Talk:Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption

Floated

Needs more sources and photos.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC) And if Mr. John Oliver thinks his megachurch is the be-all end-all, us Wikipedians know deep in our believing hearts that there is only one true church worthy of megachurch-i-ality. How do I know this? Because John's church is inside OUR church.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Page move

Resolved

Will an admin please move this article to Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption (lower case "of") to comply with WP's manual of style, please? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, good idea, just note that there was an original lower-case of article first.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Evangelical churches in Texas?

Resolved

Why is this category included when the prose mentions nothing about Texas? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

That category was added by User:Tomwsulcer, with the edit summary "add back category -- note the church is legally Texas-based, as JO said on his pgm". —Wavelength (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Source here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

break this up in to sections.. its a pain to read.

I suggest dividing this article into sections like every other wikipedia article or at least making some paragraphs as its very hard to read as it is now. - Tracer9999 (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Much better now. - Uncle Alf (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The second show with the Zimbabwean money

Some of that content was removed in this edit. The edit summary was "...close article with Oliver's "amazingly legal" blessings rather than some underexplained seed jokes...". So why not more fully explain it or leave it and just add the new content? Including what was sent in after the formation of the church and expanding the article seems like a good idea. Why remove the content? Thoughts McGeddon and others? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

That Oliver asked people to send his church "seed money" and some people sent actual seeds as a joke and he light-heartedly asked them not to send any more actual seeds just seemed like a minor and tangential joke, next to the actual money raised. Given the context of a comedy show, there are going to be plenty of tangential jokes around it - I couldn't see that this particular one added anything. --McGeddon (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The seeds and Zimbabwean money aren't relevant from an encyclopedic standpoint. Let's stick with the total money raised (so far, all we know is "thousands") and any IRS-related outcome. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Though its funny what people send, it's not important to this article. Praise be, Praise be. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Blessings be upon you. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Praise bee!

Hmmmm, McGeddon, Muboshgu, Sbmeirow, and Bubba73 all think it should be out. What to do? I could start an edit war, flirt with 3RR, and rant at the edit warring notice board. I know. I will defer to community wishes. It's a honey of a plan! After all, when four people tell me I'm wrong, I'm probably wrong. Thanks for the feedback, folks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Anna Frodesiak, the seed stuff is interesting, and is frankly starting to grow on me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth saying something about the mix of responses, if the details are out there - did the show get lots of genuine donations and only a few joke ones, or does "thousands of envelopes and thousands of dollars" mean it was overwhelmingly joke responses with a couple of hundred people giving $10? --McGeddon (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I seed your point, but if I may plant the idea that sprouts-to-be, mailed in envelopes hard to see, could be cool as can be. Sheesh; I'm lapsing into Seussishness. My point is that there is a place in Wikipedia for interesting material, and the seed-stuff is interesting.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel very strongly about it at all. I tend to think that it is too small of a detail to put in the article, but I'm not really opposed to it being there. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm totally okay with whatever everyone wants to do. I'll leave it to others to decide. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Television series

By what definition is this not a television series?—Wavelength (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't remove your edit. It's a subset of an existing tv series, but legally it is a new "church" which is different than the primary tv show article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

OLPE is a "church". Last Week Tonight is a TV show. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Per Sbmeirow and Muboshgu, I have also removed the article from the "Television shows set in New York City" category. - Uncle Alf (talk) 08:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize that one was there. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Is Oliver really the church's CEO?

