Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:00, 18 April 2015

Joel Osteen was nominated as a Philosophy and religion good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 20, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Joel Osteen. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Joel Osteen at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Charismatic Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. Houston (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Houston, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HoustonWikipedia:WikiProject HoustonTemplate:WikiProject HoustonHouston Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Texas Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Mid-importance).

Blog Photos/Lifestyle Criticism

One other editor and I have reverted changes today that are in violation of WP:BLP, WP:NOR and WP:verifiability. To this point, the anon IP has not engaged in discussion.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In the latest revert, the anon user stated "Published photos and critical question raised are relevant. Your evangelical userboxes show bias." This, in itself, may be a strong clue of WP:TE. I do wonder why having evangelical tags/userboxes would show bias, though. Personally, I have a good deal of dislike for Osteen's prosperity gospel, and I would agree with the criticism the anon IP is raising. Even so, without demonstration of overall relevance to the BLP from a verifiably published source, it can't stay in the article.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The user re-added the information and I reverted it, again. Basileias (talk)

He just did it again. Basileias (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

He is at it again. I've escalated the warning message so a senior editor should be attracted to this soon. Basileias (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

User keeps at it. I have submitted a request for semi-protection. Basileias (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

He's still at it. I am reverting the edits as they come in and have reported him for vandalism also. Calabe1992 (talk) 03:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's looks like we have a brand new user Jmann20871 adding well sourced lines like "HORNY FROG BENDER," etc. It's probably not a coincidence and our anon is possibly back at it. Basileias (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that unless he already had an account, this is probably not him, as account creation was blocked from his IP. If we do see a similar edit to the IP edits, however, it can go down as a sockpuppet. Calabe1992 (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Having read the stream of edit summaries and this guy's unblock request, all I can say is "wow". I've got no idea why he thinks I'm a mic salesman (I work in project management at a pharma company in the midwest), or that I'm on the payroll of a church 2000 miles away, but that's just whacked.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh come one, I've always figured you to be part of a cabal of secret plotters. I am watching you too. =) Basileias (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It just happened again. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This account jumper left this on my talk page. Basileias (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not engage in edit warring as you have on the Joel Osteen page recently and in June. This censorship by you and one other evangelical wiki user has caused a Joel Osteen Misplaced Pages Censorship Watch group to form. This is your warning to stop censoring and reverting sourced edits. Let's be civil. Your practice of 'bait and switch' with new made up reverting reasons each time you undo a legitimate edit is underhanded. Additionally, to add to the refutation of your last reversion, please review the Reliable sources rules in regards to Criticism/Statements of opinion of a living person by a professional freelance journalist. Remember, wiki is not here for you to censor and own. It is not your promotional tool for the evangelical cause you are a part of. You have used four different reasons for having the same edit removed. Each time your argument is refuted with a valid Misplaced Pages rule, you switch to a new reversion reason. This is not honest, and this is not good for an encyclopedia. The Criticism section on the Joel Osteen page is there for a valid reason and so is the inclusion of an opinion article by a professional freelance journalist. The article "Joel Osteen Lives Luxuriously in His Heavenly $10.5 Million Mansion" belongs in this section. It is the perfectly appropriated place and it is a perfectly appropriated inclusion. Also the information has in the article and photos have been crosschecked with two independent news sources. They are as legitimate as can possibly be. Please respect other editors. This is your warning to not engage in this vandalistic behavior. Thank you. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. I notice that you removed topically-relevant content from a Misplaced Pages article. However, Misplaced Pages is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Misplaced Pages to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. (Markelmonument (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC))

I entered a request for a protect. Basileias (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I've protected the page for a week, though that may well need to be extended later (let me know if this persists after this; it's on my watchlist now but I may not notice). To the other user, first, "professional freelance journalists" aren't reliable sources when they publish on blogs. Period. End of question. The only exception would be if the journalist was recognized as an expert on the subject (here, I guess that would be either Evangelical Christianity or Real Estate); that would mean that they've been widely published and cited on the subject. And even if they were reliable, they still wouldn't be reliable for a Biographical article, because BLP's have stricter sourcing rules. Second, any actual evidence of a "Censorship Watch group" will result in a swift round of blocks going to any and all involved: coordinating efforts off-wiki to enforce a POV is strictly forbidden (it falls under WP:MEATPUPPETRY and WP:TAGTEAM). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I forgot that actually even my above exception isn't a legitimate exception for blogs on living people. The full policy, found at WP:BLP, states, "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)." The only exception are things on newspaper pages called "blogs," but that article is not hosted on a newspaper site, and thus is not "subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." That blog will never, in any situation, be allowed as a source on any article about living people. So there is no need to form a team to try to get that blog in here, because it will never be allowed. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

A noteworthy correction and good points. Basileias (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Qwyrxian. I just got the following message on my talk page, as well (from a brand-new account):

It is always a wonderful thing when a censor or oppressor is forced to show their hand. It is an even better day when an agenda is exposed. You are a fraud, and that has been exposed through the "Joel Osteen Misplaced Pages Watch Group" that has formed as a direct result of your censorship control of Osteen's page for more than three years. The top of Misplaced Pages wonders why people don't want to edit anymore, as you and one or two others gang up to stifle outside editors.

