This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia'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 B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Texas B‑class 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 Wikipedia. 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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). 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. Christianity: Charismatic B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity.

All of this information should go in the Critisim Section instead of this section. This does not talk about his direct preaching style but rather just bashes it. Alliereborn (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added information on the lawsuit against the Osteens and the FAA fine because Joel was with his wife when it happened and lawsuit wants a percentage of the Osteens' (both) income. Feerzeey (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

biblical is never capitalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.219.158.166 (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it is the first word in a sentence!Toms2866 (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or part of a book title! ;) 0nonanon0 (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While his website goes on and on about his "attending Oral Roberts University" it fails to mention that he was a drop out after only one semester, and that he only studied television and radio broadcasting.

Neither he or his wife show any qualifications to be preachers or pastors in any biography, autobiographical pieces, or on the website of their church or their personal ones. The self promoters they are, I imagine it would be on there if it existed.

http://www.joelandvictoriaosteen.com/ makes some good points —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.228.110 (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, most academic "qualifications to be preachers or pastors" are dubious as they come from unaccredited universities; in other words most degrees in theology might as well be printed in purple crayon. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 12:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mmm. You are an idiot my friend, NRen2k5. I appreciate your ignorance. It gave me a nice laugh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.160.180 (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this page on joel osteen is reported on poor resources and is accusations of people who dislike him and do not know what they are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gskittles (talk • contribs) 20:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you bashing preachers and pastors? There is no need to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alliereborn (talk • contribs)

Is his surname/heritage German, as this source implies? Badagnani (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to prevent further edit warring, I offer this update to you all to discuss:

Critiscism & Controversy - - On July 29, 2007, evangelist and author Adam Key led a one man protest outside Lakewood Church as services let out. Standing on a soapbox and flanked by signs claiming that Osteen was lying to his congregation, Key preached about repentance to a crowd that mostly kept walking. The protest was apparently in conjunction with the release of Key's book, Your Best Lie Now: The Gospel according to Joel Osteen^[1] The video is available on YouTube. ^[2]

Can anyone provide a legitimate explanation why this should not be included? Don't just cite policies Wikipages, actually list the parts of the policy that would specifically ban this. User:MikeDoughney is specifically invited to comment, but all are welcome. Adamkey (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating yourself in multiple venues will not change Wikipedia policies and guidelines. "Like it says at the top of [my talk] page, 'If you're not already familiar with Wikipedia policies, particularly those regarding verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research, please consider carefully studying those policies before commenting here.'" As I wrote in the edit summary in response to one of your past edits, "you'll need a WP:RS from a reliable third party (newspaper, etc) for this (court papers and Youtube are insufficient))." One more time: court papers (without comment provided by some third party like a newspaper) and Youtube video are insufficient to include this material. Your obvious conflict of interest, use of Wikipedia articles to promote yourself and your agenda, and insistence on writing about yourself in Wikipedia articles is also noted. Mike Doughney (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Joel_Osteen. Beyond this, User:Mike Doughney has nudged me to think, Adamkey's edits stray from so many Wikipedia polcies and guidelines, I forgot to say the outcome of his edits is indeed original research along with everything else. Please stop now, Adamkey. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Adamkey. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read and reread the WP:RS which you continually cite as requiring a third party that is not a federal court's recognition of fact. I find no such requirement of a newspaper. The filing referenced was filed by Regent University, not by me, so there's your third party independently commenting on it. Moreover, the fact that a federal court recognized this as being fact is a second third party. Please demonstrate how Regent University and the federal courts(Southern District of Texas, East District of Virginia) do not meet standards of WP:RS.

WP:COI does not exist as I am using the talk page as requested by the policy.

WP:SOAP is not violated either. "Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." Even if you view what I did outside Osteen's church as self promoting, it is reported in an objective manner. Further, this account is not the original author of the update.

This is not in any way WP:OR either. The events referenced are recorded in third party published sources and the references are not unique to Wikipedia.