I'm wondering whether it's correct to list Oliver as CEO in the infobox. Can a church have a CEO? In a legal sense. In any case, it would probably be better to list a different source other than the show itself to back up that claim. (Not a primary source.) - Uncle Alf (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Uncle Alf: Technically speaking – yes. Mainly because of the broad interpretation. Oliver can call himself whatever he wishes just as long as he is recognized as "minister" of the Church; meaning there must be an established: "organization of ordained ministers" and "ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study". IRS does not concern itself with the peculiar technicalities and inner workings within the organization itself, such as just who is what exactly and who does what, as long as there are established ministry and creed. The Pope is a good example. The word "Pope" by itself is meaningless, but once identified as the name of the head minister of the Catholic Church, it gains weight. Another more notorious example is David Miscavige, Chairman of the Board(!?) of Religious Technology Center (corporation that controls the trademarks and copyrights of Dianetics and Scientology). Concerning the source, I added a written one. ProKro (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@ProKro: Awesome, thanks for your research and explanation. - Uncle Alf (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't mention it. It's a fascinating topic to delve into. ProKro (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

References

"after receiving semen in the mail"

Are we overemphasising a joke to report that the church was literally shut down "due to donations to the church of four vials of what appeared to be semen"? It's hard to tell if the Rolling Stone source used is just repeating the joke, but from the original monologue it seems more like this was just a good joke to end the project on - the point had been made, and there was no reason to keep it going as a sketch every week. By stating or implying that the church was shut down for a single, specific reason, we're suggesting that Oliver would have otherwise liked to continue the church but was unable to, which I'm not sure is really the case. --McGeddon (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The semen delivery was the reason given for by Oliver for the closure of the church. The additional citation by Rolling Stone was for a secondary source to verify the "press release." I don't think we are overemphasizing it since that was the reason given. We can't really make assumptions since any assumption we make would have to be backed up by a source. The semen delivery is the only source we have for the closure. --Stabila711 (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it was the reason given by fictional comedy character Megareverend Oliver in a sketch where he emotionally shuts down his church. It looks as if John Oliver hasn't given any out-of-character interviews about it. But if the only press coverage of the show took the sketch at face value as also being Oliver's out-of-character reason for retiring the church then I suppose that's what we go with. --McGeddon (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Predecessor

I just saw this clip from Real Time with Bill Maher. Apparently, John Oliver’s stunt has had a predecessor of sorts. Worth a mention? Siúnrá (talk) 10:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Several people have parodied televangelists since their inception. IMHO I don't think Maher's offers anything to add to the article.MartinezMD (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

A name predecessor may be the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Errantios (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Importance

Does this church really need to have its own articl? I feel it should just be a few lines on the page about John Oliver or LastWeekTonight --Mèþru (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I think so because it's not just a comic gag, it also shows important legal issues regarding the legal definitions of a church and tax evasion in the US, hypocrisy in religion, as well as other issues regarding televangelism. MartinezMD (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of Last Week Tonight bits that deal with large issues and got lots of coverage but don't have their own articles. This one is should be no different. All information not directly related to the show can be found in other articles about televangelism, the American tax system and religion in the US. 2600:8801:7116:4400:91FC:7C55:5906:4CF2 (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freedom4U (talk · contribs) 20:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll be taking a look at this article over the next coming days. :3 F4U (they/it) 20:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U, just checking in- no rush if you're preoccupied. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll get it done by tomorrow. I've been writing the review up on my work computer so I don't have access to the review rn. :3 F4U (they/it) 21:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Review done :) Seven day hold the nominator to address the following concerns. :3 F4U (they/it) 13:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U, I believe I've addressed all your comments. Let me know if you think some more changes are needed- thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U, think I've addressed everything else. Are the unstruck ones not satisfactory yet? Or just an indication of progress? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk Apologies for the delay. While I think there's definite room for expansion— particularly in the reception section, I don't believe that the article isn't broad enough for the GA criteria. The article doesn't fail in any other regard. The images are properly licensed and no copyvio was found. :3 F4U (they/it) 13:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

• Unnecessary piped link to John Oliver
  • See below response

Lede

• Unnecessary piped link to John Oliver
  • I think the wikilinks in the infobox and lead are necessary; it's the first time his name appears in the lead, and the first time his name appears in the infobox. Furthermore, he is the founder and CEO of the church, so why not link him? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
    • That's not what I meant! To clarify, the link currently is piped to "John Oliver (comedian)", which is unnecessary. Take a look at the link in source editor. :3 F4U (they/it) 21:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

      @Freedom4U, Now I understand- fixed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• I have NPOV concerns about the word "expose". Perhaps "highlight" would be better, as that also better matches what is stated in the article's body.
  • Reworded. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• satirizing what ministries are allowed to do by law, essentially having no obligation to provide any care. Rephrase
  • Done. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• I have a few other concerns about the lede, but I'd like to take a look after changes to the body are made, just so I can get a feeling for how well it reflects the article.