I suspect this is just the same anon/sockpuppet user from earlier this year.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I added Clubhrt to the same SPI (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Openbluesky); all the rest have been tagged and blocked. You can add future socks to that SPI, or just post them here and I can add them. I'm guessing that the semi-protection will probably have to be extended beyond this week; some of the socks (we're not sure exactly how many real people are behind all of these accounts) were using Tor nodes to create the accounts, which means that they know how to dodge the blocks. Every time they pop up, though, please tell me or another admin and we'll keep blocking them. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I just noticed that Courcelles extended the semi-protection out for a whole year. Well, that makes things easier. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection for a whole year? That is crazy! I am sorry Qwyrxian, but you nor Basileias own this article, though you both act like you do. On this discussion page, under the Criticism and controversy section, Basileias even typed himself that something should "probably should be worded more fair". That is so biased it isn't even funny. You admit you wan't to word things so they are fair.--99.177.248.92 (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection is just to stop people from creating new accounts and repeatedly disrupting the article. There's nothing else we can do to stop the disruption, if people won't listen and just keep creating more and more accounts instead of discussing the issue as is required. Furthermore, semi-protection doesn't stop you (or anyone else, confirmed or not) from discussing issues on this talk page. If the consensus of editors is that the change should be made, it will. If you think that there is still something that needs to change, please make a new section below and explain. Note, of course, that any threats or disruptive editing here could still result in blocks. Also note that no one is going to add anything to the article that doesn't conform with our policies--so, for example, blogs are still not reliable sources, and thus we can't add blog-based info to the articles. But if someone should find a good, reliable source that has some criticism that they think should be added, please, make a new section and explain. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 December 2011

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

Literature

• Your Best Life Now (2007)
• Becoming Your Best You (2007)
• It's Your Time (2010)
• The Christmas Spirit (2010)
• Every Day a Friday (2011)

98.165.91.114 (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Osteen is the author of dozens of books. Is there any reason why these particular ones are notable? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Frivolous edits

Previous editor added one line to Rev. Osteen's facts: Known for being heretic. People do abuse Misplaced Pages's democratic rules that everybody can edit anything, but I hope there are some replication in the cases like this.65.8.11.183 (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits & POV tag

Recent edits I believe have problems. First, the criticisms are about the ministry and not specifically the person. The BBB is not even really a third party source but something you climb into to gin up a controversy. Ministrywatch.com strikes me as a site that could just put up anything. Again, it is dealing with the ministry where the article is about the person. I am adding the POV tag until this can get more input. Basileias (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ministry Watch issues "Donor Alert"

In March 2011, due to a lack of transparency the independent financial and accountability review organization Ministry Watch, issued a Donor Alert against the ministry.

BBB Wise Giving Alliance issues non disclosure warning

In April 2012 BBB Wise Giving Alliance issued a Did Not Disclose warning for Joel Osteen Ministries in a comment by BBB Wise Giving Alliance they indicated that Joel Osteen Ministries failed to respond to their postal request and/or choose not to disclose.

Well, first, in this case, the ministry and person are practically equivalent, given that it's called "Joel Osteen Ministries". Second, calling the BBB a means to generate controversy makes me strongly suspect your neutrality here--the BBB is an internationally renowned organization that helps fight (mainly business, but also charity) fraud and poor practices. I figured MinistryWatch is okay based on the way their WP article describes them. The question is whether or not their opinion is considered to be important in the field of Christian evangelicals (i.e., if their opinion is WP:UNDUE. If you are concerns about BLP issues; I recommend the BLP noticeboard; I'll abide by whatever consensus says. As an interim measure, I am going to remove the section headings; they give WP:UNDUE emphasis to these events, and it's fine to have all of the criticisms bundled into 1 paragraph. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It is the norm for controversy sections to get out of control in the evangelical articles, more the reason why I am a bit of a bulldog with the sources. I will note this on the BLP noticeboard and go with what their direction. Basileias (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I would note that "Joel Osteen" and "Joel Osteen Ministries", for the sake of Misplaced Pages artitlces are *not* equivalent (practically, or otherwise) - they are two separate entities, and are not interchangeable. So, ratings/rankings of Osteen's business/ministry, if reliable, verifiable and notable, could potentially be included in a separate article on Joel Osteen Ministries. Also, MinistryWatch does not meet the criteria of a Reliable Source, as it is self-published (and therefore verboten in a WP:BLP, and I don't believe, IIRC, that the BBB qualifies, either.--Lyonscc (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I came here after this edit. I've done a bit of digging in the archives and agree with the removal but I thought I'd give my opinion and a link. Just in case anyone cares.

