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.[2] 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 ([3]) 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 [4] 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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [his] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[5] 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."[6] 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)[reply]

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)[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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Joel Osteen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120625224321/http://www.christnotes.org:80/_joel-osteen.asp to http://www.christnotes.org/_joel-osteen.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140829164844/http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/22/lkl.01.html to http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/22/lkl.01.html

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added total sales of "Your Best Life Now" as of 2015 data. Also removed the quote about his book sales having totalled $55 million. As his first book has sold over 8 million, and his 2nd had initial orders of 4 million, it would be far higher just on these two books alone. According to the Bibliography Osteen has written ten other books too CliffordJones (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell:

I suggest adding a heading for Television, given his television program and history. Below is what I had written up:

Television[edit]

In 1983 as a Radio and Television student at Oral Roberts University, Joel Osteen called his father to tell him that he wanted to go back to Houston and put Lakewood Church on television. John Osteen agreed on one stipulation: Lakewood Church would never use the broadcast to ask for money. They then began their television ministry and by the mid 1980's, Lakewood was broadcasting locally on KHOU-Channel 11, Houston’s CBS affiliate, to sixteen cities across the United States, as well as to Brazil and the Philippines, and on the Christian Broadcasting Network, a national cable network.^[1]

Osteen continues to edit his own sermons for broadcast, and the television ministry has reached over 100 million households throughout the United States and 100 countries worldwide to over 200 million viewers.^[2]

I also suggest a heading for Night of Hope, which is his touring event as these are large, monthly events that thousands attend and is a huge part of his career. Below is what I had written up:

Night of Hope[edit]

A Night of Hope is a 2 1/2 hour event that is filled with praise and worship music, a small message from Victoria Osteen, a testimony from Dodie Osteen, a prayer time, and a sermon from Joel Osteen. There is no intermission.^[3]

The Night of Hope events began back in 2004 at the Phillips Arena in Atlanta.^[4] Since then, Osteen and his team have done Night of Hopes monthly. ^[5][6] There has now been a total of more than 160 Night of Hope events which have been held in more than 60 U.S. cities as well as in cities on the continents of Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia, and in Jerusalem, Israel.^[7][8][9]

Each year they do a large Night of Hope called America's Night of Hope, which is held at baseball stadiums. The inaugural America's Night of Hope was on April 25, 2009 at Yankee Stadium - just nine days after the ballpark opened.^[10] The event held a crowd of over 50,000 people.^[11] This first America's Night of Hope was called a "Historic Night of Hope" and was the first non-baseball event to be held at the new stadium.^[12] These annual stadium events have been held at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, U.S. Cellular Field in Chicago, Nationals Park in Washington D.C., Marlins Park in Miami, and AT&T Park in San Francisco. Their 8th Annual America's Night of Hope will be held at Comerica Park in Detroit on Saturday, July 23, 2016.^[13]

Please let me know what part of these in unsuitable for the entry and why and I will change it accordingly. Thanks, RobertMWorsham (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I really do appreciate it. Please include the actual sources. also. I've added a ref template, so you can include them as if this were a normal page. Grayfell (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell: Just finished doing so, thanks again for clearing things up for me. RobertMWorsham (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So first thing that jumped out at me was the Nielsen thing, which is already discussed above. If you can find a secondary source, I.E. something better than press releases or churnalism, than we can discuss it, but otherwise it's way too vague and appears to be derived from Osteen's press packet, which isn't a reliable source for such promotional material. Another editor and I looked for better sources, and what we found was pathetically thin, but take a look it you want. Apparently Nielsen doesn't actually track Osteen's program, as they categorize it as paid programming. That's unintuitive, which is why we need better sources and context. Where this factoid came from is unknown, but it's been repeated for long enough that it's now also out-dated.