Again, I ask that you cite the specific portions of policies you believe this post to violate, as citing them generally seems to be unfruitful. Adamkey (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no fan of Osteen, by any stretch of the imagination, but your entry doesn't seem all that encyclopedic, nor is it all that notable to an entry about Osteen or his church, nor does it appear to fit with the Biographies of Living Persons policy. If Wikipedia listed every crackpot (not necessarily saying that you are one) that protested outside a church building, or wrote a book critical of a church/pastor, there'd be little room for anything else. It also seems you're using this article as a coat-rack to promote your book. If this event is all that notable, it will be widely covered by the media and have a broader impact than what currently appears to exist. I cannot stand Osteen and the prosperity gospel he espouses, and I might likely agree with your book (though I doubt I'd ever buy it), but your information is tangentially related to him and doesn't belong here...--Lyonscc (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I see your point. Accepted. I'll now yield. Thanks for the civility, you're a credit to Wikipedia. Adamkey (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pakalomattam/joel osteen contains what appears to be someone's attempt at improving this article. If there is anything worth using in there, go ahead. —harej (talk) (cool!) 05:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added that web site because I'm concerned about his followers and Christians who decide to watch his show after getting saved. People have a right to know the truth about Joel Osteen. He's a fake. This web site is legitament. Sincerely, ChristianGirl2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristianGirl2 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.80.86 (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A fake what, exactly? He says he's a preacher. He preaches. Seems real enough to me!

The so called HP, will not tire asking what/ who are Osteens.. but am of the feeling that before ha ask such questions he should ask himself who is he to critic others. What i can see in HP heartt is malice, jealousy, self esteem complications and lack of focus. Who on earth can question God who to use or not to? HP blinded heart and impaired spiritual sight, makes him yhink that God uses one because of the level of education and attest to you its not the case and thats why you are not God. 'Hp i suppose you are learned, right? if yes, this can only prove to you how mistaken and blinded you are, or are you envious of a drop out who has succeeded more than you with all u self earned education? Gods favor is not earned, ots a free gift!

HP even if Joel was in business, God gives people wisdom to make wealth but not money literary.You want Joel to be a begger to be seen by you to be a servant of God? Your type are the one John referred to as brood of Vipers who will destroy even their own off spring. Victoria dressing and make should not be your concern, she dresses modestly, and as the bible says she want to please her Husband and above all God. She is an Icon to the young ladies in her church, continent and world at large, Hp please safe us your misguided and baseless arguments, coz they are only exposing your foolish side, no wonder the BIBLE saysin the book of proverb "..even the fool is presumed wise when he shuts his mouth.." so can you please mind your own life which i feel you been unable to manage.

As i conclude are you aware that everyone is unique in his own way? comparison is very cheap, how can you compare two unlike and expect same results unless you are stupid enough. Comparing Mother Terresa and Victoria cant you see u have idea amnesia? are you aware we are in 21st century and things keeps on chnging? Mother Terresa lived then, Victoria is living Now-you expect her to dress in robes..HP shame on you.

Chris, Kenya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.216.73.70 (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the message last night. i deffinatly need to change out some bad influences. while saving on words by using hand signals i didn't realise untill later there may have been a renewed velosity adjustment. thanks again for the new attatude! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.42.80 (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted tto know how long has joel been a pastor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.53.171.127 (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth considering that the Criticism and controversy section be renamed. While much of the material can remain, I think it would be better to have a "views" section and integrate the rest of the material into the article. Controversy sections invite people to find and insert criticisms. Basileias (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That template "should only be used if there is a real concern that the criticism section and its contents is causing trouble with the article's neutrality." This concern seems not to be widely shared in this article's case, so the template has been removed. FatTrebla (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since about half of the article is "Criticism and Controversy", this is a valid concern - I've reinserted the template.--Lyonscc (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an FYI, this person has been a topic on the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard more than once. Another example is this:

On the December 23, 2007, edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace brought up criticisms of Osteen's lack of Scripture reference in his sermons, as well as his hesitancy to discuss sin as an integral part of life. Osteen responded: "And I am ultimately trying to do that, but I'm trying to teach people how to live their everyday lives, and so I do focus on it, probably not as much as some people would like."[20]

While Wallance does ask questions like "You don't go deeply in your sermons into scripture. Again, why not?" The word "criticisms" is never used in the source, maybe I missed it. This seems to be a editor created controversy. I'm not against having this mentioned in the article at all, but it probably should be worded more fair and I question whether it belongs in a Criticism and controversy section. Based on finding this in just a loose read the whole section and everything in it probably needs to be reviewed for fairness. Basileias (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved information about his preaching sermon style to the preaching style section. What's left in the "Criticism and controversy" is mostly about his beliefs and I was thinking about renaming it just "beliefs", but wanted to get further input in someone had something else better to do? Basileias (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversy sections invite people to find and insert criticisms."