1. I think the conversation here is not really conclusive. I don't find the "they are not equivalent" argument convincing. If they were seperate articles I might actually argue for them to be merged.
2. What is much more persuasive is the conversation at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive168#Joel Osteen. Specifically the point that someone not participating with BBB need not be constued as a negative opinion. This being the case, the previous wording about a "warning" and the inclusion in the "criticism" section is a bit dodgey. More generally, there will be lots of organisations that don't participate with BBB so its probably not worth mentioning in most cases, including this one.

Yaris678 (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

References

1. MinistryWatch.com Recommends that Donors Withhold Giving to Joel Osteen Ministries, Ministry Watch, May 2011
2. http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/religious/joel-osteen-ministries-in-houston-tx-24569

Hoax resignation

Sorry about that, I got fooled by a very convincing cross-linked piece. I really should know better. *hangs head in shame* Mongoletsi (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

why can't we see Joel in Jacksonville, Florida any more; what happened :-(

Is Joel alright. We haven't seen him for two Sundays. is he coming back to channel 12 here...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.178.242 (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but Misplaced Pages talk pages are not a way to contact the subject or a way to contact any media outlet, they exist solely for discussing ways to improve the article. Shearonink (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

book overview

Why is there no book overview? book overview is missing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slimjim1984 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean an overview of the book he wrote? There isn't one because we probably don't need one. This article is about Joel Osteen, the person. One or two sentences summarizing it would be fine, but we shouldn't have anything in depth, as that's outside of the focus of this page. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Education?

Why does this article have a subsection titled "early life and education" which doesn't even mention his education? Interwebs (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Both Joel Osteen and his sister Tamara attended and graduated from Oral Roberts University in the 80s. I would think that would be important to note. Sclawyergal (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)sclawyergal

Absolutely. Is there a reliable source? Grayfell (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually the best source I can find says Osteen dropped out of ORU and that he does not have a divinity degree. This is from Salt Lake's second largest daily newspaper, so the source is reliable. The information is also corroborated by several other sources I've seen online which may or may not meet WP:RS. Regardless, I think it's enough to include in the article at this point. Interwebs (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Good find. Technically the article merely says he hasn't received a divinity school degree, not that he never attended divinity school. I just checked, and ORU's College of Theology & Ministry does offer undergraduate degrees, so a case could be made that he did, possibly, technically attend a divinity school. It's splitting some very tiny hairs, but the term 'divinity school' is just ambiguous enough that I'm going to change the wording. Grayfell (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. Frankly, I'm becoming intensely curious about Osteen's life prior to taking over as pastor of his giant church due simply to the lack of good info out there. I hate that every source which discusses it seems to have an agenda and barely touch anything substantive. Interwebs (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Now you have me curious as well. If you find any good sources, let me know. Grayfell (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joel Osteen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: StAnselm (talk · contribs) 03:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have reviewed it and I am going to fail this article at this time. My reasoning is as follows.

1. It is not yet stable, as there has been extensive editing in the last few days, including a dispute about content between User:TheShadowCrow, the nominator, and User:Grayfell.
2. It contains a criticism section, which ought to be avoided per Misplaced Pages:Criticism (which, to be sure, is only an essay). The point is, Osteen is indeed a controversial figure, and the article will need a whole lot more about his views and his impact (that is, why he is controversial) to meet GA standard. As it stands, the article says that Horton stated that "the problem with Osteen's message is that it makes religion about us instead of about God" and Osteen responded "by stating that he has specifically avoided preaching about money". Obviously, that doesn't address the criticism, and much more context is required.
3. As it stands, the article is completely imbalanced, with the preaching style and the hoaxes section have disproportionately more coverage.
4. The article needs some weightier secondary sources, and significant expansion based on those. I did a quick search, and found a book:

• Richard Young, The Rise of Lakewood Church and Joel Osteen (2012)

a number of articles:

• Jason Byassee, "Be happy: the health and wealth gospel," The Christian Century 122 (2005)
• Leanna Fuller, "Perfectionism and Shame: Exploring the Connections," Journal of Pastoral Theology 18 (2008)
• Helje Kringlebotn Sodal, "“Victor, not Victim”: Joel Osteen's Rhetoric of Hope," Journal of Contemporary Religion 25 (2010)
• Christine Miller and Nathan Carlin, "Joel Osteen as cultural selfobject: meeting the needs of the group self and its individual members in and from the largest church in America," Pastoral Psychology 59 (2010)

and some book chapters:

