says she knowingly hired. What seems to be the problem?

The problem is this. To say that someone knew, they have to say they knew. Where is the source that Tuft is quoting? Tuft is not the original source, Joyce Meyer or JMM is the original source. Where is the verification that JMM knew? Seems to me Tuft can say whatever she likes. That she has previously been reprimanded for false statements doesn't help the veracity of her statement.

A journalists report is not a first-hand citation.

PS: the work 'knowingly' doesn't have an 'elle' in the middle of it.

PPS: Please sign your posts

peterl 04:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean; the work 'knowingly' doesn't have an 'elle' in the middle of it. Please provide further explanation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 13:35, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

He means you spelled "knowingly" as "knowlingly". Staecker 13:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping staecker, that peter1 would have answered for himself and stepped into my snare. I was intent on exposing his hypocrisy whereas, he, attempting to bring into question my intellectual competence by citing a typographical error had himself made a typographical error when he used the word "work" instead of "word" Hypocrite !!! :-) In fact, my typographical errors indicate the contrary. The errors demonstrate that I can author a concise, well articulated opinion "on the fly" without the need for repetitive proof readings and revisions. From henceforth be it know that my typographical errors are as a result having a stroke that affected the fingers in my right hand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.95.79 (talk • contribs).

I won't revert before consensus, but I disagree with Peterl's removal. Wikipedia isn't supposed to report original sources- an encyclopedia is a ternary source. Your standards for sourcing would seem to disallow plenty of decent journalistic sources. The source said that they received personal communications from JMM (I assume that JMM asked not to be quoted directly in the article). Do you really think that the Post-Dispatch is lying about this communication? This would be an insane breach of ethics on the part of the journalist, and JMM would've jumped on it immediately (as they did with the other Post-Dispatch article cited in the article). If the journalist doesn't provide a direct quotation, that doesn't mean that we can assume that they are outright lying. Such an assumption seems excessively favorable to JMM. Have they themselves ever denied that they had knowledge?

In the absolutely most Meyer-sympathetic case, we could say that the PD printed an article that says that JMM admitted that they knew about it. If you like, you can say that Meyer never confirmed this is an official press release, if you are able to verify that claim (which would presumably require a press release about there having been no press release).

And to pre-empt some responses (I'm looking in your direction, 75.132... and Latreia), can we all try to exercise some good faith and write a good encyclopedia? We can disagree with each other without making spiritually charged attacks. No need to label people as "disciples" of JM, or to oppose any JM fans- remember, we are here discussing the Wikipedia article about JM, we are not discussing Meyer herself or her teachings, and we are certainly not trying to condemn or defend her. Staecker 13:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you staecker regarding the thread between latreia and myself. However, if you will take note of the log(s) latreia seemed compelled to "stalk" all of my edits on several subjects without provocation. Therefore, I retained the satisfaction of humiliating this individual.

My issue with the word 'knowingly' is that it seems very much to be a weasel word. Is it not sufficient just to present the facts i.e. state that JM hired a convicted child molestor, ref the article and leave people to draw their own conclusions? Is 'knowingly' not putting a particular viewpoint across? SparrowsWing _(talk) 22:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact is - she knowingly did. Joyce Meyer Ministries employs several people. Had her ministry unknowingly hired a convicted child molestor as a truck driver it would not be newsworthy nor would it reflect on her character or judgment. Had she unknowingly hired this man and appointed him as a youth pastor then it would be simple negligence. But, the fact that she knowingly hired him and appointed him as youth pastor reflects something about her character or judgement. What it reflects about her character or judgment I dont know. But, it should be worthy of consideration for those researching joyce meyer and it will allow them to draw their own conclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 23:20, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

I changed the wording a bit- is it any better? I think it's important to somehow express the knowledge that JMM had- as 75.. says it's in many ways the most important part of the story. But we should do it with the best wording possible- feel free to try your own hand at it. Staecker 02:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's an important part of the story. I'd still like to see 'The ministry was reportedly aware of' or 'The ministry was purportedly aware of' or something like that. To make it clear that it is the report that says they knew; JMM haven't said they knew.