That should help demonstrate the larger problem here. Many of these sources are fairly routine event listings and similar. Again, this has already been discussed above. They may or may not be WP:RS, but they do a very poor job of establishing due weight for minor, mostly promotional details. The writing also has tone problems, which are related in that they create a non-neutral impression of Osteen. Articles should use last names in most cases, per MOS:SURNAME. "Today" and "Recent" fail WP:PRECISELANG, as another example.

If the only sources you can find for a point are promotional bios on affiliated sites, than it's a safe bet that the info isn't significant enough to bother including. The WorldVision link is not a reliable source. Neither is the Target Center event listing, which may be usable for filling in details, but you first need to find independent sources establishing why those details are worth filling in. I would suggest, as a first step, condensing the Night of Hope content to a single paragraph which avoids event listings and pre-event news blurbs (typically short articles which give event times and ticket info). These could be used for fleshing out content, but are not ideal for building the skeleton.

You might want to be aware of edit conflicts. It's hard for me to respond to comments if you keep changing them. Grayfell (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell: Awesome, I'll be getting to work on proper citations and verifying these factoids that I have found. Sincerely, I thank you for being patient with me on all of this and am now grasping how it all works. Thanks, RobertMWorsham (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that might be helpful is the concept of Wikipedia:CITOGENESIS. One of the reasons event listings and similar are so weak is that they are a low priority among journalists. For a non-controversial, low-priority content, it's understandable for a writer to get info from Wikipedia without verifying it. When this source is then used on Wikipedia, it can cause a lot of problems. Even if it's usually not a big deal, it's a lot sloppier than it might appear at first, and it's unethical. This is why the Nielsen thing is such a problem: It's unverified but interesting enough to be repeated, so if it's in the article, that's only going to make it harder to verify in the future. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell: I read the link and have updated the references and removed the ratings factoid. Is there anything that still looks iffy to you? (Also just changed the wording to use his last name as you suggested) Thanks, RobertMWorsham (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a lot that still looks iffy to me. Here's what it looks like you're doing, and you can let me know if I'm wrong: It looks like you had some bullet-points that you were supposed to add to the article, and you looked for sources after the fact. That's a messy, messy way to write an article. The Click2Houston source doesn't say anything about the lack of an intermission. Worse, it's very poor at explaining why this event series gets multiple paragraphs filled with routine details. The problem is that any large event series is going to get some amount of coverage, but it needs to be weighed against the significance indicated by sources and common sense.

The NY Post article has that problem and more: It calls Osteen "the nation's most popular pitchman for prosperity theology" and later says "The real problem is that Osteen's metaphysics can sound a lot like the kind of magical thinking that helped bring on the economic meltdown in the first place." When you use that source for pleasant but very trivial details you are ignoring its underlying substance. That looks like cherry-picking to me.

Earlier I suggested trimming the Night of Hope section down to a single paragraph. I still think that's your best option. The TV content is mostly redundant with what's already in the article. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd agree. NoH should be a one/two line entry that doesn't sound like a sales pitch. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell: @Niteshift36: Part of the reason it looks that way is because I had other citations for a lot of this information but the citations weren't up to par (ie event listings) so I tried to find more reputable sources, the NYMag source being one of them, and adding these in their place. The thing about the intermission I got from the Lakewood website under "about" for NOH and replaced the source with a news article. I can definitely get rid of the intermission part. As for the cherry picking, the rest of that article doesn't mention anything about the NOH but goes in to critiques of Joel himself (which I can certainly add to the "Prosperity Gospel Criticism" section). As far as the significance, it's his monthly touring which has spanned 5 continents and hosted over 1,000,000 people so I feel like that's a big part of his career and should be mentioned in his entry. Same with the TV segment, although you're definitely right that a lot of it has been mentioned throughout the entry, but I feel like it should all be put together since that's the largest part of his career/ministry and people would want to quickly be able to check that out when glancing at his wikipedia page (especially when the opening sentence to the entry says he is a televangelist). But I will continue to work on your suggestions. Thanks, RobertMWorsham (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd suggest something more like this: A Night of Hope is a monthly event that began in 2004 in Atlanta. Since then it has been broadcast to numerous US cities, as well as Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia. On an annual basis, one night is designated as "America's Night of Hope". The first of these was held in 2009 at Yankee Stadium. That's pretty much it. All the talk about programming, "just nine days after", "first non-baseball event", listing each stadium, etc is fluff that comes off as a sales pitch. Remember, this is a biography for Joel Osteen, the man. It's not here to promote his ministry/business ventures. If this event is truly that notable, it should probably be its own article. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Niteshift36: How does this work? I removed the fluff, but some of the things like where they were held and how many I left in there because it has had a large cultural impact and I feel like that should be mentioned. These are all straight facts and are written as objectively as I could. Entries for nearly every other person will list accomplishments, tour attendance, locations of the tour, etc. For instance Taylor Swift's 1989 tour has it's own entry and mentions shows being sold out 6 separate times and lists every city the tour stopped at (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1989_World_Tour). I feel like listing the cultural significance of an event and when/where it took place is not a sales pitch, as exemplified with the Taylor Swift entry.