• Shayne Lee and Phillip Luke Sinitiere, "The Smiling Preacher: Joel Osteen and the Happy Church," in Holy Mavericks: Evangelical Innovators and the Spiritual Marketplace (2009)
• David Gutterman, "Narrating Desire: The Gospel of Wealth in Christian America," in Politics and the Religious Imagination (2010)
• Paul Louis Metzger, "The gospel of true prosperity: our best life in the triune God now and not yet," in Trinity and Election in Contemporary Theology (2011)
• Phillip Luke Sinitiere, "Preaching the Good News Glad" in Global and Local Televangelism (2012)

At least some of these should be in an article like this if it is to reach GA standard. At present, the main aspects of the subject are not sufficiently addressed.

I hope all this helps. StAnselm (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

Many peacock terms and redundancies added. Very little concern for WP:WEIGHT. Two sources referring to him (basically in passing) as being a smiling pastor or preacher don't establish that he is "often" known as anything, further more, it is introduced to the lead but left out of the body, which is not ideal. The WP:QUOTEFARM regarding his preaching style is not informative, and reads like a People magazine profile, not an encyclopedia article. The section on his views on homosexuality are front-loaded with as many soft-ball quotes as possible. If you want to include that kind of ultra-flattering nonsense, at least find a better source than WND! Why is all this promotional stuff being put in the lead while none of the controversial stuff is? The lead should summarize the body, so if somebody wants to expand the lead, add his stance on gay marriage and his reputation as part of the prosperity gospel, too. We can't leave those things out of the lead, but then add his iTunes sales and the Barbara Walter's blurb from 2006! Gimme a break. Grayfell (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe at this time the 'smiling pastor' comments and iTunes sales are notable. While they are sourced, it is generally not information that is common to add to articles such as this. I would suggest proposing some of the changes on the talk page. I believe there are a few sources and parts that could be added, if still so desired. I have worked on this article in the past, and I am willing to contribute what time I can. Basileias (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, see above for my GA review. One of the reliable sources uses "smiling preacher" in its title, so I suspect the designation is worth including. StAnselm (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not against having the term included. Basileias (talk) 06:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Before I had made my changes, the article was, and now is once again, a heavily biased, one-sided, POV piece of slander. It barely had any information about his actual life or his family. His personal life section mentioned nothing about his wife or kids and only stated he is opposed to gay marriage, which was quoted from the extremely right-wing FOX news. The preaching style section was (now is) basically a second criticism section, when just one of them is un-encyclopedic. I counted the number of quotes in my version and in Grayfell's version. My contains 5, his 3. Explain to me how that is a quote farm, how that is any worse than his, and, for that matter, how any of these quotes are distracting anything from the article. He also has a major unexplained disagreement with using WND as a source. WND is only used for 2 sources, and Grayfell uses both of them in his version as well! I also want to point out that he has put a dead link back, witch I had replaced with an alive one. Does he even check his changes? The "promotional stuff" that Grayfell is referring to is simply how articles are written. All have long headers that showcase the major events and achievements in the person's life. I will agree, however, that he shouldn't be given two nicknamed (too wordy) and that the iTunes part should be moved to the article and not the header. I will agree to those changes if my version is restored. We will keep the preacher nickname, as it has far more search results. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This is obviously a controversial topic, so making a huge, sweeping change is going to trigger a lot of debate. Looking at the differences you introduced () into the article, I think the end result has been an over-all improvement. I'm perfectly willing to work with you on some of these edits, but as I explained above, some of them seemed unnecessary or too promotional in tone to me.

As for the dead link, I tried to go through the huge edit you did bit-by-bit but I may very well have I missed something, that doesn't seem like a good enough reason to attack my competence. Regarding the promotional style issue, I don't think that's "how articles are written". The quotes you added were lengthy, quite flattering, and could easily be summarized in half the space used. You also removed information about his educational background, as well as removing legitimate sourced controversy. You added a large amount of information using a single, fluff-journalism profile twelve times. That seems like a good indicator that there are some WP:WEIGHT issues with those edits. You added redundant information on the Barbara Walters thing and the NYT Best Selling books. There's more, but hopefully I'm making myself clear. Grayfell (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest posting the sources for a start. With the sources agreed upon it is much easier to go forward. Sources like pennlive.com are sometimes poorly vetted. One of the FOX news sources is simply a transcript of an interview. If there is sources that are also of issue, we should list those here and update them or remove the poor source and maybe the information too. Basileias (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I am pretty late responding. Anyways, I have combined parts of my past edits that I felt should have stayed with the current version. I undid it then so we can talk about what parts of it you don't agree with if there are any. I personally think the edit has improved because of the changes we both made. Also, I remember you didn't want to include the Barbara Walters list, but current news seems to show the award is a pretty big deal. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

First the Walters thing: I think the recent news about Walters kinda proves my point. Walters making a list based on who agrees to appear on her show seems to undercut its significance. Those sources are also mostly just rephrasing one particular story from Radar Online, which is a celebrity gossip site, so I'm not sure why it's a big deal.