Interestingly, there's no mention of Jones on JMM's website.

peterl 02:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added 'reportedly' to the sentence. If JMM comes back with anything, we can update that. peterl 04:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 12:38, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Since Joyce Meyer is a living person, statements in the article need to conform to WP:BLP and I'm not sure that one secondary source (which would be fine for a non-BLP article) is sufficient to make the assertion that JMM or Meyer herself "..reportedly knew..". Especially since the source itself (Tuft) has been proven to be untrustorthy and inaccurate in other reports on the subject (Meyer). Obviously, the source (and the story) should be included in the article, but I think it could be supported by additional verifyable information, either another news outlet, or Meyer herself. But until JMM addresses the issue directly (I'm not holding my breath), I think it would be more fair in a BLP article to additionally make a case that Meyer, or other ministry representatives should have known based on X, Y, and Z. X, Y, and Z being verifyable information regarding JMM hiring policies (e.g., "JMM conducts thorough criminal background checks on all employees and volunteers"); any applicable local or state statutes requiring that organizations (including religious orgs.) conduct background checks on any empoyees likely to work with children; or local or state statutes requiring convicted sex offenders to notify employers of their status. Wwith this type of information referenced, it would be much more difficult for any POV pushers to challenge the assertion that JMM "reportedly" knew, or "should have been aware" of Jones's prior misconduct. -Diego Gravez 16:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As someone who attends the Saint Louis Dream Center, I can say that he is not the youth pastor currently. Also this is not a page about the Dream Center this is a page about Joyce Meyer not her ministry. Alliereborn (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Approval Addiction

Isn't it a little hypocritical to undergo plastic surgery to be physically appealing and to obtain the approval of her audience but write a book about "approval addiction"...???

Addiction is a matter of the heart and emotions. The decision to have plastic surgery to look better on television may have simply been a business decision rather than to gratify an addiction. DavidPesta (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

She is "on show" to so many people and to get that Gospel across she cannot appear scruffy and unhealthy. Rather than by artificial means a lot of her physical health is due to her hard work in the area of eating well and exercise.

Jesus was pretty scruffy too

It doesn't matter how you FEEL about her personal life choices. I am removing this section because there is no point in discussing this information. Alliereborn (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

university degrees

Honorary Doctorate of Divinity by Oral Roberts University - diploma mill not accredited anywhere outside of the USA. In some Western countries you get jailed for using this "academic title". Should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.157.45.75 (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Her own religion

She´s Evangelical. But what is her religion? Is she a member of Baptist-Church, Methodist, Adventist? What is Joyce Meyer´s opinion about evolution and creation? Viele Grüße, Simon MAYER.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT DENOMINATION SHE IS. SHE SPEAKS FROM HER HEART AND FOLLOWS THE WORD OF GOD, USING HER OWN LIFE AS AN EXAMPLE TO TRY AND HELP OTHER AND SPREAD THE WORD. YOU CAN EITHER ACCEPT THAT OR REJECT IT; THAT SIMPLE. SHE PREACHES ON BIBLICAL TEACHINGS AND HISTORY, NOT SCIENCE. FRANK

- I'd like to remind everyone that this is a discussion page about the encyclopedic article about Joyce Meyers, not about the person herself or a discussion about religion. Her views on a variety of religious topics would certainly be germain to the article. At this point, the article is reading too much like a press release for my taste and needs considerable clean-up. It may be awhile before I can take a stab at it, but there is a fair amount of non-biased info out there for a good bio of her. Nightngle 13:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is anything but NPOV. All the information on it should probably be taken down and the page should be started all over after people read wikipedia's policy on editing. Even the first sentance is a violation of wikipedia editing rules. (joey 02:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC))

How is the first sentence a violation of editing rules? SparrowsWing 02:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly it is a very trivial violation and probably isn't a huge deal. The phrase "born-again" can't be supported by anything but opinion and belief. Though I may agree that it is possible for somebody to be born-again, which I do, that doesn't mean that other readers would not hold that belief. A better rendering of the sentance would read, "Joyce Meyer (born 1943) is a Christian evangelical author and speaker." Whether or not she is born-again can't be stated as fact in all circles even if it can within evagnelical Christian circles. This article just has a lot of non-intentional violations like that. It needs to be combed through to take out the POV's that are not neutral. (joey 23:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

Although it is not stated in the article, she appears to follow the Word of Faith theology. it is coontroverisal among christians and is sometimes called the Gospel of Greed or health & Wealth Gospel. I will look for a proper cite that she is in Word of Faith and then add it.LiPollis 03:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There are two types of Word of Faith followers: 1. Those who use the Word of Faith teachings to satisfy themselves and their own selfish, even hedonistic desires and 2. Those who use the basic Word of Faith principles to satisfy selfless desires, such as pleasing God and fulfilling His will. The fact that you said "appears to follow" suggests that she follows the type of Word of Faith that you are not familiar with. If you spend a tremendous amount of time really understanding her application of Word of Faith principals, you cannot come to any other conclusion that she falls into the #2 type that I mention above. DavidPesta 14:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-dem is her religion.... Allymaybiskuts (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Elimination of "Criticism" section

"This article's Criticism or Controversy section(s) may mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject. It may be better to integrate the material in such sections into the article as a whole." What can we do to accomplish this? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

---Create a page for Joyce Meyer Ministries, and leave this page to be talked about HER LIFE and HER LIFE ACCOMPLISHMENTS. --Don't just spend time bashing her because you do not agree with her. (Allymaybiskuts (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

124.170.224.119 (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Because no one should be aware that she is a scammer?