Night of Hope[edit]

A Night of Hope, Osteen’s touring event, lasts for 2 1/2 hours and consists of praise and worship music, a small message from Victoria Osteen, a testimony from Dodie Osteen, a prayer time, and a sermon from Joel Osteen.

The Night of Hope events began back in 2004 at the Phillips Arena in Atlanta. Since then, Osteen and his team have done Night of Hopes monthly. There has now been a total of more than 160 Night of Hope events which have been held in more than 60 U.S. cities as well as in cities on the continents of Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia, and in Jerusalem, Israel.

Each year Osteen does a large Night of Hope called America's Night of Hope, which is held at baseball stadiums. The inaugural America's Night of Hope was on April 25, 2009 at Yankee Stadium, holding a crowd of over 50,000 people. These annual stadium events have been held at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, U.S. Cellular Field in Chicago, Nationals Park in Washington D.C., Marlins Park in Miami, and AT&T Park in San Francisco.

Thanks, RobertMWorsham (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comparing this to the 1989 Tour is flawed thinking. As I said, if this is that notable, you should explore writing a separate article for it. Trying to shoehorn it into the BLP because a separate article about a tour lists it is apples and oranges. Your suggestion still contains plenty of unnecessary detail about programming. We shouldn't be doing a "there is now X number" since it's a monthly event. The number if US cities is more sales than actual importance. Why are we listing Israel? Israel is in Asia and Asia is listed. Listing multiple baseball stadiums is not needed. It just sounds promotional. Again, this much detail is for an article about the topic of the NoH, if one is needed. It's not for the article on Osteen himself. This is a biography. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Niteshift36: I would contend that it's not promotional to state where an annual event has been held in years past, but I removed that from the entry nonetheless. How does this seem to you now? Also I wouldn't say it's apple and oranges when I'm specifically pointing out that it lists attendances, locations, and the like since the reasoning for not having it here is it sounds promotional which would apply to all wikipedia entries.

Night of Hope[edit]

A Night of Hope, Osteen’s touring event, lasts for 2 1/2 hours and consists of praise and worship music, a small message from Victoria Osteen, a testimony from Dodie Osteen, a prayer time, and a sermon from Joel Osteen.

The Night of Hope events began back in 2004 at the Phillips Arena in Atlanta. Since then, Osteen and his team have done Night of Hopes monthly. As of 2016, there has been a total of more than 160 Night of Hope events which have been held on the continents of North America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia.

Each year Osteen does a large Night of Hope called America's Night of Hope, which is held at baseball stadiums. The inaugural America's Night of Hope was on April 25, 2009 at Yankee Stadium, holding a crowd of over 50,000 people.