As for the rest of the changes, they still seem mostly too promotional to me. I have incorporated some of them, but much of the rest reads like the back of a book jacket, not an encyclopedia. Regarding his preaching style, the proposed changes were way too 'chummy' and conversational without actually being very informative. The bit about how he prepares his sermons was redundant with the last paragraph of the section, in about twice the amount of words. Since he's not a Catholic, I don't think his opinion on the Pope should be included without a source explaining why it's significant. Maybe if the interview were more focused on the Pope or something, but the only reason to mention I can think of is because they're both popular religious figures. That's way too flimsy. For awards for which there is no established notability, such as the Church Report Magazine blurb, a solid WP:SECONDARY source is vital, otherwise it is pure puff, and flat-out doesn't belong. The stuff about Lakewood Church belongs there, not here. Grayfell (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's a dumb honor, but it's also a significant one. You can find an article of it on basically every major English speaking news website. The honor is also mentioned in the header of other articles, such as Susan Lucci.

Please point out the parts that sound promotional and I'll rewrite them. The first paragraph of the preaching style (only change in section) I thought would be useful to include because Osteen is known for being an untraditional preacher, so it would be important to note his father and predecessor was more traditional and Joel originally used the same style as him. I didn't change your shortened version of how he prepares sermons. I thought his opinion of the Pope would be insightful to add since both are pretty well known for their opinions on homosexuality, not to mention the Pope is traditionally looked at as the face of Christianity as a whole in politics. Here is a secondary source from an organization website, I'd be happy to add it. I thought the Lakewood belongs here because he is the first member to use a stadium, which is obviously a significant change. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

He's known for being an untraditional preacher by whom? In comparison to what standard? I'm not saying that statement isn't true, but your additions don't actually make that clear or give enough context to be informative. What you added simply says that he doesn't preach in the same style his father did. If that's what you want to say, then say it, but quote-farming for bits like "stayed within own gifts." adds no meaningful information, and as far as I can see, only serves as padding to make him seem more likable. Likewise, saying that it took him a few months to develop his preaching style seems kinda obvious. If secondary sources commented on how quickly (or slowly) he developed his style, that might be something worth adding.

That link doesn't seem like a solid secondary source at all. It looks like little more than a blog that's merely republishing the Church Report's own press-release without commentary. It's author is unnamed, and the pedigree of the hosting site is is not at all clear. Since it's a site that heavily promotes a email sign-ups and such, their use of press releases says more about the site's lack of original content than it does about the notability of the Church Report Magazine award.

If there is a reliable, secondary source comparing Osteen's and the Pope's stances on homosexuality, then we should make that connection clear with appropriate weight. Your addition explained none of that, it simply used Osteen's own words to say he thinks the Pope is groovy. By giving Osteen a platform to say something nice about an important and popular figure, you are promoting Osteen by association without regard to due weight. He's a very good and prolific speaker, and he's said lots of nice things about lots of people. The article needs to explain why that matters.

As for the promotional style, I'll give another example. You wrote Osteen's popularity led to him being featured as one of ABC News' "10 Most Fascinating People of 2006". There's some buzzwords and distortion in this sentence. It's not exactly ABC news, it's Barbara Walters. By implying that it's the news agency, you're painting it like it's comparable to Time Person of the Year or something. If we agree it's a dumb honor, let's not present it as though it's something more important. Furthermore, by saying that he was 'featured' because of his 'popularity', you're adding peacock terms where much more neutral words would suffice. Just say he was one of Barbara Walters' 10 Most Fascinating people of 2006 and get on with it. Hopefully I've clarified what I mean by promotional edits. Grayfell (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the article makes it pretty clear why he is untraditional. The biggest reason is because he is accused of teaching about prosperity more than Christianity, which there is an entire section explaining. The style section also includes info about his prosperity gospel reception and goes into great detail of him not discussing topics like sin, Satan, Hell, etc. I'll remove to quotes if you want. But I don't see why it would be obvious that it took him a few months to develop his own preaching style. How else would you have known that?

How about The Washington Times?