If such criticisms exist, and especially considering what the person's notability is from (espousing a belief concept and historical perspectives in a very public, high profile manner) why try to obscure that?

Gillwill (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the material is being proposed for deletion. It's sourced. A Criticism and and controversy section functions like fly paper sometimes. On occasion, that's what it's done in this article. It's more precise to be specific about what a person promotes or believes rather than just using terms like criticism, criticized, controversy, which are often very generic words. On Wikipedia, they're almost a Cliché. Basileias (talk)

"If such criticisms exist, [...] why try to obscure that?" Every public figure attracts criticisms in varying degrees of strength/focus, and the purpose of the biography page of a person is not to give an exhausting airing of everything good and bad about the person, but rather a concise, encyclopedic outline of the key aspects that make the person notable. With religious persons, in particular, "criticism/controversy" sections become a collection of alleged heresies against those who have marginally (or vastly) distinct differences, often in dogma and doctrine. Rather than have the heresy wars fought from multiple religious backgrounds, the most efficient and fair way to document this in wikipedia is simply to document the person's distinct, notable religious views. If these are different than those of the reader, he/she can make the "heresy" determination on their own.--Lyonscc (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ethical (mis)behavior of religious public figures is an important part of the key aspects that make the person notable. The facts of the the lawsuit by David Molina seem clear, and have nothing to do with doctrine or dogma: Johnny McGowan is a long-time friend of Osteen and a colleague (pastor?) in his church. McGowan had an eight-year affair with Molina's wife, a member of the church, which resulted in the conception and birth of a child. Osten counseled Molina, and failed to mention the affair (though he knew about it). Molina filed a lawsuit against Osten, McGowan and others, seeking punitive damages for fraud by nondisclosure, conspiracy to commit fraud and gross negligence.^[3][4] FatTrebla (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This particular incident is germane to Johnny McGowan (if he had a page), but Osteen is a tertiary figure who was bound by confidentiality/privilege in the matter. He was not involved in the affair. Pastors, by the very nature of their jobs, are made privy to all sorts of lurid information, and when they attempt to help individuals involved, they may be open to criticism. In other biographies of living pastors in wikipedia, you will not find this type of information, unless the crimes/sins were those of the article's subject, themself. Also, I can find no reliable source to show any court proceedings or outcome of this case, so a simple allegation is, in itself, not really notable. As such, this is definitely not encyclopedic for an article on Osteen. --Lyonscc (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tag I originally placed. The last reference to a CBS article was mostly solid with what was written. I also shortened the section title to just Criticism. Basileias (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This supposed criticism from the "Criticism and controversy section" had no references to an actual criticism. It's an interview transcript. This is more really a falsifying of a criticism and a reference.

Osteen has received criticism from some in the Evangelical community. After a 2005 appearance on Larry King Live, he was accused of not clearly affirming that Jesus Christ is the only way a person can reach Heaven. He stated repeatedly that only God knows a person's heart, but that as a believer in the Christian faith he believes in an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ.^[5] In late 2006, Osteen again appeared on Larry King Live and clarified his prior statement, saying he does in fact believe a personal relationship with Christ is the only way to Heaven.^[5]

Basileias (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created a new section and moved wording from the Criticism section to it. It really deals with Osteen's views. I think this makes sense but feel free to opine if it doesn't.

On the January 26, 2011 edition of Piers Morgan Tonight on CNN, Osteen was asked whether he believes homosexuality is a sin:

"Yes, I've always believed, Piers, the scriptures show that homosexuality is a sin. But I'm not one of those who is out there to bash homosexuals and tell them that they're terrible people and all of that. I mean, there are other sins in the Bible, too. And I think sometimes the church - and I don't mean this critically - but we focus on one issue or two issues, and there's plenty of other ones. So I don't believe that homosexuality is God's best for a person's life - sin means to miss the mark."^[6][7]

Basileias (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. I notice that you removed topically-relevant content from a Wikipedia article. However, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

I added Clubhrt to the same SPI (Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Previous editor added one line to Rev. Osteen's facts: Known for being heretic. People do abuse Wikipedia'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[8]

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. ^[9]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Also, I would note that "Joel Osteen" and "Joel Osteen Ministries", for the sake of Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry, but Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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

Actually the best source I can find says Osteen dropped out of ORU and that he does not have a divinity degree.[1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 ([2]) 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 [3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]