Thanks, RobertMWorsham (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me try to make this more clear. In Taylor Swit's BLP, the article about HER, the 1989 Tour has basically 2 sentences. It doesn't mention the number of stops (85 in 7 months compared to 160 in 12 years) There is a separate article about the 1989 Tour that contains the kinds details you're talking about. So yes, comparing this BLP, the article about Osteen, to the article about the 1989 Tour is absolutely apples and oranges. To illustrate it a different way: The Model T was undoubtedly a major part of Henry Ford's success and his business. But the biography article on Ford doesn't included details about what the front axle was made of. That information is contained in the article about the Model T. I'm not telling you that some of that info doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. I'm saying not in the biography of Osteen. Does that make sense to you? Also, the "as of 2016..." stuff is a nuisance. It makes it sound like we're trying to keep up with the news and we're not the news. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Niteshift36: That makes a lot of sense, thanks for the clarification. I've shortened it down to a paragraph, how does this look now?

Night of Hope[edit]

A Night of Hope, Osteen’s touring event, lasts for 2 1/2 hours and consists of praise and worship music, a small message from Victoria Osteen, a testimony from Dodie Osteen, a prayer time, and a sermon from Joel Osteen. The Night of Hope events began back in 2004 at the Phillips Arena in Atlanta. Since then, Osteen and his team have done Night of Hopes monthly and have been held on the continents of North America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia. Each year Osteen does a large Night of Hope called America's Night of Hope, which is held at baseball stadiums. The inaugural America's Night of Hope was on April 25, 2009 at Yankee Stadium, holding a crowd of over 50,000 people.

Thanks, RobertMWorsham (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd eliminate the first sentence about programming. I truly don't think it belongs. Let's see if others have an opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Niteshift36: Is there any way to change that first sentence more to your liking? I think that it's important for people to know what it is. If not detail the lay out of it, maybe at least say it's his touring event or that it's basically a church service, something along those lines? Thanks, RobertMWorsham (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Removing "a small message from Victoria Osteen, a testimony from Dodie Osteen, a prayer time, and a sermon from Joel Osteen." would be a good start to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Niteshift36: Is this better at all or still needs changing?

Night of Hope[edit]

A Night of Hope, Osteen’s touring event, lasts for 2 1/2 hours and consists of praise and worship music plus a sermon from Osteen, amongst other things. The Night of Hope events began back in 2004 at the Phillips Arena in Atlanta. Since then, Osteen and his team have done Night of Hopes monthly and have been held on the continents of North America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia. Each year Osteen does a large Night of Hope called America's Night of Hope, which is held at baseball stadiums. The inaugural America's Night of Hope was on April 25, 2009 at Yankee Stadium, holding a crowd of over 50,000 people. Thanks, RobertMWorsham (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's better than where we started. Let's see what others have to say. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Information about his televangelism should be about him, otherwise it belongs at Lakewood Church, and most of these details are... folksy, but not particularly informative. Most of these facts and figures are derived from PR, and should be supported by more solid sources. How about this for the Night of Hope content:

Osteen and Lakewood Church have held a monthly tour, holding longer sermons in other cities. First held in 2004, the events are known as "A Night of Hope". A larger, annual event called "America's Night of Hope" has been held since 2009.