Mentioning Osteen's opinion on the Pope provides more information to the Politics section, that way it's more about Politics and not just Why Gays Are Bad. I think these two articles make good points about why the Pope is significant in all of Christianity and Politics.

I agree to replacing ABC with Barbara Walters. I had just c/p it from the link, so it wasn't reflecting my personal agenda of promoting Osteen or anything. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not denying that the Pope is politically and religiously significant, that would be very silly. I'm saying that Osteen's opinion on the Pope should not be included without stronger sources connecting Osteen and the Pope. Those sources do not mention Osteen, so they don't address my concern at all. As I said, it looks too much like flattery by association. Simply reporting Osteen's opinion, which is quite vague, is implying that it is significant, but we need to establish why it's significant clearly on the page. Again, he has said many interesting things about many important people, but we shouldn't attempt to include quotes like that without addressing why it's relevant. If it's relevant politically, then the article should also spell that out, and the source for the Pope-quote did not include nearly enough context to accomplish that in the article.

Again, if you want to say he preaches in a different style than his father, just say that. It seemed like an excessivly large amount of space for a routine point that is not at all surprising. The fact that a man took a while to develop a personal style after he first began preaching doesn't seem important enough to explain so floridly. It's like saying "Hendrix didn't immediately know how to play the guitar the first time he tried, and only became skilled with practice." When reduced to its simplest form, it seems a little obvious to me. If you really think it's worth adding please leave off the quote-farm.

The Washington Times article is an okay source. Are you talking about using it for the bit about the Compaq Center/Lakewood Church Central Campus? That could work, but stated simply. The specific details of the renovation, and the notables who attended the grand opening should be left out. I also just noticed that Lakewood didn't actually acquire the building until 2010, they started leasing it in 2003. I would really like to see more sources like the Washington Times one, (or like this NYT one) and less like the <facts/> one. Relying heavily on a small handful of promotional or primary sources is not good, and the direct copy-pastes are especially bad. Grayfell (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I suppose there isn't much to talk about beyond that. But while looking for something, I found this interesting article where Osteen is compared to being a pope of his own right. Do you think that would be something we could fit in? It's a blog, but it's written by former-Evangelical now-Catholic priest.

I'll make it more to the point and take out the quotes and unnecessary wordings.

I thought you wanted another source for the "Most Influential Christian in America" award? We can use it for the stadium as well though. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The Washington Times article as a source for the Influential Preacher Award- Yes, sorry, I didn't catch that, that makes sense. I was just about to withdraw my objections, but decided to look up the magazine to find a little more background. After reading this article from Christianity Today, which mentions the 50 Most Influential Christians list as being possibly fraudulent, I'm concerned that Church Report Magazine is not something we should be mentioning at all. If there are plausible, serious accusations that the list is a fraud, then lacking better sources, I don't think we should include it at all. Its website is dead, and investigating further I've found a couple of press-releases that have been removed for non-payment, which only underscores that this is not a meaningful accolade.

As for Longenecker, he does seem like a legit expert. Per WP:SPS and WP:BLP extreme caution is called for. What exactly did you want to include from the blog? Grayfell (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I was about ten seconds away from agreeing to remove it before I found the Washington article. And it seems like the journalist most likely just copied it from Misplaced Pages.

I was thinking putting a sentence about Osteen's influence being compared to that of a pope right after he calls the pope groovy. Would that be enough to keep the pope part in Politics? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

On second thought I decided to just remove the Pope part. So I've made the changes you've mentioned and combined it with the changes made since. Is there anything you still disagree with? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I still have a lot of problems with pretty much everything that's supported by the "facts" source. I think it's puff journalism which was almost certainly derived from Osteen's own website, or possibly Misplaced Pages. If that's the only source you can find for the attached info, it doesn't belong in the article at all. I still think most of the added content was too far on the side of making him seem appealing, and not enough about encyclopedic info. There was also a lot of redundancy, as well. The reason that IP removed the bit about his preaching style is because it WAS redundant, it said the same exact thing as a previous paragraph. We don't need to mention that he's a NYT bestselling author more than twice (once in the lead, once in the body). Why did we need to mention Barbara Walters three times in the article? Also, where does it say he studied communication in college? That was not in the attached source. There were several grammatical errors, some of which I had already corrected but you put back, suggesting that you just copy-pasted what you had already written. So why are we even having this discussion? Grayfell (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, please pick the specific parts you want me to find another source for then. Sorry about mentioning the NYT thing twice in the header, that was a mistake from having to keep track of too many changes. I think your Jimi Hendrix comparison is not the same thing. Osteen came from a background of preaching, Hendrix was the first in his family to become a musician. It's obvious Hendrix would take awhile to learn to play the guitar, but for Osteen one would think he'd already know how to preach, so it's worth mentioning he didn't. The link to his official website says he studied communication. And like I said I had to mix a lot of changes that happened in the meantime with my edits, so if the result wasn't perfect, that's why. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Your point about Hendrix is a valid one. Right now I think it explains his first sermon pretty well, but you make a good case that it could be expanded a bit. However, it's a fairly minor point, and I personally don't think it should be made too much longer. The Houston Press source supporting that point spends nine mostly-short paragraphs discussing his first sermon, while it spends dozens discussing his marketing acumen and political influence. It seems inappropriate to focus on a relatively minor point when the larger thrust of the source is still absent from the article. It's about weight.