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Joyce Meyer/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article was marked for clean-up in April 2006. Past edits have been of the "I love Joyce" variety and not encyclopedic. Even though I'm working on the article, I did rate it as a "start". While it's a challenge to work on articles for religious leaders because their followers tend to want to create articles that will be glowing with praise, I think this biography has the potential to be a valuable one with a neutral point of view. Nightngle 20:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Past edits

"Her life is transparent, and her teachings are practical and can be applied in everyday life." This is incredibly biased. I'm removing it. - Michael Miller

Well she admits that her father had sex with her - that is pretty "transparent" to me.

Criticisms section

I added a {{Fact}} tag to the first sentence because "Meyer is often criticized for living an opulent lifestyle" is not supported by either of the sources cited later in the paragraph. This is a potentially inflammatory assertion and needs to be attributed to a verifyable, reliable source. The criticisms discussed in the Post Dispatch article involve a)JMM's accounting practices as a non-profit (Wall Watchers resommended IRS investigation), and b) Ole Anthony's Trinity Foundation assertion that she became wealthy on the backs of the poor she supposedly ministers to. Neither a nor b represents a direct criticism of her lifestyle and neither source establishes that she is "often criticized". The JMM response referenced in the paragraph only refers to the Wall Watchers/accounting/IRS complaint and does not mention that she is "often criticized" for her lifestyle. Please find a verifyable source for this (or reword it?) or it will be deleted per the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. — DIEGO ^talk 20:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

9-26-07 edits (removal of material on WP:BLP grounds)

This edit [8] and this edit [9] by User:A B Pepper added material back into the article that I had removed or rewritten due to WP:BLP concerns. I made it clear in my edit summaries that I was making the edits based on WP:BLP (as well as WP:LINKS and WP:NPOV), yet they were reverted with no discussion on this talk page.

I have again removed the contentious material, not to engage in a juvenile edit war, but because I think it unencylopedic. It is better to err on the side of caution regarding contentious material in a biography of a living person, and the the material should remain excluded until consensus can be reached. Does anyone else (besides User:A B Pepper, who has been blocked for 3 months) have any strong feelings on the matter? Please comment below. Thanks. [This comments was added after my comments below in order to put them in context and clarify.] — DIEGO ^talk 16:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

To A B Pepper

Hello AB Pepper (who appears to be a sock puppet for blocked anon IP 75.132.95.79 [10]), the raw list of JM's assets in the "criticism" section violates WP:BLP. I did not eliminate it because it was not verifiable, I simply condensed it into a format appropriate for an encyclopedia, rather than a tabloid.[11] Per WP:BLP: "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." Not every verifiable source belongs in an encyclopedia article. I eliminated it because a) a list of assets is not "criticism", and listing them under "criticism" is making an implication that constitutes POV pushing and WP:OR b) its inclusion is sensationalistic and not encyclopedic (it adds nothing to the article that can't be summarized in two sentences (as I have done), and c) it is obviously meant to be inflammatory. I don't see a list of assets under "criticism" in any other article covering a wealthy living person.

From Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy:

An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one.

Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject.(emphasis mine).

[Also, criticism included in a BLP must have verifiability] "and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The newspaper article with the detailed list is linked from this article, so if anyone has a "bona fide interest", as you put it, they can go there. The verbatim inclusion of every home, car, and swimming pool that JM owns adds nothing encyclopedic to the article and is simply spreading sensationalism and adding unnecessary bulk to the criticism section (which in turn, gives the criticism undue weight). If you personally believe overt displays of wealth by Christian writers and speakers violates some premise of the religion (i.e., "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"(Matt 19:24) and "sell your possessions and give to charity"(Luke 12:33), etc.), you are entitled to that opinion, but the Joyce Meyer article is not the place for thinly veiled criticism and implications, through the insertion of "sourced" material, that being a wealthy preacher is bad. Meyer has responded to the criticism. Being rich does not seem to violate her personal beliefs and giving a list of her assets undue weight in the article, especially in the "criticism" section implies that there is something wrong with her wealth. It tends to push a "guilt by association" view (i.e., wealthy preachers are bad: "Jim Bakker was rich and crooked, Jimmy Swaggart is rich and a hypocrite, Benny Hinn is rich and full of crap, Joyce Meyer is rich...so she must be bad). Unfortunately, the reliable source that listed the assets was careful not to be overtly critical of her wealth itself (it was simply implied -definitely not Pulitzer Prize-winning journalism), so making any other implication from the material or using it to prove a point constitutes WP:OR and is not NPOV. — DIEGO ^talk 02:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My proposed rewording of the contentious material