I think the TV content should be about the same length as that. don't see much reason, based on the sources provided, to give more detail. If you want to include more detail, you should be able to explain why it's encyclopedic coverage of Osteen, instead of merely promotional. Grayfell (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This link doesn't work: "Obituary: Pastor John H. Osteen". Houston Chronicle. 1999-01-26. Retrieved 2007-11-12.66.87.80.155 (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read the comments above that says not to edit so I had to post a new section regarding this issue. But Osteen himself has denied being a prosperity preacher, an argument overturned by saying his theology matches the description. Though the definition given by the "prosperity theology" wiki says "a religious belief among some Christians, who hold that financial blessing and physical well-being are always the will of God for them, and that faith, positive speech, and donations to religious causes will increase one's material wealth." ^[1]. This definition has been clearly refuted by Osteen in an interview where he says - "Responding to Hill's question, "Does God want us to be rich, though?" Osteen replied, "I think he wants you to be rich in spirit". "I mean with money," Hill pushed. "Well I don't think there's anything wrong with that," Osteen continued. "You look at the Old Testament; Christianity was started with Abraham and it says he was the wealthiest man there. So I don't think there's anything wrong with that – I think God wants you to succeed and excel, but I don't think you can say 'Money is my goal, if I'm a Christian well God's going to make me rich,' I think that's the wrong thing. "You're wealthy when you have your health; you're wealthy when you have people to love. That's real wealth." ^[2]

For these reasons, any mention of Osteen as a prosperity preacher are unfounded as he directly has said he is not one and what he preaches does not fit the prosperity gospel definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertMWorsham (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Critscm of Osteen needs to be well sourced and in context. So far I've seen few attempts at keeping Osteen's response in context. While scorn has been lobbed his way, there have been reasonable responses that while the church has not been flooded, the surrounding area was inaccessible. NOTNEWS means there is no rush to add potentially negative info, much less anything.That man from Nantucket (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I have added an {{unbalanced}} tag to the section because it includes only the criticism and not a response from Osteen or Lakewood Church. Peacock (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing is contrary to NOTNEWS. If this is still getting coverage a few weeks from now, it might be relevant. But right now, you're placing the perceived (in)actions of a church (which is a corporation) in the BLP of an individual and I see that as an UNDUE issue. In 24 hours, we saw much of the narrative change. That's exactly why we shouldn't try to act like a newspaper. This is an encyclopedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is well notable and well referenced. I added it back as it meets all rules for inclusion. If anything it could be expanded. ContentEditman (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's a fair characterization. It seems to have been mainly a social media frenzy that initially got many of the facts wrong. The list of references initially used to support the content seem to have been cherry picked to find ones least neutral on the issue (going as far as the Hindustan Times!) rather than sticking with more reputable or US-based news organizations. Alex Lin (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fair characterization by whom exactly? The press or WP? Whether or not there was a social media frenzy is moot. The point is that Osteen was widely criticized and the criticism was widely covered in the international press. With respect to the latter aspect, I would guess that's why foreign media sources were cited -- to indicate that the coverage was in fact widespread (i.e., international). There is no policy that would favor US-based media sources over the Hindustan Times nor any reason to suggest that the source is in any way disreputable. It is a WP:RS and is an English-language source. As such, it is perfectly acceptable. And as of now, the story has been covered by pretty much every major media outlet in the US and many worldwide. Lastly, I see no evidence that the sources were "cherry-picked" to be the "least neutral". That is not WP:AGF, so better to focus only on the editorial details -- speculating about ulterior motives is counterproductive and undiplomatic. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First off, this notion that "it got coverage" isn't what decides what gets included. Many newsworthy items aren't notable enough to be included. Second, as an encyclopedia, we should be taking a long term view, especially in a BLP, instead of trying to keep up with the news cycle. The number of changes and facts that have come to light in 48 hours are evidence that we are rushing in faster than we should. This is a BLP, not a newspaper. Forcing contentious material back into a BLP and claiming it has to stay while it's being discussed is also wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is well sourced, relevant, and meets all rules for inclusion. There is conscious for adding it as well. Let alone this has blown up even larger than when you first removed it and has been on all major news networks, US and foreign. Please do not edit war against thew conscious and rules of Wikipedia. ContentEditman (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number of sources does not decide what is included. If Justin Bieber gets a tattoo, 1000 sources will cover it, but that doesn't make it notable. Second, there is no "conscious" or consensus for adding it. There is a discussion. 3 editors have expressed concern and a third expressed concern about balance. Don't lecture me about edit warring my friend when you're doing exactly that. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying merely that "it got coverage" or simply tallying the number of sources that reported it. The fact is that this event did receive very widespread and sustained coverage in US and international media over the span of several days and with multiple follow-up reports, which clearly establishes it as notable and meets the basic requirements for inclusion. Current events of such magnitude (i.e., depth of coverage) are routinely included in WP bios. WP policy WP:PUBLICFIGURE makes it very clear that the material should be included:

“If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.”