I removed the "facts" source from the article a while ago. As I said, I don't feel that any of the points it supported are worth mentioning. If a fact was only supported by that source, I removed it as well. Since I don't think they're important points, I think the burden is on you to find replacement sources. I guess one exception would be the Nelson Media thing. I'm not sure that it's the best way to say what it's implying. It's a useful thing to mention, but I can't find any sources suggesting the details. Who else qualifies as an 'inspirational figure'? Who came in second? When was this determination made, and how often is it made? I'm reluctant to include it, because it seems like something that was mentioned on his website, and has been repeated without any additional commentary or verification. It would be a lot clearer, and a maybe lot easier to verify, to say that he's the highest rated televangelist or something. I'll poke around for sources on that one.

As for him filling or selling-out stadiums, well, no, sorry, I don't see it belonging here. Without a lot more context, it's too much of a promotionalism. To make another comparison, the article on Led Zeppelin (I don't know why I keep referencing old rock music) mentions that they sold out a lot of stadiums, but it puts it in the context of why that was significant, and why that was a meaningful reflection of their popularity, and of their influence on popular music. It doesn't just list every place they sold out a stadium. Likewise, the Billy Graham article mentions filling Yankee Stadium, but explains why it was significant. Simply listing-off large venues that Osteen has filled without any of that context is flattering, but not especially informative. It's similar with the having been hosted by the Obama White House. Grayfell (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I made several more changes to my reversion. Replaced bad references and changed text you considered promotional.

The part comparing his preaching to his father's takes up two short sentences, and neither of them sounds promotional. It is a minor note, but the article doesn't treat it otherwise and it takes up little weight.

I found separate sources for everything that was cited to the "facts" link. As for the ones you didn't think were worth mentioning, I hope you can give me specifics. Raising attendance by 860% and meeting both presidential candidates, for example, seem at the very least worth mentioning.

I assumed filling out the second-most expensive stadium was significant on its own. Or at least more significant than John Bonham riding a motorcycle through a hotel floor. Speaking of your comparisons, those articles are incredibly promotional and were obviously written by people who wanted the reader to think they are the best band of all time. A lot of good articles have this problem actually. Anyway, if you still disagree about the stadium's significance after I explained why I thought it was, I'm fine taking it out. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the article explains the story of his first sermon pretty well.

As for the 'facts' tidbits, clearly I don't agree that they are worth mentioning. Regarding meeting the president, saying that he was 'hosted' by the Obama White House is technically true, but unnecessarily broad in the way it's worded. It's susceptible to misinterpretation. Saying that he attended to the annual Easter Breakfast, on the other hand, explains what happened, and also makes it clear that Osteen was one of many in attendance. This is more neutral. This is what I'm talking about with context.

Regarding the stadiums: My point about Led Zeppelin was not that it was a great article (for what it's worth, I am not a fan). My point was that it offered context when it discussed their success in selling out stadiums. Nothing more. I don't have a problem explaining how popular he is, I have a problem saying that he sold out X, Y, and Z stadiums without any additional information or context.

I moved the bits about his books to a separate section because it seems very likely that it will be expanded. He's written more than just the two best-sellers. If they are indeed significant, they should be mentioned as well. When that happens, it will be a lot more logical to have them in their own section. Additionally, it seems to me that readers might look at this article expressly to find out info about his books, in which case a separate section would be a lot more convenient. Grayfell (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I like a lot of the changes you made and am fine with the neutral tone, so I think we are pretty much done here. I think the only thing left to discuss is the Nielsen part. You did say it can be a one exception. I wish there were more details, but I couldn't find anything. A lot of websites say it, but they seem to have taken it from Osteen's website. I think that can be considered a reliable source because it is an official website of the person in question WP:RELIABLE. Even if the website is sugarcoating it, sources are not required to not be WP:BIASED. If you really think televangelist would be an appropriate change, then by WP:INTEXT the change can be made.

Also, about the line "When asked if he thought God approves of homosexuality, Osteen stated absolutely and that gay people should be accepted" and you wanting to remove "absolutely", I think it's important to keep that word, otherwise it sounds like Joel avoided the question.