Creation

• to get money in the form of donations replace with for donations.
  • Done. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Televangelists like Kenneth Copeland and Robert Tilton often used the money to pay for private luxuries, but were still tax-exempt because of its recognition by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as a church. Only reference [4] mentions these two, and only in relation to the television segment mentioning them. Therefore this shouldn't be mentioned in wikivoice, but rather should state In the segment, Oliver criticized televangelists like Kenneth Copeland and Robert Tilton...
  • It looks like this is already mentioned further down in the paragraph. I would suggest deleting the sentence as redundant.
    • Fixed the above two. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• seeking donations from distressed people with promises of curing sickness through prayer, or of helping people of marginal means get out of credit card debt, by sending cash through the mail This isn't mentioned in the article and should not be stated in wikivoice.
  • Rephrased and added different citations. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• in which Oliver sent cash through the mail, only to receive more solicitations from Tilton, with nothing substantial in return - Only the Slate article mentions this correspondance in detail, stating To illustrate how money-hungry these institutions are, Oliver joined televangelist Robert Tilton’s mailing list for $20. In seven months, Oliver received 26 letters—almost one per week—and paid a total of $319, receiving little more than some weird packets of oil and a tracing of the preacher’s foot in return. I think the sentence should be rephrased.
  • Rephrased and replaced/added refs. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• "taking advantage of the open-ended IRS definition of the word 'church' and procuring a litany of tax breaks" You can't just slap according to a report in The Washington Post and call it a day. The article itself states that this is a quotation from the church's website (which should be mentioned if the quote is kept!) and I think this would work better paraphrased rather than quoted.
  • Paraphrased. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Kenneth Copeland and Robert Tilton are linked twice
  • Fixed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Response and dissolution

• The two cites don't mention semen. I know the Rolling Stone and the Entertainment Weeklky cites mention semen, but they're only quoting from the show in the articles. Given the real possibility that, since its a comedy program, its not true, I would either put "allegedly" or remove the claim altogether.
  • Rewrote and added citations. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Is "The AU Review" a realiable source?
  • I don't see anything suggesting it isn't; it's the only sources I could find that detailed what happened when you called the number, all the others just mentioned the existence of a toll free number. Regardless, I added a USAToday source that double backs that the number exists. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Alternet is a generally unreliable source per WP:RSP
  • Replaced. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Last Week Tonight is linked twice
  • Fixed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Reaction

• saw Oliver's stunt as being along the same lines as comedian Stephen Colbert's setting up of a 501(c)(4) called the "Colbert Super PAC" Very awkwardly phrased. Could this be better as compared Oliver's stunt to comedian Stephen Colbert's "Colber Super PAC", which Colbert used to test the limits of the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision. Remove all of Oliver's megachurch, in contrast, is a way to test whether the IRS might view Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption as a tax-exempt organization as that's already been stated in the article.
• The other reactions needs to rely less on quotes as well. Take a look at Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections.
  • Addressed the above two comments; if you think some more cutting is needed, let me know. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Spinoffs

• Although its not linked, I do believe mentioning FreedomFromHealthCare.org is still against external links policy.
  • Cut. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

External links

I'm curious as to why the original program is relegated to the bottom of the article, while the two spinoff episodes are embedded within the article?

• Mostly because I couldn't fit an external videos box near "Creation", but I see the confusion. Added a box under "Reactions". MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (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.

Interesting topic

This is an awesome article, though it might've been more fitting to run it on April Fools.GobsPint (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I had that thought as well, but the April Fools' slot for this year was already taken by a very clever article, and I yearned to see a John Oliver-related TFA. Hope to see his own article up there sometime. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)