I have yet to see a relevant policy cited that would support expunging it. The strained metaphor about Bieber certainly doesn't suffice. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the bulk of the argument has been "look at all the sources". You are taking a very short term view, not an encyclopedic one. As mentioned in WP:RECENTISM "editors should consider whether they are simply regurgitating media coverage of an issue or actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time." The number of revisions and speed of them in under a week is a strong indicator that we are just following the coverage and not looking long term. Quoting PUBLICFIGURE is great, but the crux of it is based on the notion that something is relevant. Again, we need to look long term, not 3 days. Lastly, the Beiber example if far from strained. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am this close to opening an RFC about whether a "Harvey" section should even be in this article. But I don't like wasting time on such surveys, so how about something less formal?

• Undue for now. This article is about Osteen, not his church. We should not be swayed by social media campaigns. So far the sources are not singling out Osteen for critscm. Content about "Harvey" should be moved to the "career" section.That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Not undue. Widely reported across international media for several days, with multiple followup reports, so seems inarguably notable. The sources cited make it clear that the criticism was of Osteen himself, not the church per se (an odd assertion). I don't see how WP:UNDUE applies. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Not undue Sources are very much singling out Osteen. He was making all the rounds this morning doing PR work trying to save himself and the church. What references are you reading? Plenty blame toward him and the church as well. This is not some small story that got some light reaction but a major one that is still on all the major networks right now days later. ContentEditman (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Not undue WP:WEIGHT "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Here are some reliable sources which published those viewpoints:

The Cheap Prosperity Gospel of Trump and Osteen Opinion New York Times

[BuzzFeed News] The Joel Osteen Fiasco Says A Lot About American Christianity

Joel Osteen faces criticism on social media for closing Houston megachurch's doors amid Harvey ABC News Aug 29, 2017

Joel Osteen says church has opened doors to flood victims CNN Aug 29, 2017

[CNN] Joel Osteen says church has opened doors to flood victims CNN Aug 29, 2017

Former NFL QB Sean Salisbury rips Lakewood Church in video Chron.com Aug 29, 2017

WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV, which is one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS of Wikipedia. "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." --Nbauman (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Undue. As I've said all along, if there proves to be continuing coverage a few weeks from now, I may support it. Right now, this is just being a newspaper and engaging in WP:RECENTISM. And bold printing a phrase doesn't make it apply. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Not undue though the word count needs to be in proportion with the article's subject. The man is a minister. He ministers. There have been long standing questions about the self-serving nature of his ministry. And here is a case where he failed to minister in a very public way (as far away as India). He has contradicted himself about his failure to minister (a less generous person would say he lied through his teeth about it). And he has resumed his ministry. The whole "not news" and "recent-ism" argument is weak. If the subject of a BLP article who espouses the sanctity of marriage has a public breakup with their spouse, we add it to their article immediately and without a second thought. It's significant to the subject, it's public, it belongs. We don't go citing "not news" and "recent-ism" and exclaim "let's wait to see how this turns out in a few weeks. This incident serves as an illustration of his critics' concerns. It belongs. It just doesn't need to take up more than a few sentences. Rklawton (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

129.49.100.14 (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that the following be put at the end of the subsection "August 2017 floods":

Following the backlash, Osteen and his Lakewood Church did eventually announce that they would open the doors once city-run shelters were at capacity. ^[1]

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 14:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fix it.217.248.45.170 (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i I woould like to edit and source an investigation in to jole olesteen's organisations. Cersonix (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]