Good point about acceptance. It's true that he was named 'most watched' (we can assume), but without a better source, it just seems too vague. I'm still uncertain when this was declared. I've found sources repeating the statement, often verbatim, from 2004. That's pretty dang old, by media research standards. The only meaty commentary that's even close that I could find was from a 2005 Boston Globe profile: "Although Nielsen Media Research could not provide viewership numbers for Lakewood, whose shows are considered "paid programming," the church says it believes an average of about 7 million people watch every week on all of the networks combined." It just seems very odd to me that there's not any more substantial sources. I don't think it's anything deliberately deceptive, but it seems like a plausible case of an echo chamber. Grayfell (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If it's at least ten years old then it's probably outdated. I guess that's it then. Glad we could both benefit the article together. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hoax section

I have removed the blog reference link http://christianitynewstexas.blogspot.com. I am concerned this section is WP:WEIGHT and can be condensed. While legitimately sourced, should it even be in the article? Basileias (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It did seem too long for the relatively small amount of content. I don't think it should be removed entirely, so I cut down to a quarter of its current size. If that seems too drastic, don't hesitate to revert. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I was going to perform slow surgery, in case there was opposition. But, your guillotine is...well...to the point, quite nice...LoL. Basileias (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of Osteen's message

A recent edit citing a source criticizing Osteen's message was reverted with the edit summary "Why is the opinion of an author from a muckraking journal important enough to include here? Is he widely known as a religious critic?"

Can the reverting editor (or anyone else) please point me to the Misplaced Pages policy that says that only widely known religious critics can be cited in criticizing the message (including books) of a preacher/televangelist/book author/Pastor? Thanks and regards, Ijon Tichy x2 (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this is an issue of WP:WEIGHT as much as anything; not simply because it's arguably a minority opinion, but because it's giving too much prominence to Doolittle as a pundit. It is supported by a WP:PRIMARY source, but it doesn't indicate why Doolittle's opinion is significant to understanding Osteen. Many people have written interesting, articulate opinions about Osteen, but Misplaced Pages isn't about collecting them all in one place. If there was reliable secondary commentary on this article, or if Doolittle was a recognized authority that might be different. Grayfell (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

A muckraking\activist journalist or website dances around being a legitimate source. I was concerned about the source as soon as I saw it. In order to use a source like this, it would need further support. It would also need consensus here on the talk page. While it may look like everyone is ganging up on you, we are not. Basileias (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

As the one who reverted with that comment, I'll just say that Grafell is exactly correct--WP:WEIGHT, which is a part of WP:NPOV, requires that we include information and opinions only that are of due importance in the real world. The question is, why is Doolittle's information important? Have others commented about it? Has it been repeated in other reliable sources? Is Doolittle considered to be an expert in the field of religion, modern Christianity, media, or anything else related to Osteen? If none of these conditions are met, I don't see how we can include the opinion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems it may be a good idea to avoid citing from Doolittle's work at this time, perhaps unless and until other reliable sources cite him (or strongly support or back-up his views).

Completely unrelated to Doolittle's views, Virginia Heffernan has criticized Osteen's message in the New York Times. Ijon Tichy x2 (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I enjoyed that article. Not flattering to self-help as a genre, but pretty mild on Osteen. If it's criticism, it's so tongue-in-cheek we could spend months on the talk page debating whether she liked the book or hated it. Grayfell (talk) 07:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Ijon Tichy x2 (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

(Unrelated to the Doolittle article) I've added a citation which I feel adheres to the criteria we discussed above. In my view, the criticism of preaching the prosperity gospel is supported by the other references in the criticism section (the BusinessWeek and 60 Min pieces), and the author is obviously an expert in Christianity. Ijon Tichy x2 (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography

Kinda a minor quibble, but the bibliography needs some attention. The reference was a search result at Amazon.com, which is not very helpful. Many of the publication dates are wrong, for one thing. I'm not really sure exactly what the criteria for inclusion is, but one of the entries was a 'miniature' edition of a book that was published several years previously. I don't think this is the kind of thing we should bother including. Likewise, I suspect, but haven't verified, that some of the books listed are of more interest commercially than they are encyclopedically. some of his books appear to be either minor booklets, or compilations of old stuff, or 'readers' or 'activity books' or such. This is exactly the kind of info an article should have, but I'm not sure how to go about finding it. Grayfell (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Prosperity theologians

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?' 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, 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 😜 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)

• Former good article nominees
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Mid-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Charismatic Christianity articles
• Unknown-importance Charismatic Christianity articles
• WikiProject Charismatic Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• B-Class Texas articles
• Mid-importance Texas articles
• WikiProject Texas articles
• WikiProject United States articles