I personally don't think that the paragraph needs to be there at all. It makes sense to me to just delete it and change the first sentence of the criticism section to read somthing along the lines of:

Meyer, who owns several expensive homes and flies in a private jet,[3] has been criticized by her peers for living an excessive lifestyle.[2]

This conveys the same information in a less sensational way and it works better stylistically, too. Because it puts her level of wealth and lifestyle in perspective before introducing criticism of it. — DIEGO ^talk 03:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Disgusting

I think it's disgusting that wiki policy is getting in the way of disclosing the factual reality of this woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.224.119 (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If you have got credible, reliable, third-party sources, please use them to revise and add them to the article. If there are facts, then use them! peterl (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Typical content of sermons should be included

The vast majority of her TV show appearances preach on Matthew 25 "parable of talents". i.e. "give me a dollar and god will give you 100 dollars".

She hits this same verse over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. It is the exclusive message of her infomercials. Instead of just playfully laughing at her "robot", the actual content she pushes should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.224.119 (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Amen. 174.4.163.53 (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Education

I will be reverting a recent edit which changed the education level from high school diploma to PhD in Theology. It is unsourced and I can find no evidence of such. If the information can be accurately referenced, please feel free to revert. Do note that there is a difference between an honorary degree and an earned degree. — ERcheck (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you go to www.joycemeyer.org, and look under "about us" then, "faq", the sixth # on there states she has a PH.D in Theology from Life Christian University in Tampa, Florida. Quaker24 23:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference. It is helpful to the reader if such information is cited, rather than having the reader have to search for the information. I checked out the FAQ and found the information you provided above. Interestingly, Life Christian University is not accredited by a recognized (by either the United States Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation) accrediting agency; ACI is not recognized and may be an "accreditation mill". See List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning. — ERcheck (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There's an application for matriculation on the website. It appears that they give credit for life and ministerial experience, even for the PhD. This explains why so many televangelists hold PhDs from Life Christian. And ERcheck is right: we shouldn't claim she has a PhD without a comment regarding accreditation! Phiwum 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Should the right column be edited because of the PhD? (joey 23:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

Although Life Christian University is accredited by Transworld Accrediting Commission and it is not recognized by either the US Dept of Education or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, it would still be wrong to say that LCU is not accredited. The word "may" in "may be an 'accreditation mill'" also includes that it may not be. It is true, in today's general direction of government intervention in church affairs, that many organization are opting for an accreditation that is outside of its influence. The US Dept of Education began operating in 1980 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education) and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation began in 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_for_Higher_Education_Accreditation). Both are relatively new organization. To assume that anything but those two organizations establish what is acceptable and what is not is called a monopoly or at most a bi-opoly(obviously not a word). Therefore I would suggest that most "not accredited" would be removed or at the least a better understanding be given. Kwd111 (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Ken

Not a single one of her "academic" titles she claims to own is a valid academic title outside of the U.S. All these "universities" _are_ diploma mills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:490F:134:AD31:385B:5BB9:7B75 (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2015

This edit request to Joyce Meyer has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

117.58.245.74 (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit request 16 January 2017

As someone new to the JM page, I'd like to share that from near the beginning, the verbs selected to describe what she shares smart of skepticism such as "she maintains" and "she states." "She maintains" implies that someone has challenged her, but there is no challenge mentioned. The section merely is presenting her statements about abuse suffered as a child. Why not just say, "She shares"? Is the goal to subtly put doubt on her story? This article does not come across neutral in any way. And it does seem to imply that she is guilty, guilty, guilty. I don't get the spirit of wikipedia here at all. Anniemilert (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)anniemilert

In Wikipedia articles, we cannot take a position as to whether a particular source is correct or not. If anything, "she maintains" is more neutral than "she shares." "The goal" is to present significant points of view of source materials without Wikipedia itself taking a stand as to whether the statement is correct.

Why would there have to be a "challenge" mentioned in the article? The fact that "no challenge is mentioned" does not mean that Wikipedia must take what the source says and adopt the statement as Wikipedia's own position without a clear indication that it is the source making the assertion, and not Wikipedia itself. For that reason, the use of such formulations as "he states" or "she maintains" or "he alleges" or "she claims" is often preferred.

You seem to be inferring something about the subject of the article (Joyce Meyer) appearing to be "guilty, guilty, guilty" of something, based on your interpretation of the tone of the article. I'm not clear how you come to that feeling. Guilty of what? The fact that you are making this inference does not mean that other readers do. I certainly don't. Famspear (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Good points. Thank you; I appreciate your time. 47.41.149.79 (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)anniemilert

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2018